Newcastle Greens today called on GPT to publicly release the ‘due diligence’ data that the company claims substantiate its proposal to cut the Newcastle rail line.
“The credibility of the company’s case for cutting the Newcastle rail line is on the line here,” Newcastle Greens rail spokesperson Cr Michael Osborne said.
At last night’s Panthers forum, GPT again asserted that it had come to the view that the financial viability of the company’s proposed retail development in the Newcastle CBD depended on cutting the rail line.
However, despite repeated questions from community members to explain this, the company continued to hide behind vague generalities, rather than giving specific data that could be scrutinised by the community.
“Due diligence is not a vague or general process,” Cr Osborne said. “Proper due diligence requires hard, rigorous data to support investment decisions.”
“The material that GPT has made publicly available to this point does not show any rigorous evidence-based link between the viability of the company’s proposed CBD retail development and their proposal to cut the Newcastle rail line,” Cr Osborne said.
“When public infrastructure worth hundreds of millions of dollars is at stake, this is simply not good enough. The Newcastle community has to be able to access the data to understand how GPT has arrived at its conclusions.”
“Where are the figures showing projected retail customers for both keep-the-rail and cut-the-rail scenarios? Has GPT tested alternative city-harbour connectivity scenarios that do not require cutting the rail line, such as those advocated by the community for many years? If so, which ones, and how did they compare?” Cr Osborne asked.
“Or – as some in the community suspect – is their proposal to cut the rail not based at all on such data, but rather on estimates of the profits the company could gain out of developing the public land that would be released by cutting the rail line?
“On their website, GPT claim that:
We believe that one of our social responsibilities is to share our knowledge with relevant stakeholders to increase societies [sic] capability to act more sustainably.
It has become conventional wisdom to the effect that the presence of a railway line incurs an economic benefit in the form of an increase in property values and if it were to be removed there would be a decrease in property values.
If an urban transit system ( rail) never earned an operating profit, it would pay for itself a thousand times over through its beneficial impact on real estate values and increased assessments.
A system that requires users to change modes reduces the attractiveness of the destination.
Public transport is an important consideration in providing convenient access to the city centre for employment services and entertainment… Rail is the best way to increase patronage and is a well understood concept compared to buses.
Any removal of the heavy rail line would mean that preservation of the CBD’s role as the regional centre would be compromised.
ITEM-58 NOM 25/11/08 - RESCISSION MOTION - DA 07/1195 73 ELIZABETH STREET TIGHES HILL
Councillors A Buman, S Connell and M King, who had previously declared non pecuniary interests in the matter, retired from the Council Chamber prior to the discussion of this item.
MOTION: (COUNCILLORS B LUKE/B COOK)
We, the Councillors below wish to rescind the motion passed on Item 50 – DA 07/1195 – 73 Elizabeth Street Tighes Hill – of the Development Applications committee 4 November 2008.
The Lord Mayor called for a division which resulted as follows:
For the MotionThe Lord Mayor, Councillors G Boyd, B Cook, B Luke and S Sharpe.
Against the MotionCouncillors S Claydon, T Crakanthorp, M Jackson, N Nelmes and M Osborne.
The Lord Mayor exercised his casting vote in favor of the Rescission Motion.
RESOLVED: (COUNCILLORS B LUKE/B COOK)
We, Councillors B Luke, B cook, G Boyd and S Sharpe wish to rescind the motion passed on Item 50 - DA 07/1195 – 73 Elizabeth Street Tighes Hill – of the Development Applications Committee 4 November 2008.
MOTION: (COUNCILLORS B LUKE/B COOK)
That DA 07/1195: DP 434884 be accepted as per the officers recommendation with the conditions as outlined in the Council Officers recommendation contained in the report considered at the meeting held 4 November 2008.
