This submission is made on behalf of REDWatch Incorporated (REDWatch). REDWatch was set up in 2004 with the following objects in its constitution:

REDWatch is a group of community residents and friends from Redfern, Waterloo, Eveleigh and Darlington who support the existing diversity in these areas and wish to promote sustainable, responsible economic and social development.

REDWatch recognises the importance of the Aboriginal community to the area.

REDWatch has been formed to:

1. Monitor the activities of the Government (local, state and federal), the Redfern Waterloo Authority, and any other government instrumentality with responsibility for the Redfern, Waterloo, Darlington and Eveleigh area, to ensure that:

     (a) The strategy benefits a diverse community

     (b) Communication and consultation is comprehensive and responsive

     (c) Pressure is maintained on authorities

2. Provide a mechanism for discussion and action on community issues.

3. Enhance communication between community groups and encourage broad community participation.

This may involve: Holding regular meetings; Holding community forums and other events; Establishing a website; Communicating with the community through other means; Meeting with government representatives and authorities; Cooperating with other community organisations; And any other means the association deems appropriate.

The South Eveleigh to Waterloo Metro walking and cycling improvements exhibition impacts the Redfern and Waterloo communities, including Waterloo public housing tenants, who are often not involved in these conversations. REDWatch through our social media, participation in community meetings and holding a public meeting makes the following submission.

REDWatch expresses its appreciation to Council for providing Sarah Brickhill to attend the REDWatch public meeting on March 5 to discuss this and wider traffic issues and for an extension to make this submission after that meeting.

What is this proposal about?

The exhibited proposal was styled as about “walking and cycling improvements”. It is certainly about improvement for cycling, the assertion that it makes “walking more comfortable along Henderson Road and Raglan Street” is however not discussed nor demonstrated as it is not clear how this proposal assists walkability and in fact seems to remove some footpath space outside the Metro with new verge plantings and does not examine light timing and surge footpath requirements.

The project however is also about prioritising buses and removing vehicle access from Botany Road and Henderson Road into Raglan Street. Without these changes the proposal would just be about cycling and walking improvements and would be better able to fit into the project area.

Wider Context to proposal and this submission

At the REDWatch meeting the need to assess the proposal in its wider context was evident. Such project proposals draw a line around the area and do not look at outside ramifications in any detail. Issues were raised at the meeting about how these changes interact with other changes in Erskineville and with how people from Alexandria move into Waterloo. There was discussion about the need for projects to be seen in a more regional context and for the interactions between this project and its implications to be made transparent.

A number of issues raised at the meeting were outside the current direct scope of the proposal but either interacted with it or were exacerbated by it. These issues are hence considered relevant to providing comprehensive feedback on the project proposal.

REDWatch understands that the current consultation is an early-stage proposal and hence encourages Council’s bike, pedestrian and traffic teams to consider the wider issues raised by the community about the proposed project. As the community has not been able to talk directly with TfNSW about its elements in the plan we urge Council to take these community concerns up with TfNSW on the community’s behalf.

As this project directly impacts residents on the Waterloo public housing estate both in terms of location and impacts, REDWatch requests Council carefully apply an equity lens over this project to ensure that the public housing community isn’t adversely impacted and that the needs and desires of the public housing community are given appropriate weight.

Traffic refunneling

Introducing major traffic changes under the guise of cycling and pedestrian improvements are fraught as the changes have ramifications outside the scope of the exhibited project. What do these changes mean for east west movements in Alexandria and Waterloo and north south movements through Redfern? None of this wider work was available to help people assess the impacts.

Given the proposed redevelopment of Waterloo South to accommodate around 2,500 extra homes and subsequent redevelopment of the north and central parts of the estate to add a further 2,000 homes there is a need for wider traffic modelling if the main thoroughfare is to be Wellington Street. While the Council argued that the streets could handle the change this was not demonstrated.

Stockland are in the process of doing traffic modelling for the Waterloo South redevelopment and along with Homes NSW were not aware of the proposed traffic changes.

At a community level the proposed closure of Raglan Street to general traffic and the funnelling of traffic through Wellington Street reawakened concerns that Pitt Street being opened to McEvoy might again be considered to cope with the traffic generated by the Waterloo South redevelopment. This proposal had earlier been dismissed in the 2022 rezoning.

Closing Raglan Street to traffic puts the discussion about the capacity and issues within Wellington Street as that flows from the proposal. People at the meeting raised concerns about the impact on pedestrians, cyclists and cars from stop signs being changed at the corner of George Street and Wellington to give Wellington Street priority.

Of concern was the lack of visibility on Wellington Street heading west at the corner of George Street. The earlier stop sign meant that cars had to stop and could see bikes and pedestrians. Given the location in the middle of an estate with many older and disadvantaged people there were also concerns about pedestrian safety both for motor vehicles as well as bikes on the existing bike path. A suggestion for this intersection to have a scatter crossing has been made.

Concerns were also raised about queueing and turns out of Wellington into Botany Road and also Elizabeth Street. This is particularly an issue at school times when children from Mount Carmel or Alexandria Park are moving through those intersections.

Problems on Wellington Street are expected to become worse if traffic into Waterloo South is channelled through Wellington Street with access closed to Raglan Street. In the short term this will also be the route for demolition and construction vehicles, and concerns were also raised about potential road closures in the street during construction if this was the main throughfare.

While Wellington will take the bulk of the traffic from the east, south and west, it is expected that closing Raglan Street will also lead to more traffic through Redfern from the north with traffic needing to go down Pitt and to a lesser extent George Street.

Questions were also raised about the impact of the proposed Raglan Street closure on the Cope Street kiss and ride. It was suggested that people are unlikely to use the kiss and ride if they cannot easily get back onto the main road and are hence more likely to do drop offs in easier locations impacting traffic movements.

All this seems out of scope of the exhibited proposal, but at a community level is very much part of the discussion as the proposal required the existing traffic using Raglan Street to go somewhere.

