NSW may have a new Government in the near future and there is a strong possibility that it may be a minority Government. This may be a useful moment to consider the state of things with the Bays Precinct, including the new Fish Market site and how effectively the public interest is being protected in relation to critical matters such as housing, transport, open space and other social infrastructure needs.

In the November Bulletin, I offered a provisional view on the design by Danish architects 3XN for the new Fish Market building to be built at the head of Blackwattle Bay: ‘‘a very smart response to the constraints (and opportunities) of the site and community priorities’ – pending getting the actual development application (DA) – and that, regardless of the DA and the excellence or otherwise of the building, the myriad problems flowing from the location of the site remained.

We were told the DA was pretty well complete and would be available at the end of November. It has not surfaced and, despite queries, we have no explanation for this delay.

It could be that someone smart has decided that the risks of proceeding with the DA for the construction of the Fish Markets on this very difficult site with so many major issues unresolved – especially those relating to traffic and transport – are too high just before an election. Or it could just be a series of minor problems with finalising the DA. I suspect the former is the reason – but who knows.

The incoming Government would be wise to review the decision to relocate the Fish Market to the head of Blackwattle Bay so as to ensure the public interest is properly protected.

Time for community re-appraisal / assessment
Regardless, the delay gives the community an opportunity to consider more carefully the Fish Market relocation in the context of what has happened with the overall Bays Precinct grand project launched with all that enthusiasm and promise in 2014. We were promised world’s best

practice in integrated, strategically planned urban renewal to be delivered through UrbanGrowth NSW. Public good would be a central driver for planning decisions. Despite scepticism born of long experience with development in NSW, the community, including the Glebe Society, engaged with this project with considerable energy for several years. Four years on, the overall scenario is depressing

The demise of Urban Growth
The CEO of UrbanGrowth NSW – who was always our best hope for a good outcome with fair regard for the public interest – resigned in December 2016. No public reason was given but it followed UrbanGrowth’s decision to reject all the developers’ non-complying bids for redevelopment of the White Bay Power Station and surrounding foreshore area.

UrbanGrowth was effectively neutered in 2017 by being split into an on-going smaller UrbanGrowth NSW and a reconstitution of the old NSW Landcom. The Bays Precinct was split between the two so there is no longer an integrated planning body managing the overall renewal strategy.

Is it reasonable to read this as yet another developer victory?

Failure of transport planning
The disastrous lack of cooperation by WestConnex and other transport authorities with UrbanGrowth NSW was never resolved. Not surprisingly therefore, there is still no traffic or transport plan for the Bays Precinct – although the area is hemmed in by already seriously congested streets and public transport.

This is a fundamental failure of Government. An integrated transport plan was always known to be an imperative for the success of the Bays renewal:

Without an integrated strategy that considers all aspects of movement, the transformation will not achieve its ambition.

(Bays Precinct Transformation Plan 2017)

In April 2017, Google cited the lack of any transport planning as a key reason for the collapse of its negotiations with UrbanGrowth NSW for the relocation of its head office to the Bays Precinct as the first step in creating a technology hub around the White Bay Power Station.

As things now stand, it is hard to see how any plan can successfully manage the combined impact of the planned WestConnex interchange at Rozelle, the targeted six million annual visitors to the relocated Fish Market and the planned high-density residential development of the current Fish Market site. Unless, of course, there was significant infringement on Wentworth Park – and that would be contentious – as well as having only a marginal impact.

There are some alleviating possible developments: the planned Bays Precinct metro station; the (faintly) possible return of a ferry service and the reopening of the Glebe Island Bridge. These are all necessary and achievable, but collectively will not substantially alleviate the existing and growing congestion around the new Fish Market site.

The disastrous lack of cooperation by WestConnex and other transport authorities with UrbanGrowth NSW was never resolved. Not surprisingly therefore, there is still no traffic or transport plan for the Bays Precinct – although the area is hemmed in by already seriously congested streets and public transport.

The decision to relocate the Fish Markets
Given these obvious traffic/transport problems, the Government’s announcement that the Fish Market would be relocated to a constrained and technically challenging ‘on water’ site was a very surprising fait accompli to the community. It had always been presumed that it would be rebuilt on part of its existing large and publicly-owned site.

When pressed for explanation, the Government cited the need for the retailers to continue trading during the construction of the new building. This is unconvincing. The large current site could easily have accommodated a temporary Fish Market building concurrent with the construction of the new building.

It is a reasonable assumption that the real motivation for relocation to a new and difficult site was to maximise the publicly-owned land to be made available to developers for the high-rise residential development we know is planned for most of the site. This is not necessarily a bad reason ifthe outcome will be in the broad public interest.

That is not likely.

We are never likely to see the real cost of this decision – but it is a fair bet that the $250 million construction cost cited by the Premier in 2017 will be significantly exceeded and certainly will be farmore expensive than building on the current site.

It would be of interest to see detailed comparative analyses of the likely financial benefit to the public purse of the two options. Will the extra cost of building on the new site outweigh the extra cash the Government would get for making more of the site available to developers? It is highly likely it will.