PROCEDURAL MOTION: (The Lord Mayor)
The matter lie on the table until the Extraordinary Development Applications Committee meeting of 16 December 2008 and Council Staff be required to report on the matters raised in the DunnRoss Lawyers letter and their comments be provided on that when the matter is reported on 16 December. Should legal advice be required in that regard the General Manager be instructed to provide it. The Motion was put to the meeting and the Lord Mayor advised the vote would be by division which resulted as follows:
For the MotionThe Lord Mayor, Councillors G Boyd, S Claydon, T Crakanthorp, M Jackson, N Nelmes and M Osborne.
Against the MotionCouncillors B Cook, B Luke and S Sharpe.
The Lord Mayor declared the Motion carried on the result of seven votes to three votes.
MOTION: (COUNCILLORS B LUKE/A BUMAN)
Council to seek the concurrence of the Director General of the NSW Department of Planning to the granting of consent to the proposed development, pursuant to the provisions of Clause 28 of the Newcastle City Centre LEP 2008, notwithstanding that the development exceeds the maximum allowable FSR on the site in respect ofmixed commercial/residential development under the LEP on the grounds that Council is satisfied that:
i) the applicant's written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated under Subclause 28(3); and
ii) the proposed development would be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the relevant development standard and the relevant zone objectives.
FORESHADOWED MOTION: (COUNCILLORS M OSBORNE)
Council to advise the applicant that it is not prepared to support the application in its present form for the reason that it significantly exceeds the maximum allowable FSR for mixed commercial/residential development on the site under the Newcastle City Centre LEP 2008, as well as the adopted DCP guidelines in respect of side and rear boundary setbacks and building separation distance.
However, Council is not opposed in principle to high-rise seniors living development being carried out on the site and would be prepared to give favorable consideration to an amended application that complies with the provisions of the LEP and that provides for side and rear boundary setbacks and building separation distances that satisfy the DCP design guidelines
The Motion was put to the meeting and the Lord Mayor indicated that the vote would
be taken by division which resulted as follows:
For the MotionThe Lord Mayor, Councillors G Boyd, A Buman, S Connell, B Cook, M Jackson, M King, B Luke, N Nelmes and S Sharpe.
Against the MotionCouncillors S Claydon, T Crakanthorp and M Osborne.
The Lord Mayor declared the Motion carried on the result of ten votes to three votes.
The passenger rail services in the Hunter Region are a high quality feature of the region’s public transport system. Many cities of substantially greater size than Newcastle lack rail services and would covet the opportunity for such a substantive resource, as a means for providing public transport into the future.
The world’s wealthiest cities use cars less. Strong rail cities are more wealthy. Rail creates certainty for investment. In Newcastle, if the rail was removed you would need double the current parking spaces.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: An article in the Newcastle Herald on Monday this week about the heavy rail service in Newcastle states, "Community input on removing the rail line will be sought." Could you inform the Committee what are the Government's plans for Newcastle ?
Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: Could I ask who that quote is from?
Ms LEE RHIANNON: It is not actually a quote; it is in the body of the article. The article is by Jacqui Jones. It is not attributed to the Government-I certainly acknowledge that-but it is stated.
Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: We are talking about the rail line into the central business district [CBD] of Newcastle ?
Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, right into Newcastle .
Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: The Government has looked at this issue over a long period with the local community. It has come to a position supporting the community's view that the heavy rail line should remain. There are some issues around common activity between the CBD and what I would call the honeysuckle precinct. There is some continuing work around that. I am aware that General Property Trust [GPT] is now saying that it is not going to proceed with a significant redevelopment in Newcastle if the rail line remains. Notwithstanding that statement from GPT, as far as I am concerned the Government's position remains that we have worked with the community and we have come to a landing that says the heavy rail should remain. That is our adopted position. I see no reason why we should change that, why we would go into another major review of that position. But there needs to be continuing work about those common activity issues between the different parts of Newcastle across that run.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: In summary, you are saying that you are totally ruling out removing the rail line; it is just about how we improve moving from one side of the track to the other without removing the track?
Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: That is the Government's position and I do not see any reason to change it.
Newcastle’s new conservative council this week decided – without notice – to privatise the city’s waste collection services.