Bus issues

The creation of the bus only section in Raglan Street opposite the Metro reignited the debate about the appropriateness of the 392 bus route on Raglan Street east of Pitt Street which was introduced 6-7 years ago rather than buses being routed via Wellington Street as was the case with the 355 bus route. Raglan Street east has many heritage properties facing onto a hill with noise and vibration concerns – see this Current Affair story about the issues which were raised at the meeting.

Local residents also complain that allowing buses to make a right turn from Elizabeth Street into Raglan against the no right turn sign, locals argued that this has encouraged many cars to follow suit. For cars this intersection is supposed to be only left in and left out.

At the meeting concerns were raised about what appeared to be the movement of the Raglan Street bus stop to in front of the Metro. The point was made that if the stop was moved to the Metro then tenants would have to walk up and down the hill to get from their homes to the bus and that local mobility needed to be considered not just for people getting on and off the Metro. This is especially a concern given the mobility concerns for aged and disabled people among the public housing tenants on the estate. These are clearly walking issues that are within scope if the proposal includes the relocation of any of the Raglan Street bus stops.

While TfNSW fed into the exhibited plans, it was not in attendance to answer questions about the changes it had proposed in the plan and its implication for its services. It is not helpful for the community to be told that it is a TfNSW issue when its elements are included in a City of Sydney exhibited plan without proper explanation.

Bike Issues

The missing link in the George Street Cycleway is also appears out of scope. This was caused by the 1970s closure of George Street as part of the Endeavour public housing project. Council have been unable to negotiate a solution with Homes NSW for the bike path to continue across Waterloo Green which is LAHC owned land.

This sees a dedicated cycleway to the North and South of Waterloo Green with a nominal “low traffic street or bike lane” around LAHC land via Raglan, Cope and Phillip Streets to join the dedicated paths. In practice cyclists do not dismount or use the alternative path but continue to ride across Waterloo Green.

It seems unlikely that Homes NSW will allow a separated bike path across its land until Waterloo North is redeveloped and potentially George Street is reopened. Thought needs to be given as to what might happen over the next 10-20 years until this might happen.

Linking the Henderson Street cycle path to George Street next to Waterloo Green will increase the number of people who cycle across Waterloo Green rather than dismount and walk across.

There is an opportunity with the proposed cycleway to encourage cyclists to use the other two legs of the bike route via Cope Street north of Raglan and Phillip Street to access the northern section of the George Street cycleway. As earlier stated, this route already appears as a “low traffic street or bike lane” on the Council’s cycling map and it should be formalised and positively encouraged.

Alongside this, tenants are looking to Council to actively discourage bike riding across Waterloo Green along with education and enforcement measures. This issue cannot be ignored and should not be considered out of scope. One way of doing this is to not provide an easy exit off the bike path towards Waterloo Green as well as well-placed signs in both directions where the two cycleways meet.

At the meeting people raised concerns about the viability of cyclists heading south on George Street north of Phillip Street. Concern was raised about the height of plantings and the need for regular maintenance. There was also concern about both the visibility and speed of bikes to cars on Phillip Street and of bikes entering LAHC land, often at high-speed coming down the hill.

Directing bikes to the Phillip Street low traffic street / bike path would also enable the redirection of bikes away from Waterloo Green and the issues raised by tenants at this location to be addressed.

Also considered out of scope were community questions about why the bike path was going down Raglan Street when Wellington Street is already on cycle maps as a “low traffic street or bike lane” shown on Council’s cycling map which links through to Mitchell Road and Erskineville. Channelling bikes through the high traffic Henderson, Wyndham Botany Road intersections was seen as a higher risk alternative to using the bike route down Wellington past Alexandria Park.

While we see the problem with the Henderson Road bike path not connecting, the preferred link for this path is the connection between Railway Parade and Wilson Street via Alexander Street and Locomotive Street. The dream of this connection was on the cover of an earlier City of Sydney Cycling Plan.

REDWatch with FOE and ARAG have recently formed the Eveleigh Bridge Alliance to expand the push for a pedestrian and cycle bridge across the railway corridor near Carriageworks. The first action of the Eveleigh Bridge Alliance was to access documents with a GIPA application which shows TfNSW in June 2025 decided on a preferred location for a bridge and a way to construct it. Council has long supported a potential Cycle and Pedestrian Bridge at this location and with some of the technical issues addressed to some extent the possibility for this connection between the Henderson Street and Wilson Street Cycleways may still be achievable.

REDWatch encourages Council to consider all the issues raised above as related to the exhibition and to investigate how they can be addressed.

Comments on the Exhibited Plan

In commenting on the proposal as set out we will do so in relation to separate elements, the Bike Path, traffic changes to deliver the path, the Raglan bus only proposal and walkability. REDWatch’s comments reflect issues raised that need to be explored in further development work.

The Bike path

There is strong support from cyclists for the connection of the Henderson Cycleway to the George Street Cycleway. There is also strong support from cyclists for the George Street cycleway to extend across Waterloo Green which is opposed by public housing tenants on safety grounds.

On the flip side there is strong concern about the impact of the proposal from the loss of so much scarce inner-city parking and how that might impact local residents, visitors and deliveries. Special concerns were raised in relation to loading zones near the Waterloo shops and the Abbotts Hotel which can only get deliveries in Raglan Street.

Concern was also raised about access to parking for those delivering services and visiting those in public housing. It was however recognised that a lot of parking in the area in unrestricted parking was from people parking and then going to work.

Earlier in our submission we have raised issues about the proposal increasing the number of people who ride across Waterloo Green. To minimise this REDWatch has suggested that the bike connection in Cope Street north of Raglan be encouraged at the link to the Redfern end of the George Street cycleway via Phillip Street.

We have also proposed that the Bike path in Raglan and Phillip with George not facilitate easy access off the bike path to the pedestrian path across Waterloo Green. At both places where the George Street cycleway leads onto LAHC land we request clear signage to stop bikes and direct them via Cope Street which is the formal link shown on Council’s bike path maps.

REDWatch is sure Council will get lots of submissions both supporting the bike path and raising its impacts on those who are directly impacted. Council will need to weigh up the impacts and find solutions that lessen the bike lane impact on local residents and businesses for this to proceed.