But the main issue is the other costs to the public good that flow from this relocation:

  • the exacerbated traffic and parking problems and increased problems for transit cyclists given the narrow road/footpath space;
  • the loss of an opportunity to open up the foreshore at the head of Blackwattle Bay and make a real connection between Wentworth Park and the harbour;
  • a major intrusion into the waters of the Bay (this isnot an ‘on land’ site – it is all being built under and over the water), and
  • the noise problem given the close proximity of the largely open structure and high walkway to the nearby senior high school.

It is a reasonable assumption that the real motivation for relocation to a new and difficult site was to maximise the publicly-owned land to be made available to developers for the high-rise residential development we know is planned for most of the site.

And then there is the contamination issue. It had been intended to dredge the site as part of the building is to be underwater. That was abandoned in favour of driving pillars through the sludge to the hard rock. The cited reason was the high cost of dredging.

The high cost could not have been a surprise – like others, I suspect the real reason was the very high toxicity of the contamination of the floor of the Bay and the danger of disturbing it. However, apart from any long-term implications, the construction activity will surely generate significant disturbance anyway. This raises another query as to the wisdom of choosing this site.

This site had never been considered suitable for redevelopment in any of the prior planning for the Bays Precinct – including the officials’ Bays Precinct Taskforce, chaired by Premiers and Cabinet Office in 2012 – precisely because there was no foreshore. On the contrary, the long-anticipated move of the cement works from its site was always expected to confer the huge benefit of opening up the harbour view from Wentworth Park.

Re-building the Fish Markets on the current site will slightly reduce the number of residential units that will be built. But this will be no bad thing. The projected density for the site of 3,000 new apartments is clearly excessive given the lack of essential social infrastructure in the vicinity and the immense difficulty of providing these facilities – partly because of the unwise sale of land and so many public buildings over the last few decades.

The decision to relocate the Fish Market is neither necessary nor clearly in the public interest. The public, including tourists, can have a splendid new Fish Market on the old site with fewer long-term problems.

The incoming Government would be wise to review the decision to relocate the Fish Market to the head of Blackwattle Bay so as to ensure the public interest is properly protected and to consider the public benefit of opening up the harbour view.

The planned renewal of the current Fish Market site
There is no firm master plan yet for this large area of public foreshore land but UrbanGrowth NSW has designated a market district and high-rise residential development. The proposed density is very high and will be strongly resisted by the community for a host of sensible reasons.

But the key ‘public good’ question is what kind of housing is most needed in this part of Sydney? Without Government intervention, the harbour-side location and proximity to the CBD will ensure that these 3,000 apartments will overwhelmingly be for the rich and very well-to-do.

It has always been argued that social and affordable housing must be included in any residential development on this site. This seems to be accepted now by all players. The argument is now around the quantum, with discussion ranging around figures of 2-7%.

These figures no longer seem commensurate to the magnitude and urgency of the problem.

The need for affordable/social housing in the inner-city areas is far greater and more urgent than the need for apartments for the affluent. The policy parameters have to change and governments have to take responsibility for fixing this affordable housing crisis. It is clear the market won’t fix the problem. However, the Bays Precinct offers a rare opportunity to Government to take a more effective approach. This is publicly-owned land. There is no better financial context in which to deliver a significant quota of affordable/social housing. The land is THE expensive element.

There is no shortage of successful examples. London has introduced strong ‘inclusionary zoning’ including enforceable targets and under Sadik Khan has delivered 50% affordable/social hosing in its urban renewal projects. Other countries have managed to successfully deliver similar or higher quotas without difficulty.

NSW is a rich state and the NSW Government budget is in a better shape than for many years. It should not be beyond the planning capacity of Government to develop a sound fiscal model and mandatory policy/zoning framework for the delivery of a major boost to affordable/social housing in the Bays Precinct – and more generally.

Governments need to start thinking in 30-50% ranges if we want to act to alleviate this urgent public interest need. If we cannot deliver significant affordable/social housing when we own the land – we are not likely to do so in other contexts.

The incoming Government should take a serious look at the current plans for the Fish Market site and work with the community to develop policy parameters which will deliver a much greater number of affordable/social housing units than currently proposed and more in line with those achieved by similar democratic capitalist countries.

It should also review the current split management of the Bays Precinct and consider the benefits of restoring an integrated approach; including with transport entities before progressing any more one-off decisions.

Community and Glebe Society action
The relocation of the Fish Markets and the planned redevelopment of the old site are major matters of community interest, both locally and more widely across Sydney. At our November meeting the Glebe Society discussed the architects’ design and our first impressions and agreed that as soon as the DA appeared we would begin a community consultation by social media and public meeting to shape our response. We still await the DA.

If we cannot deliver significant affordable/social housing when we own the land – we are not likely to do so in other contexts.

As the NSW election is imminent, we will be telling our politicians that they need to closely consider the issues that are concerning the community about current decisions and consider a review of the relocation of the Fish Market and the policy framework for, and quantum of, affordable/social housing that will be delivered in the redevelopment of that part of the site.

Hands off Glebe held a public meeting about the Fish Markets on 13 February and around 60 people attended. It was clear that there is a lot of community concern about current developments.

We hope that both the relocation of the Fish Market and the quantum of affordable/social housing to be included in the redevelopment of the current site will be raised by the community at the forthcoming ‘Meet the Candidates’ on 12 March at 7pm in the Glebe Town Hall. We will make public on social media any communication we have with Government, ALP and others in the election context.