At Tuesday night’s council meeting, conservative councillor Aaron Buman successfully moved that the council defer purchasing three new garbage trucks and ‘market test our waste collection services by putting it through a competitive tendering process’.
“Putting something through a ‘competitive tendering’ process is the standard conservative euphemism for privatisation,” Newcastle Greens councillor Michael Osborne said.
Cr Buman’s motion was supported seven votes to six, with The Greens, the four Labor councillors, and the Lord Mayor opposed.
Cr Osborne said that some councillors did not appear – even after the decision – to realise that the resolution was the first step in the privatisation process.
“This is a huge issue, involving millions of dollars, and with serious environmental, industrial, and service quality implications. Cr Buman’s motion clearly went well outside the notified item (which concerned a tender for three trucks), and should have been ruled out of order by the chair.
“In what is already becoming a disturbing modus operandi of the conservative forces on the new council, the motion on this major issue was proposed without notice and with no relevant briefing or information,” Cr Osborne said.
“If the cowboy approach adopted by some conservative councillors continues, Newcastle residents will inevitably suffer, and Newcastle council will quickly become the laughing stock of the community and of local government in NSW.
“Public policy involves more than just turning thought bubbles into motions.
“These councillors are abrogating their duty as elected representatives in pursuit of personal political agendas.
“The Newcastle community deserves better from their elected representatives in serious public policy matters such as this, which require consideration of a whole range of factors that are not addressed by simply putting something through a competitive tendering process,” Cr Osborne said.
Newcastle Greens councillor Michael Osborne today condemned an attempt by the Liberal Party at last night’s Newcastle City Council meeting to push through a decision to support cutting the Newcastle rail line.
Liberal councillor Brad Luke last night moved, without notice, that the council adopt his motion to support cutting the city’s rail line. Cr Luke defended the lack of notice for his proposal on the grounds of urgency, but his attempt to use the urgency provisions was rejected 8 votes to 5.
“Fortunately, even a number of the councillors who support cutting the rail line could see that this was an outrageous abuse of process by Cr Luke,” Cr Osborne said.
Urgency provision are designed to allow councillors to introduce business without notice in matters that are genuinely urgent, not to allow something to be rushed through without due consideration,” Cr Osborne said.
“Cr Luke’s actions reflect poorly on his own judgement and sense of due process, especially after he himself had objected to a recent controversial Lord Mayoral minute on graffiti that was put before councillors without proper notice.
“Unfortunately, Cr Luke’s actions are part of a general trend among some of the city’s anti-rail advocates to try to ram through a decision to cut the rail line before people have had the opportunity to properly consider all the arguments.
“This indecent rush for a hasty, pre-emptive strike on the new proposal to cut the rail line at Wickham raises serious questions about the anti-rail lobby’s agenda. Why are they attempting to sneak this through without proper debate? What are they afraid of? What are they trying to hide?
“Now that he can give this matter more thought, Cr Luke might begin by considering the results of a recent survey of rail users by his own group (the Hunter Liberals) that found overwhelming support for keeping the rail line,” Cr Osborne said.
“Decisions such as this need to be made with the best interests of the whole Newcastle community in mind, not sneaked through without notice to serve vested interests, however much the Liberals might want to court them.”
A) Council defer a discission [sic] at this time pending a report from the group manager on the impact of council holding onto the trucks for an additional 12 months
B) Council to market test our Waste Collection services, by putting it through a competitive tendering process
MOTION: (COUNCILLOR M OSBORNE)
1 The confidential attachment relating to the matters specified in s10A(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1993, be treated as confidential and remain confidential until Council determines otherwise.
2 The tender for contract No.2009/011T submitted by RHT Australia Pty Ltd for the supply and delivery of three side loading waste collection vehicles for the tendered price of $996,383 (including GST) be accepted.
3 The three side loading waste collection vehicles identified for replacement (P1908, P1910, P1912) be disposed of by trade-in to RHT Australia Pty Ltd for a trade-in price of $135,000 (including GST).
As there was no seconder forthcoming, the motion lapsed for want of a seconder.