Traffic changes to deliver the path

Concern has been raised about the traffic changes needed to facilitate the bike lane in Henderson Road. At the REDWatch meeting there was concern that at high road use times the restriction on two lanes turning from Mitchell Road into Henderson Road will be problematic. It is not clear why Henderson Road has only one east bound lane at Davey Road when it becomes 2 lanes within the next block.

As traffic heading onto or across Botany Road is expected to be similar to the present, it is not clear if a single lane will be adequate in Henderson Road at Botany Road. It might be adequate if all traffic has to turn right and there are not greater pedestrian crossing delays. If motor vehicles are allowed to continue onto Raglan Street then the existing delays in being able to turn right will impact through traffic which is solved by the current two lanes.

The community would like the City of Sydney to complete traffic modelling on the proposed changes and the flow on impacts before finalising the proposal.

Raglan bus only proposal

There is concern about the aspect of the proposal that makes Raglan Street into a bus only zone as the community has not seen any modelling of this change and its impacts. While the change directly means that traffic which approaches Raglan Street from Henderson Road will have to turn right and use Wellington Street, this will also increase traffic through Pitt and to a lesser extent George Street Redfern.

While the change may stop cars to and from Alexandria and Erskineville using Raglan Street to get to Elizabeth Street which some locals consider a rat run, its closure means that travel times for those trips will also increase, putting more car minutes and congestion on the road for those who need to use a car.

We have highlighted earlier some of the community concerns about the impact on Wellington Street and public housing tenant concerns.

Council should consider the possibility of Raglan Street remaining open to motor vehicles even if the bike lane proceeds. If the proposal proceeds as currently drafted then the wider traffic impacts need to be assessed and impacts made transparent alongside what will be done to mitigate the impacts.

Walkability

It is not clear how the current proposal improves walkability. REDWatch has argued that TfNSW and Council need to address the pedestrian improvements needed on pedestrian desire lines from the Waterloo Metro. The pathway towards Redfern’s Southern Concourse and Boundary Street for South Eveleigh are especially problematic.

While this proposal claims to be also about pedestrian improvements this is not evident in the proposal. In fact, the proposal seems to reduce pedestrian space in some locations such as in front of the Metro. The proposal also does not assess if the footpath design with grass verges remains appropriate for pedestrian surges as a result of long light wait times combined with periodic pedestrian discharges from the station.

The proposal also does not demonstrate if the traffic changes and potential light phasing may improve or impact walking times.

Improving the movement of people from the Metro towards South Eveleigh and Sydney University should be a major focus of Council.

It has to be remembered that currently the Bankstown line is not directly connected to the Metro so it is likely that some people are currently accessing South Eveleigh via Redfern Station who will remain on the Metro and hence want to move to South Eveleigh or Sydney University from Waterloo Metro.

Conclusion

In our submission REDWatch has covered broader community concerns inked to the project proposal that need to also be taken into account in refining the proposal. We have also raised some concerns about the facets of the exhibited proposal that we would also like to clarified.

REDWatch requests Council to take these community concerns into account in its next steps on this proposal. We also encourage Council to be able to provide clear impact and remediation proposals for the refined plan so people can assess the proposal and its surrounding implications.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal and the extension of time to accommodate this feedback after our meeting.

Yours Faithfully 

Geoffrey Turnbull 

Spokesperson 

On behalf of REDWatch Inc 

c/- Counterpoint Community Services 

67 Raglan Street Waterloo NSW 2017                                         

Ph Wk: (02) 8004 1490                                                     

email: mail@redwatch.org.au

web: www.redwatch.org.au

Where there are significant differences within an area, as there is in Waterloo and surrounding Alexandria and Redfern, it is not adequate to look at a statistical average. Different communities will possibly be impacted differently by a development. The SIA does not look at the potential impact on the most marginalised, who also will live closest to the re-development. As a consequence, the SIA ignores even acknowledging the adverse interactions in the earlier stage of this development between the developer and its local neighbours and local public drinkers.

REDWatch has strongly suggested in its SIA interview that rather than pay to have off duty police at the site so that the workers will work, the developer needs to train its contractors how to deal with people who have suffered trauma and have complex issues as well as having mechanisms for de-escalating situations that arise. The SIA does not even mention this historical social impact nor how it might be better handled in the future.

The community facilities section of the report is also not up to the standard the community should expect of an SIA. For example, three Aboriginal Organisations (AMS, AHC and Mudgin-Gal) are mis-located on the facilities map in the report. Other key community facilities like Counterpoint Community Services’ The Factory and its Multicultural Services are not included at all, along with a number of other local NGO services. The community facilities recognised include the LAHC owned James Cook Community Garden and LAHC owned Waterloo Green described in the report as “an open community park situated to the north east of the redevelopment” – land which after a new Waterloo Park is built is most likely destined for redevelopment rather than staying LAHC owed open space and gardens. Some local health facilities have been included while others ignored.

All of this supposedly exists to identify what is already in the area and hence what needs to be provided as community facilities by this development. While the Waterloo Metro OSD only expects to generate a need for 17 children aged 0-4 the SIA argues that additional childcare facilities will be needed to service the population increase associated with ongoing development in Waterloo and the OSD is keen to provide those childcare places (which a provider will undoubtably pay for). It is instructive then to look at how the SIA looks at child care facilities in the immediate area.

The SIA says “A desktop audit of childcare facilities found that there are no childcare facilities within 400m of the site, specifically none within the immediate social locality, as indicated by the Social Locality map in Chapter 5. The closest facilities are SDN Redfern, SDN Waterloo, and The Green Elephant Waterloo, each located approximately 1.5 km away. Refer to Appendix B.”

So those who know the area will know that SDN Waterloo (Louis Barker) is within 300m of Waterloo Metro. They would also know that SDN Redfern is about 450m away and Green Elephant Waterloo within 800m. A quick check of Google maps shows the following are also within an 800m radius - Eveleigh Early Leaning Preschool, KU Sunbeam Pre School, KU James Cahill, Honey Bird Childcare and Wunanbiri Preschool. It is particularly worrying that an incorrect SIA can be used to advance a developer’s preference for the provision of facilities over other possible community facilities uses.