MOTION: (COUNCILLORS A BUMAN/B LUKE)
A Council defer a decision, at this time, pending a report from the Group Manager on the impact of Council holding onto the trucks for an additional twelve months.
B Council to market test its Waste Collection services by putting it through a competitive tendering process.
During discussion Councillor Osborne gave notice of a foreshadowed motion, ie
Part A
1 The confidential attachment relating to the matters specified in s10A(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1993, be treated as confidential and remain confidential until Council determines otherwise.
2 The tender for contract No.2009/011T submitted by RHT Australia Pty Ltd for the supply and delivery of three side loading waste collection vehicles for the tendered price of $996,383 (including GST) be accepted.
3 The three side loading waste collection vehicles identified for replacement (P1908, P1910, P1912) be disposed of by trade-in to RHT Australia Pty Ltd for a trade-in price of $135,000 (including GST).
Part B
Council receive a full report outlining the lifecycle analysis of waste collection vehicles including the impact of Council holding onto the trucks for an additional twelve months.
The Lord Mayor also gave notice of a further foreshadowed motion:
Council defer to the next Council meeting a decision at this time pending a report from the General Manager on the impact of Council holding onto the trucks for an additional twelve months with comment on the balance on the rest of the Collection fleet's condition.
Following further discussion the motion was put to the meeting and the Lord Mayor called for a division which resulted as follows:
For the motion
Councillors G Boyd, A Buman, S Connell, B Cook, M King, B Luke and S Sharpe.
Against the motion
The Lord Mayor, Councillors S Claydon, T Crakanthorp, M Jackson, N Nelmes and M Osborne.
The motion was declared carried on the division of seven votes to six votes.
RESOLVED: (COUNCILLORS A Buman/B LUKE)
A Council defer a decision, at this time, pending a report from the Group Manager on the impact of Council holding onto the trucks for an additional twelve months.
B Council to market test its Waste Collection services by putting it through a competitive tendering process.
Newcastle Show day is given as a public holiday to an employee where it is allowed as a public holiday in an industrial document which has been negotiated by relevant parties covering that employees' workplace.
The documents which contain conditions of employment are called Awards, enterprise agreements or collective agreements. Individual contracts also exist but they're unlikely to contain conditions such as Show Day.
Two Councils recognise Newcastle Show Day as a public holiday for their employees - Newcastle City Council and Lake Macquarie Council. These Councils recognise Show Day on Thursday or Friday of Show week, regardless of whether it has been locally gazetted.
The other area of United Services Union coverage which in some cases recognises Newcastle Show Day is in the clerical and administrative sector.
The Clerical and Administrative Employees (State) Award or NAPSA contains the conditions of employment for all privately employed clerical administrative employees. Mostly, it applies to clerical employees of smaller businesses.
This Award does not provide for a public holiday for locally gazetted holidays.
Whether or not Council decides to apply for Newcastle Show Day to be gazetted, it does not concern these employers. What the Clerical and Administrative Award does provide for is an "additional day's" holiday.
Larger businesses and workplaces in the area often have their own enterprise or collective agreements, with workplace entitlements specific to that organisation. The Newcastle Herald, the Tax Office, Chubb Cash Processing, and the NSW Ambulance Service, for example, recognise locally gazetted holidays. So a decision by Council to apply for gazettal of Show Day will affect these companies or organisations.
NIB recognises Newcastle Show Day for its Newcastle based employees whether it's gazetted or not.
The Building Societies and Armagard Agreements provide for the "additional day holiday: like the Clerical and Administrative Awards.
Ms Harrison indicated that was important for Council to remember in considering this issue that Collective Agreements and Awards have been negotiated by employers, unions and employees in good faith, with eyes open. If there is a provision in an agreement or Award for a particular condition, Show Day in this case, the employer and employees knew what they were doing. They made the deal. Employers use different conditions of employment to attract and retain employees - the Show Day holiday is used by some employers in this way.
She explained that for Council to consider that the cost of Newcastle Show Day to business is too much, when employers themselves have knowingly negotiated this public holiday into the conditions of its employees, it would be considered quite improper.