One of the flaws in the earlier community facilities studies was to not assess the suitability of the buildings used by existing community facilities and to assume that they could continue to provide services from those locations into the future, when many organisations are not in premises that are fit for purpose or for which they are paying rent not covered in their funding. The option of providing community facilities for a not-for-profit agency should have been considered if the community facilities review had adequately assessed facilities rather than the services they managed to provide.

It is also worth mentioning that classic SIA approach for assessing the accessibility of local facilities by if they fall within certain radii of the development is flawed if there are major physical barriers, like the railway corridor, to access a facility.  So, the SIA says Carriageworks is within 1 km of the site when by foot or car it is actually 1.3km away and will remain so until the community gets the NSW Government to deliver the 2004 promised bridge across the railway corridor at Carriageworks.

There are variations of the Social Impact Assessment for each of the DAs, above we have drawn on those from the Second Amending Concept SIA. We encourage readers to have their own look at this report as we are sure that there will be other areas where people will have concerns. For example, we have not gone into the grading within the report where the assessing of increased housing supply in accessible locations? is assessed as a “high positive” when the oft referred to affordable housing only remains affordable for 10 years.

At a basic level community members need to be able to recognise their community accurately described in such reports. There is a long history of inadequate desktop community facilities and social sustainability reports for Waterloo that have been roundly criticised by REDWatch and other agencies.

In part this seems to come from developers expecting consultants to do cheap desktop studies requiring little understanding of what is on the ground. SIAs need to accurately assess impact, especially on those most impacted and seriously address how any impacts can be mitigated. This is especially so when dealing with vulnerable communities like those in public housing.

Hopefully when Stockland presents its SIA for Waterloo South, the SIA will not contain such fundamental errors and Stockland will insist on a much more robust SIA that assesses the impact of the development on the public housing tenants directly impacted by the redevelopment and how those impacts can be mitigated.

If you want to look further at the demographics of the area you can look at different statistical areas for your local area at https://atlas.id.com.au/sydney/

Source: Adapted from REDWatch Email Update 7 January 2026. On 12 January 2026 REDWatch added the additional concern about the SIA and EIS on this project.

Waterloo Metro Developer reduces community facilities

The Waterloo Metro developer wants to reduce community facilities floorspace by 994sqm. That is space that could be used by local community controlled not for profits. The table opposite compares what is approved for the site with what the developer is asking to change.

Also, the Social Impact Assessment says: “This Second Amending Concept DA alone will not generate enough demand for a purpose-built childcare facility” (Concept SIA p40). But the developer only wants to deliver a “community centre in the form of a childcare centre” (Concept SSDA p40) even though the developer’s own figures show they do not generate enough childcare need to justify its childcare proposal.

There are community-controlled organisations that need low-cost permanent facilities but don’t have them. There are others that operate from inappropriate spaces to deliver their services. At the same time the Waterloo Metro developer is trying to avoid providing that kind of community facilities benefit.

Actual community facilities have to be provided to a non-government organisation or a Council while health facilities and childcare facilities can be provided to for profit providers at commercial rents. Understandably developers prefer spaces they can maximise income from.

If you don’t think the developer should not get away with this change, we encourage you to object irrespective of any other views about the project you might have. If you have already made a submission but missed this element, because it is not spelt out in the text of the proposal, please make a short additional submission on this.

In REDWatch’s last email update, we drew attention to the Metro Site Second Amending Concept Social Impact Assessment (SIA) that did not properly look at the needs of local community facilities and also misrepresented the amount of child care facilities in proximity to the Waterloo Metro site.

You can object to the change of community facilities change of use proposed in the Second Amending Concept Plan (SSD-79307765) at https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/major-projects/projects/waterloo-metro-quarter-second-amending-concept

Please also note that the Planning NSW website is now showing 15^th January as the cut off for submissions rather than the initially advised 14^th January.

REDWatch apologises that the reduction in community facilities space has only recently been identified. While it appears in this table the reasons for the reduction is not covered in the text of the EIS. As a result, it was not covered in our earlier email updates hence this small update to alert you.

Source: Adapted from REDWatch Email Update 12 January 2026

The website contains the following sections and REDWatch comments are also provided by these headings:

New and better homes for all

New community spaces, shops and services

A green, leafy and sustainable neighbourhood

Safe and convenient connections

Designing with Country

Benefits of the draft Concept Plan and proposed changes

About the Draft Concept Plan

The Waterloo renewal project will enhance the strength and diversity of Waterloo, a unique urban village on Gadigal Land. The renewal will deliver new homes, community places, and green spaces which prioritise the health and wellbeing of social housing tenants and more sustainable mixed communities.

New and better homes for all

• Around 3,000 new homes
• 50% of new homes as social and affordable housing
• More homes for Aboriginal people
• More comfortable and accessible homes for older people, key workers and families
• Designed so that buildings can’t be identified by their tenure type – social, affordable or market

Click here to see a draft plan of the proposed location and shape of social, affordable and market buildings in 3D. A 2D Plan is also available here.

REDWatch Comment:

The project delivers at least 3,300 new homes when you account for the 10% design excellence bonus Stockland plans to use. If the size mix of social, affordable and commercial homes was the same as the 2022 proposal then it would deliver 3370 new homes so lets say between 3300 and 3400 is the likely outcome not 3,000 which understates the size of the development.

The planning controls say 50% of Gross Floor Area (GFA) needs to be social and affordable housing and as the social and affordable housing units are smaller on average than the market housing then you actually end up with more than half the units being social and affordable. On the 2022 rezoning assumptions it works out to around 52.4% will be social and affordable. The final figures will be determined by the final housing size mix within each tenure.

The More comfortable and accessible homes for older people may only work for social and affordable housing – Stockland have indicated it wants to reduce the requirement for silver liveable apartment standard and accessible car parking for market apartments as if there is not a requirement aging in place in market housing especially when there is a push for older people to downsize.

Stockland told a REDWatch meeting that the Concept Plan would show both where the 7% affordable housing agreed to be in perpetuity would be and where the 13% affordable housing that might not be in perpetuity would be. This has not happened so the map shows what might start off as affordable housing not what might remain affordable housing after long term financing finishes. Clarification is needed about the Stockland consortium’s plans for the 13% affordable housing that government left up to the developer to provide that may be only for a limited period and may not have rents set at percentage of income like the in perpetuity 7%.

The maps give us no information about what the actual building heights are so we can not assess for example where the 10% design excellence has been accommodated in the floor widths or where buildings have gone higher. This is important information as it will be set in the planning controls coming from this consultation. Information subsequently presented to tenants shows that apart from the four high-rise towers that are constrained by flight restrictions Stockland has not been able to accommodate the extra floorspace without increasing height. The new plan has 9 buildings that are higher than the 13 story height that caped the 2022 plan (1x22; 2x19; 1x18,1x17,1x16, 3x15). Stockland have not just added the 10% increase to heights but have reworked the plan to provide more space at ground level and to deal with solar access issues in the 2022 proposal. 

Proposed Design Excellence changes are not revealed in in the released material even though it is argued buildings will be designed so they can’t be identified by their tenure type. Stockland have proposed to change the design excellence requirements that give them the extra 10% floorspace by limiting design competitions to buildings over 100meters i.e. the four towers. Council’s latest proposal seeks to require competitions for buildings over 35 metres (9-10 stories). Stockland argue that design competitions would delay the building of urgently needed social and affordable housing. Stockland outlined it wants an alternative approach in its Scoping Proposal but has not made public how it plans to deliver the same level of design excellence across all tenures to ensure they can’t be identified by tenure type.

New community spaces, shops and services

• Community facilities located near open spaces to support gathering and social connection
• A variety of spaces – for cultural expression, local services, health and wellbeing, and learning
• Skills exchange and redeployment hub to deliver jobs and training pathways
• Retail spaces for supermarkets, cafes and local businesses

Click here to see a draft plan of the proposed location for community and other ‘active’ uses.

REDWatch Comment:

The maps show us where it is proposed to put Council’s community facilities as well as active use areas for shops services or community uses. It does not go into detail about what those spaces might be used for and for how long. Some uses might only be temporary for example as there may not be much retail interest and so spaces might have community uses initially but not in the long term when retail interest in the site grows and competes for space. Stockland has indicated an interest in managing the retail at least initially.

There are two sites on Cooper Street that are active use but are not residential. There is no information about Stockland’s is thinking about these two sites.

The planning controls set a maximum limit on non-residential floor space in Waterloo South as well as a minimum space to be used for community facilities health facilities and childcare. In the latter 2,000sqm was allocated to a health facility that if that is ruled out or downsized may make room for other community facilities or the Consortium’s educational establishments. Each use proposed potentially completes with others for limited space. REDWatch has gone into this issue in some detail in Some Issues for consideration in the Waterloo South Concept Plan.

Stockland have said it wants to deliver “education establishments” and “creative industries” as active street frontages but have not specified any detail and these uses were not in the initial planning approval for the site. Stockland has also said it wishes to redefine what is covered by community facilities but no details of what is proposes has been made public. Stockland has said in Stage 1 it wants to “skills exchange and reemployment hub”, a “social enterprise incubator” and a “local Aboriginal health service facility” while ruling out a general health facility which is specified in the 2022 planning controls. The community needs transparency about what Stockland is proposing so there can be an open conversation about what the community thinks and what then gets locked into the planning controls.

Community Gardens was a focus of community input in earlier planning stages but has been dropped from Homes NSW’s People and Place plan. The Homes NSW Plan recognises the community desire for public toilets in a community with lots of older people who may not go out regularly because of incontinence but waters down the recommendation on this. Are these community asks covered in Stockland’s plans or is there an assumption that Council will provide these in its parks and community centre. Council has not decided what it will do with its community facilities or park there is a tendency to assume that certain services will be provided by Council and hence do not need to be provided by the Consortium in its space. The community can miss out on things it needs as a result.

One area that is within Stockland’s purview is what it will do to ensure ongoing access to goods and services for low-income people in the long term. This aspect seems to be missing from the current discussion and references to it in Homes NSW People and Place has also been removed.

Community need should drive what is delivered not just what provides the best return for Stockland in areas where it can change commercial rents. We need now to know what Stockland will provide with the areas it controls.

A green, leafy and sustainable neighbourhood

• Two new public parks for everyone to enjoy
• A variety of additional green spaces – pocket parks, plazas and courtyards – to gather, relax and connect with neighbours
• Tree-lined streets that are leafy, cool and people-friendly
• Landscaping in outdoor spaces designed to manage rainwater, reduce heat, and keep Waterloo South cooler and healthier

Click here to see a draft plan of the proposed location of parks and outdoor spaces

REDWatch Comment:

This map does not distinguish between what will be public open space and what will be private space for the occupants of the surrounding buildings. It is hence difficult to identify potential public pocket parks and plazas from private spaces people might walk past.

There is currently no maps that deal with tree retention and removal nor with the deep soil areas for tree replanting that might deliver “leafy, cool and people friendly” places. Tree retention is very important for keeping the area as cool as possible while new trees grow. Stockland have previously flagged in its scoping report that it needs to make changes in tree removal in response to the amendments proposed under the rezoning. This will be especially important for Stage One as the Consortium has indicate it will use a mechanism for clearing the first site which does not require public consultation.

While landscaping is referenced there is no landscaping plan which Stockland needs to produce for this Concept Plan.

The Concept Plan needs to deal with what Stockland can control in the Concept Plan. Planning for the Council parks and its community facilities will happen at a later stage.

Safe and convenient connections

• George Street becomes a lively, green and welcoming main street
• A creative, vibrant Cooper Street connecting the new parks
• Prioritising walking and cycling by closing key streets to cars
• Wider and safer connections across the precinct, including ‘shared zones’ where people are proiritised
• New streets:
• West Street extended south to John Street
• Cooper Street extended south past John Street

Click here to see a draft plan of the proposed streets and connections

REDWatch Comment:

Safe Connections are also dependent on the interaction between people and motor vehicles. Stockland have said it is making changes in traffic and parking surround updating the car park locations, accessible car parking rates, and entries but there is no map on display that shows where car park entries are expected or where traffic flows are likely to happen.