Ms Harrison expressed concern in Council allowing itself to be used as a "decision making scapegoat" by employers and employer groups who don't want to negotiate industrially with their employees and unions about Show Day.
Businesses themselves will have negotiated these conditions with unions and their employees, knowing their own situations.
In conclusion she stated that if Council did decide to remove Show Day as a public holiday for all those people in Newcastle who now benefit from it, was Council willing to recompense all of those people who would take a drop in working conditions, effectively one day's pay.
On Sunday 16 November 2008, I launched a locally published book about the people who live in the Hunter Valley and their passion for food at the Fig Tree Community Garden. 
The Greens today welcomed the call for a state election “referendum” on the future of the Newcastle rail line.
“If the developer-supported anti-rail advocates want to run this as a core state election issue, The Greens say, bring it on”, Cr Osborne said.
“Today’s threat in the local media by Cr Aaron Buman to make the Newcastle rail line a core local state election issue is no more than a desperate scare tactic to influence the imminent CBD task force report.
“This is just chest-thumping by Cr Buman to impress his developer supporters, and to try to exploit a current wave of hysteria fanned by vested interests,” Cr Osborne said.
“The timing gives Cr Buman away: if this is such an important issue to him, why wasn’t it at the forefront of his council election campaign, only two months ago? Many of the voters (in Wards 1 and 4) who supported Cr Buman and his team in the September council election would be the hardest hit by cutting the rail line, and will now be shocked at what he is saying,” Cr Osborne said.
“These voters will welcome the opportunity to use the ballot box to show Cr Buman what they really think of his campaign to sacrifice the city’s public transport for the sake of a land grab by his developer supporters.”
Cr Osborne said that if Cr Buman carried through his threat, the most likely result will be to shore up NSW Labor’s chances of retaining local state seats.
“Keeping the Newcastle rail line is probably the best chance that NSW Labor has of keeping the seat of Newcastle ,” Cr Osborne said.
“Through the ‘nineties and the current decade, the people of Newcastle have consistently supported retaining the Newcastle rail line, even in the face of huge propaganda campaigns from developers and their anti-rail supporters. Novocastrians have consistently shown that – when given a fair opportunity to assess the information – they see through the spurious arguments of vested interests.
“A period of initial hysteria (just like the current one), whipped up by the same old suspects, has typified every previous attempt to cut the city’s rail line. Once this initial hysteria subsides, people have the chance to calmly and rigorously assess the information and the arguments, and keeping the rail line inevitably emerges as the best option, economically, financially, socially and environmentally.
“The real problem for the city with this issue is the continuing division that the developer lobby (and their supporters, such as Cr Buman) keep stirring up about the future of the line, which undermines a serious and cooperative approach to revitalise the city around its most sustainable transport link, and to create connectivity between the city and the waterfront,” Cr Osborne said.
Part A
Council adopt the amended Element 4.1 Parking and Access and replace the current Element 4.1 Carparking of the Newcastle Development Control Plan (NDCP) 2005 subject to the following amendments and the inclusion of an additional Part B:
• Table 1A and Table 1B, Bicycle Storage
- references to one space per 200m2 be replaced with one space per 100m2 (to ensure consistency similar to car parking) - Class 1 to be amended to either Class 2 or 3.
- Urban Housing, in both Tables change one space per two dwellings to one space per one dwelling (to ensure each dwelling has at least one bicycle space)
• In section 4.1.3 b), Green Travel Plan, in the fist dot point, include an additional example provision of employee public transport vouchers (to expand acceptable examples of public transport promotion).
Part B
Council recognise the car parking ratio of 1 in 60m2 of GFA for all development other than residential development in the city Centre as stated in Element 4.1 and commit to review this ratio following the outcomes of the Traffic and Transport Study and CBD Taskforce outcomes.
Newcastle’s Deputy Lord Mayor, Greens Cr Michael Osborne, today defended the deferral of a Lord Mayoral minute on graffiti by his councillor colleagues.