REDWatch notes that the bike path has been diverted around Waterloo Green in this proposal. The earlier Homes NSW proposal ran the bike path past Waterloo Metro which seems to have made more sense if there was to be a diversion that Council keep opposing. One concern raised has been the increased potential conflicts between bike delivery drivers and pedestrians, this is a growing community safety issue.

Close attention needs to be paid especially to cross site connections and how they will be managed and maintained to keep them safe for pedestrians. Clarification on what will be public open space and what will be fenced private space is required as will be landscaping along these routes to ensure good eyes on these paths.

Ideally you would want George Street as the main street activated by people rather than cars but only the southern end is a shared zone so presumably George Street is the main car route.  Cooper Street has been made a shared zone which has the advantage of linking the two parks but only has the east side activated with most of the western side privately owned.

Designing with Country

We acknowledge the deep and ongoing connection of Aboriginal people to Waterloo and Redfern. Our goal is to weave Aboriginal culture and knowledge through every part of Waterloo South – not just in planning and design but in construction and activation.

It starts with Connecting with Country – listening to and learning from Gadigal Traditional Custodians, Elders, Knowledge Holders, and local Aboriginal residents and organisations to embed their cultural values and aspirations into every aspect of the Project.  

Designing with Country is about translating these values into the new buildings and spaces of Waterloo South – where Aboriginal cultural narratives are visible, respected, and celebrated.

Several Designing with Country sessions are being held with the local Aboriginal community to continue to share, evolve and develop the emerging Designing with Country principles for Waterloo South. These principles will continue to evolve through ongoing conversations with the Aboriginal community.

REDWatch Comment:

REDWatch welcomes the commitment to Connecting with Country and the involvement of the Aboriginal community in the design work, this has been more lip service that actuality in the past.

It is important also to recognise the connections of many migrants, working class and public housing communities have to Waterloo and to also acknowledge these connections when looking at consultation around building and place names. It has suggested for example that people who have made major contributions to the area and to public housing in the area like Marg Barry, Ross Smith and others should also be recognised in some way.

Benefits of the draft Concept Plan and proposed changes

The overall scale of the Waterloo South renewal was approved in 2022 after many years of consultation.

The approval set new planning rules in the Sydney Local Environmental Plan to deliver over 3,000 new homes, and a Design Guide showing what future buildings might look like. However, there are a few inconsistencies between these two documents that impact how many homes could be delivered.

Information about the past approval is available on the NSW Government’s Waterloo South planning page.

Building on the 2022 approval and the emerging Designing with Country principles, the draft Concept Plan is designed to make Waterloo South an even more comfortable, safe, green and connected place for everyone.

The draft Concept Plan does not propose to increase the overall amount of development or the number of homes already allowed under the planning rules. It keeps a similar skyline, with four tall towers and the rest as mostly mid to low-rise buildings.

The location and size of some of the buildings is slightly different when compared to the Design Guide – with some buildings getting lower or removed, and others getting taller.

These changes are designed to provide:

• More sunlight to homes, courtyards, parks and public spaces – including 7% more sunlight to the park in Stage 1
• New outdoor spaces – including additional pocket parks and plazas
• Safer, wider and clearer connections between buildings
• More space in outdoor areas to retain more mature trees
• A more ‘open’ feel at the street level
• More social and affordable housing – previously 33.5% of all new homes, now 50%.

Come along to one of the upcoming sessions – online or in person – to see more detailed plans about what’s proposed, ask us questions and provide your feedback.

REDWatch Comment:

A number of changes have happened since the 2022 approval that impact the Concept Plan so see REDWatch primer for Waterloo South Concept Plan and Rezoning Consultation – October 2025 and associated documents including Some Issues for consideration in the Waterloo South Concept Plan for a broader view of the changes and possible implications.

No height information was initially released on the website and Stockland have argued above it keeps “similar skyline”. Height information released to tenants brings this into question with now a building opposite the main park rising from 13 storeys to 22 stories and buildings towards Mt Carmel going from 13 stories to 16, 17, 18 and 19 storeys.

REDWatch has previously also questioned the 3,000 units claim and the 50% figure for affordable and social homes. The claim to retain more mature trees seems in conflict with Scoping report that indicates more trees will be removed

REDWatch remains concerned that there are no topic focused sessions in the consultation. There are only two presentations and the rest are based around people making comments and asking questions around display boards.

We encourage everyone with an interest in Waterloo South to attend the engagement sessions and to raise the questions of concern to you. You can also flag any concerns you have with REDWatch by emailing mail@redwatch.org.au

This document was produced on 29 October 2025 and uses the text on www.waterloorenewal.com.au at that time, it has also been updated on 31 October with height information provided to tenants. 

After careful consideration of the feedback received during public exhibition and findings from the additional studies, the department made improvements to the plan that:

• remove the proposed opening of Pitt Street to McEvoy Street
• make the purpose of the design guide clearer
• make information more consistent across the planning documents and better aligned with local planning rules
• provide greater flexibility and opportunity for innovation in building designs
• update the plan to meet with current state planning policy

The revised plan for Waterloo South has now been submitted for review against the gateway conditions and finalisation. A final decision on the plan will be made by the Minister for Planning and Homes (or their delegate) in late 2022.

DPE have put more information on its at Waterloo South webpage. The amended documents have also been posted on the NSW Planning Portal.

Finding the New Documents

As many found during the exhibition, the document handling aspects of the NSW planning portal are poor, REDWatch below has provided direct links to new material before providing a more detailed breakdown on our observations of the planning proposal changes.

Post exhibition report / proposal as submitted for final assessment

• Cover letter and Attachment A - schedule of post-exhibition amendments
• Attachment B - Revised planning proposal - Waterloo Estate (South)
• Attachment C - Draft design guide - Waterloo Estate (South)
• Attachment D - technical studies referenced in section 9 of the planning proposal
• Attachment E - Draft maps - Waterloo Estate (South)
• Alteration of Gateway determination (7 July 2022) - Waterloo Estate (South)

New Studies prepared post-exhibition

• Submissions report –Waterloo 29 pages.
• CPTED (Mecone) - Waterloo Estate 48 pages.
• Addendum updated transport assessment (Bitzios) - Waterloo Estate 15 pages.
• Revised addendum to urban design (Hassell) - Waterloo Estate (South) 211 pages (original report with amendments.
• Overshadowing analysis (Hassell) - Waterloo Estate (South) 15 pages.