“Councillors correctly and clearly signalled that they were not prepared to rubber stamp a proposal that they had just received, involving expenditure of ratepayers’ money, and proposing actions (eg, the installation of CCTV) that had previously been rejected by council,” Cr Osborne said.
“To do so would be to abandon their duty as elected representatives,” Cr Osborne said.
Cr Osborne urged his council colleagues to maintain their focus on good governance, and not get distracted from their key responsibilities or intimidated by intemperate outbursts from elements of the local media.
“My colleagues should take heart that good governance comes out of informed, considered decision-making,” Cr Osborne said.
“New councillors especially should not feel pressured into rushing decisions when they have not been given the opportunity to understand what they involve and to consider their merits. This doesn’t always suit those who don’t have to bear the responsibility for the decisions, and who attack council without showing any appreciation for the basic principles of good governance or collaborative democracy,” Cr Osborne said.
“The same fickle pressures that will lampoon councillors one day for being indecisive, will be just as quick to berate us the next for being impulsive,” he said.
“It would be better for all involved, if local media coverage stopped inciting further graffiti attacks, and desisted from creating division where the city needs cooperation.”
Cr Osborne also called on the Lord Mayor, Cr Tate, to adopt a more collaborative style of leadership in the future.
“It’s understandable and commendable that the Lord Mayor – like other councillors – wants to do something about the problem of graffiti in the city.
“But a real leader is not a one man show, and the Lord Mayor needs to draw on the support and input of the entire chamber.”
Cr Osborne said that providing earlier notice of proposals, and more explanation and consultation on their content and context might ease the passage of any future Lord Mayoral minutes.
The company Energie Future Pty Ltd has applied to explore for seabed coal deposits in a 6,000km² area off the NSW coast, including seabed off Newcastle.
Greens MP Lee Rhiannon said: “A large offshore coal mining project would be devastating for the environment.
“If approved, exploration could come within 5km of Port Stephens.
“Marine life would suffer and whale migration routes could be disrupted by seismic testing involved in exploration.
Greens councillor Michael Osborne said: “I have a motion before Newcastle Council saying no to plans to explore for seabed coal deposits off Newcastle. This motion will be debated this Tuesday night.
“If this project is approved, the coal ships waiting off the Newcastle Coast would soon be joined by drilling platforms and offshore processing terminals. The local tourism industry would suffer.
“The Greens will run a strong local campaign in the Hunter to stop this project and protect our marine ecology”, said Mr Osborne.
What: Community protest – No coal exploration off Newcastle coast! Hands off our beaches! Don't upset whales!
When: 10:00am, Monday 10 November 2008
Who: Lee Rhiannon, Greens MP
Michael Osborne, Newcastle Greens Councillor
Sam East, The Wilderness Society
Brad Sutton, Surfriders Association
Where: Nobby’s Beach
Photo opportunity: Speakers and local residents with colourful banners and model whales.
Councillors,
I would like to urge councillors to once again oppose the proposed development at 73 Elizabeth Street Tighes Hill. As residents of Elizabeth Street (No. 74) my family and I are opposed to the development on the grounds that:
1 - It will create additional heavy traffic within our street placing additional risks on residents and children. This is particularly relevant in relation to pedestrian traffic related to children and parents walking to and from the public school in Elizabeth Street. My family has a young child who will attend the school in future and we feel the proposal places will place additional risk to his welfare. It should be noted that our experience as residents of the street is that, although the street is currently weight limited and part of a local traffic zone, we consistently see traffic travelling along the street in contravention of these restrictions. I believe without continued enforcement of the traffic restrictions additional traffic (estimated at 30%) from the development would behave the same way only adding to the current problem.
2 - The addition of more industrial development in the suburb is detrimental to the character of the suburb as a whole. The development negates any of the good work already done in transforming the local area via the honeysuckle development and the work put into beautifying/cleaning up Throsby Creek. A more visionary development would be to enhance the Honeysuckle/Throsby precinct through intelligent and sensible residential development.
For the reasons stated above I would strongly urge that you and your colleagues oppose the proposal and reject the rescission motion.
Yours sincerely,
As a resident of the Tighes Hill area I appreciate your efforts to protect our community from this inappropriate development.
Keep up the great work!
Cheers!
Thank you for your support for positive development at Tighes Hill by voting against the current application to build 42 industrial units on Throsby Creek.
I am writing to assure that your integrity and concern about this development are well placed. I believe it clearly contravenes the current LEP no matter how loosely one chooses to interpret it. Everyone I have spoken to in relation to this site support its development but are most concerned that this proposal does not do the site or the trend in Tighes Hill justice.
Most ratepayers diligently improve their properties and the overall quality of life in an area previously much maligned in Newcastle . I believe counsel can support them by recommending a rezoning to residential and assisting the developer in achieving a significantly better outcome for everyone.
I am sure a second vote against this development will again receive the ovation you were given first time around.
Yours sincerely
Hello councillors, firstly I'd like to thank all 6 of you for voting against the DA at 73 Elizabeth St. Tighes Hill. I believe it was a slim majority that gave us the best result for the future of Maryville, Tighes Hill & Throsby Creek. As a resident of Maryville since 1992 I have seen Throsby Creek & its surrounding suburbs improve environmentally, socially & economically.
The approval of this particular DA would have been a step backwards to the ugly old Newcastle of 50 years ago. Our home is situated directly adjacent to Throsby Creek...
The proposed DA of Elizabeth St is directly across the creek on a large parcel of vacant land. This land is surrounded by houses on 3 sides, ie Maryville to the south, Tighes Hill to the North & West. This fact alone should qualify the area as a residential zone & NOT an INDUSTRIAL ZONE, despite "existing" zoning.
I believe a precedent or example has to be set here, for the good of the community & Newcastle, & that is to strive for rezoning of the land at 73 Elizabeth St, Tighes Hill. A better example for use of the land would be a more "marine friendly" development, ie canoe/bike hire, cafe, small shops, jetty etc.
As a concerned resident, I believe it is imperative to vote against this DA once again on the 25th November. Throsby Creek, Tighes Hill, Maryville & indeed Newcastle deserve something better.
Thank you for listening,
Councillors,
I would like to express to my families concerns in relation to this proposal.
I am a resident of Elizabeth Street Tighes Hill living at number 74 (adjacent to the four way stop sign and approximately 500 metres toward the public school from the development). I attended the recent public meeting in relation to this development. At that meeting arguments regarding increased heavy vehicle traffic flow and reduced community safety were put forward as reasons why the development should not be approved. I strongly support those arguments. The street (including the proposed development) is part of a local traffic zone and is also subject to a weight limit for heavy traffic. Daily, I note several instances where neither of these restrictions are adhered to. In fact as recent as this weekend I witnessed a semi-trailer travelling along our street in direct contravention of the weight limit.
It's okay for the developer to put forward traffic studies and rely on the current street restrictions as arguments for approval of the proposal but I would urge you to reflect on my experiences when considering the real impact that a couple of signs (without enforcement) really have on the behaviour of drivers along our street. In short little to no effect. In reality this proposal would only worsen the current situation. I note traffic figures of an additional approximately 30% westward traffic were put forward by the developer.
In a street already containing a public school I would submit that any proposal that seeks to increase traffic flow (particularly industrial) can only be detrimental to the safety of pedestrians in the street. I have an 8 month old son who will most likely attend the public school further down Elizabeth street in the future. On this basis I am strongly against any proposal that increases the risks to students travelling to or from the public school.
On a ideological basis I also think increasing industrial development in this area is detrimental to the suburb as a whole. It completely negates any of the good work already done in transforming the local area via the honeysuckle development and the work put into beautifying the Throsby precinct. A more visionary development would be to enhance the honeysuckle/Throsby precinct through intelligent and sensible urban development.
For the reasons stated above I would strongly urge that you and your colleagues decline the proposal.
I will take great interest on your decision on the proposal at tomorrow’s meeting.
Yours sincerely,
With regard to DA 2007/1195 for 73 Elizabeth Street Tighes Hill.
Apart from all the reasons that this DA should not proceed that have already been tabled, I wish to bring to your attention one more matter for consideration.
When you all met for a site inspection on 21/10/2008, you came up to Henry Street to view the site from 107 Henry Street. No one had trouble finding parking at the time. If this proposal proceeds the parking situation in the surrounding streets will be a different proposition.
42 industrial units with an average of 2-3 employees will mean around 100+ extra vehicles to be housed around the area. A proprietor of a business within this complex is unlikely to want their staff to park in the, regulatory applicable but realistically insufficient, 84 spaces available. So the extra vehicles will be in our streets adjacent to the site.
These extra traffic movements will create inconvenience for residents, more noise pollution and be potentially detrimental to the neighbourhood children who enjoy a relatively peaceful existence.
To address this situation I believe it may be necessary to implement an Authorised Residents Only Parking Scheme in the adjacent streets to minimise the traffic impacts and protect local residents rights to have access to their properties.
I appreciate your consideration of these matters and thankyou in advance for making the right decisions in keeping with your vision for our region, " Great Place , Great Lifestyle, Great Future"
Yours sincerely,
Councillors,
I would like to urge councillors to once again oppose the proposed development at 73 Elizabeth Street Tighes Hill. As residents of Elizabeth Street my family and I are opposed to the development on the grounds that:
1 - It will create additional heavy traffic within our street placing additional risks on residents and children. This is particularly relevant in relation to pedestrian traffic related to children and parents walking to and from the public school in Elizabeth Street. My family has a young child who will attend the school in future and we feel the proposal places will place additional risk to his welfare. It should be noted that our experience as residents of the street is that, although the street is currently weight limited and part of a local traffic zone, we consistently see traffic travelling along the street in contravention of these restrictions. I believe without continued enforcement of the traffic restrictions additional traffic (estimated at 30%) from the development would behave the same way only adding to the current problem.
2 - The addition of more industrial development in the suburb is detrimental to the character of the suburb as a whole. The development negates any of the good work already done in transforming the local area via the honeysuckle development and the work put into beautifying/cleaning up Throsby Creek. A more visionary development would be to enhance the Honeysuckle/Throsby precinct through intelligent and sensible residential development.
For the reasons stated above I would strongly urge that you and your colleagues oppose the proposal and reject the rescission motion.
Yours sincerely,
That council reject the application on the following grounds:
1. The proposal does not comply with the Newcastle Development Control Plan, particularly in relation to:
a. the objective of Element 7.1.7 (Neighbourhood Amenity), which requires that industrial developments must not have “a materially detrimental effect on the amenity of adjoining residential areas”.
b. the special requirements in Element 7.1.7 applying to proposed industrial developments that adjoin or are located in close proximity to residentially zoned land to provide council and the community with an adequate level of certainty about a range of potentially significant impacts on neighbourhood amenity, including:
- i. the nature of the proposed operation,
- ii. parking and traffic impacts,
- iii. hours of operation, and
- iv. noise.
c. the bulk, scale, height and intensity of the proposed development in the particular location.
2. The proposed development does not comply with objective (a) of the 4(a) Urban Services zone in the Newcastle Local Environmental Plan, in that it has not satisfactorily established that it will not “adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood”;
3. The proposed development is inconsistent with the Newcastle Urban Strategy (NUS) in relation to Tighes Hill, in that it does not represent “quality urban design that reflects local character” and would exacerbate existing amenity problems in the Tighes Hill area identified in the NUS, including traffic and noise.
MOTION
We, the Councillors below wish to rescind the motion passed on Item 50 - DA 07/1195 – 73 Elizabeth Street Tighes Hill – of the Development Applications committee 4 November 2008.
If the Rescission Motion for DA 07/1195 - DP 434884 is successful we intend to move the following motion:
That DA 07/1195:DP 434884 be accepted as per the officers recommendation with the conditions as outlined in the Council Officers recommendation contained in the report considered at the meeting held 4 November 2008.