What are the main Changes?

Attachment A to the amended proposal sets out the main changes in the proposal, although the implications of some sections of the summary are not immediately evident. The summary below by REDWatch is based primarily on Attachment A to try and highlight the areas likely to be of most interest to the community.

Pitt Street extended but not being opened up to McEvoy Street

In direct response to public submissions where concerns were raised around the proposed opening of the Pitt Street extension to McEvoy Street, Bitzios Consulting was re-engaged to prepare an addendum updated transport assessment. This assessment investigated the impacts that would likely result on the traffic network within the precinct if the proposed Pitt Street extension did not allow vehicular movements on to or from McEvoy Street.

The work found that alternative access and egress routes are available and not opening Pitt Street would be appropriate. This change was supported by Transport for NSW.

It is now proposed that Pitt Street will be extended to the south, but it will not allow vehicular movements on to or from McEvoy Street

Percentage of social and affordable housing retained

While LAHC argued in their submission that percentages for social and affordable housing should not be included, the amended proposal retains them.

Amendments have been made clarify that the minimum percentage of social and affordable housing also applies to increases from design excellence. LAHC wanted the percentages removed in their submission but they have been retained.

Change in Tower Foot prints and overshadowing

The footprints of the three taller buildings along McEvoy Street have been enlarged and moved.

• This has been done to allow additional flexibility in the design and placement of these buildings, noting they will be subject to design competitions requiring five entries.
• For the taller buildings at the corners of George/McEvoy Streets and Pitt/McEvoy Streets, the footprints have been extended to the north. This ensures overshadowing impacts on residential apartments on the south side of McEvoy Street are minimised.
• The footprint of the taller building at the corner of Cope/McEvoy Streets has been extended to the north and slightly to the east. To ensure overshadowing impacts on the southern pocket park are minimised, an additional provision has been included in the design guide to ensure that at least 50% of the park area receives a minimum of 4 hours sunlight at the winter solstice between 9am and 3pm.
• The amended footprints are as below.
• From 733sqm to 913sqm (25% increase) at corner of Cope and McEvoy Streets
• From 724sqm to 844sqm (16% increase) at corner of George and McEvoy Streets
• From 702sqm to 878sqm (25% increase) at corner of Pitt and McEvoy Streets
• No changes to footprint at corner of Kellick and Gibson Streets

According to the Overshadowing analysis the increase in Footprint at Cope and McEvoy decreases solar access on the small park. The exhibited proposal provided 56.% of the park received four hours of sun between 0am and 3pm mid-winter, while the new footprint reduces this to 50.25%.

Some minor amendments to Height of Building (HOB) maps were required and the heritage item at 225-227 Cope Street has been mapped with a 9m maximum.

Floor Space Ratio (FSR) changes primarily for private sites

FSRs for private sites have been mapped as proposed in Council’s original proposal with the exception of 233 Cope Street and 110 Wellington Street where the additional 0.25:1 Basics stretch  have now been included.

Amendments have been made to adjust the proportions of total floor area that will be subject to a higher percentage contribution on Private sites and these will be handled through a new schedule to the Sydney LEP.

FSRs for all heritage items have been mapped as proposed in Council’s original proposal.

FSR maps have been amended to exclude land for road widenings (i.e. maps are consistent with future road alignments) but including landscape and other setbacks to ensure consistency between FSR and HOB maps.

The planning proposal as submitted does not include any land reserved for acquisition, and the land reservation acquisition map that was exhibited has been removed.

The Design Guide to now to provide “detailed flexible provisions”

In response to LAHC’s submission where it raised concerns that design guide controls will be elevated to development standards when the design guide is given effect through the proposed site-specific clause, which DPE says was not its intent, the design guide has now been prepared to provide a hierarchy of objectives, design guidance and other provisions to guide future development in the area.

DPE say the change is to allow a degree of flexibility and allow for appropriate merit-based assessment to ensure applications demonstrate satisfaction of objectives. REDWatch has not tried to assess the increased flexibility changes in the design guide or their implications.

Other Design Guide changes

• In response to Council’s submission, reference to Council’s Alternative natural ventilation of apartments in noise environments performance pathway has been added
• Minor rewording in Design excellence guidelines following consultation with Government Architect NSW to ensure design excellence processes are referenced correctly. The design excellence procedure remains and does not appear to have been changed as requested by LAHC.
• Minor rewording in Design excellence guidelines following consultation with Government Architect NSW to ensure design excellence processes are referenced correctly. The design excellence procedure remains and does not appear to have been changed as requested by LAHC
• Amendments have been made to align with recent changes in NSW planning instruments,
• General wording has been amended to make the document clearer, and minor errors have been corrected.

If you notice anything we have missed or you think is important to add then please contact REDWatch by email on mail@redwatch.org.au

Brief Comments on the Studies

Submissions report

A submissions report has been prepared by Keylan Consulting for DPE to address and analyse all submissions and feedback received during public exhibition. Regrettably the report is very general and breaks all submissions comments down to general key issues and some sub issues which it then mostly dismisses as adequately addressed in the proposal. Key areas raised by Government or Council submissions, that lead to changes in the proposal are not noted or covered in the report.

People who made submissions may want to see if their concerns made it into the issues and sub-issues and how they were responded to.

Like REDWatch, some NGOs, Council and lots of individual submissions, you may have raised the need for a Social Impact Assessment. You will not find it acknowledged in the report nor how it fits within the reports key themes approach.

Presumably this fits in the conclusion catchall in the report that says: Consideration of other issues raised in the submissions are deemed to be adequately addressed or alternatively warrant further consideration as part of any future Development Application for development on the site.

Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) report

In direct response to public comments and submissions where concerns around safety and security were raised, DPE engaged Mecone to prepare a CPTED report. This report assesses the built form and layout proposed in the planning proposal, including through-site-links, parks and other public spaces.  The report makes recommendations as to what measures need to be considered to make the area, including cross block connections safe and to allow active surveillance.

Addendum updated transport assessment

We have dealt with this earlier but for completeness will repeat the summary here.

In direct response to public submissions where concerns were raised around the proposed opening of the Pitt Street extension to McEvoy Street, DPE re-engaged Bitzios Consulting to prepare an addendum updated transport assessment. This assessment investigated the impacts that would likely result on the traffic network within the precinct if the proposed Pitt Street extension did not allow vehicular movements on to or from McEvoy Street.

The work found that alternative access and egress routes are available and not opening Pitt Street would be appropriate. This change was supported by Transport for NSW. It is now proposed that Pitt Street will be extended to the south, but it will not allow vehicular movements on to or from McEvoy Street.

Urban design review and overshadowing analysis

To facilitate amendments, Hassell were re-engaged to update their urban design review with any changes, including Pitt Street no longer allowing vehicular movements to McEvoy Street and enlarging of tower footprints.

Following feedback during public exhibition, Hassell were also engaged to prepare an overshadowing analysis. This analysis has been prepared to consolidate overshadowing drawings and analyse the shadows cast on Waterloo Park, the southern pocket park, and Our Lady of Mount Carmel.

Waterloo South – North Eveleigh Comparison

For those with an interest in both planning proposals, it is worthwhile noting that the proposals take a very different approach to rezoning. In Waterloo South the floor space ratio is set for each development block in the Sydney Local Environment Plan (LEP). In South Eveleigh a floor space is set in the LEP equally across the site, meaning that areas set down to be roads and public spaces all have an FSR of 2.78:1. The North Eveleigh Planning proposal allocates this space in the lesser design guide administered by DPE, meaning there is much less certainty and changes to where FSR is allocated does not need to amend the LEP planning controls.

In Waterloo South, the land use zoning is more nuanced that in North Eveleigh with the site broken up into three use zones where in North Eveleigh other than a little railway use near Redfern Station the whole area, including public space is zoned B4 mixed use. In Waterloo South there is a RE1 – Public Recreation Zoning and B2 Local Centre Zoning with the predominantly residential areas and the small park zoned as B4 mixed use. In Waterloo Council hailed to Public Recreation Zoning for the park as a major win in ensuring that the space would be guaranteed as public space into the future as opposed to the current situation on Waterloo Green where the space could be used for redevelopment in the future.

It is likely that North Eveleigh will follow the South Eveleigh model where public spaces are controlled by the developer for the first 25 years before eventually going to Council. In the case of South Eveleigh REDWatch was successful in getting positive covenants and easements put in place to ensure public access to public space and facilities, heritage and access through the site.

If you notice anything we have missed or you think is important to add then please contact REDWatch by email on mail@redwatch.org.au

Attention:     Director - Urban Renewal

                     Key Sites Assessments

RE: Submission on Waterloo Metro Quarter State Significant Precinct Planning Controls and State Significant Development Applications SSD 18_9393

REDWatch wishes to make a submission on the above SSP and SSDA.

REDWatch opposes the SSP rezoning proposal, as in its view, the supporting studies do not adequately deal with the matters raised in the study requirements. As a result, REDWatch urges DPE to require further work to be done on the SSP before the SSDA is assessed.

REDWatch also opposes the SSDA proposal as it is based on an inadequate SSP study and because it does not adequately address or mitigate the impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding area or the adjacent public housing community.

An inadequate SSP demographics data set and model

Central to REDWatch’s concerns are the way in which the demographic and social baseline studies deal with describing and projecting the community. Section 22.1 of the SSP study requirements states the demographic study is to “Determine the most suitable data set, model (or combination of models) and assumptions to be used to inform forecasts of future population and employment.”

REDWatch is concerned that the demographic study does not spell out its basis for its projections, and to the extent they are spelt out, REDWatch has major concerns about the adequacy of the model used. There is no discussion of other possible models or why the consultants chose the model used.

At the core of the demographic problem is that the studies cover two distinct communities that need to be understood separately and then projected forward into the projections. The two communities are:

1) The public housing community (2012 properties)

2) The private owners and renters within the 2016 Statistical area used in the studies (522 properties - 125 properties within Waterloo Estate SSP, 17 properties still occupied on the Waterloo Metro at time of census and 490 outside the Waterloo SSPs.

The demographics and social baseline studies take a current profile of the area as the seven statistical areas that overlap the Waterloo SSPs and then project on this basis. The table below shows how the SEIFA index of disadvantage changes across the seven SA1s in relation to the number of private residents.

To more accurately project, it is necessary to separately project the two very different tenant profiles that are to make up the 70% private and 30% social housing tenure mix proposed. The private projections in all likelihood would be projected in line with other inner city growth areas in parts of Green Square.

The current public housing community is an amalgam of distinct groups generated by successive government public housing policies. It contains an aging remanent of those who came into public housing when it was rental housing for working people (similar to contemporary affordable housing). Now that public housing is allocated on a needs basis many of the old working class tenants are being replaced by tenants with high and complex needs. These people are also placed on 2, 5 or 10 year tenancies rather than the indefinite tenancies of the early public housing system. To properly project this community it is necessary to factor in the demographics of those on the waiting list and the current allocations policy for social housing. Neither of these get a mention in the demographic projections. Many of these people are on disability pensions or other government benefits. Their potential employment interacts with their tenancy so that if they gain employment they potentially lose their tenancy. It is not uncommon that public housing tenants have to choose between keeping their home or taking a job. Much of this is driven by the structural disincentives between employment and the welfare safety net, as well as the lack of affordable housing that can allow people to stay in the area, keep their job and pay a rent affordable on their income.

To the extent that people in public housing die, gain employment and or move out of public housing, the expectation is that on average people of higher needs than those currently in public housing would replace them. The consequence of the government policy to place those in most need in public housing, in a system where housing stock does not keep pace with population growth, is that a successful transition program from social housing would see the level of need in public housing communities actually increase.

None of this complexity is reflected in the demographics. This complexity matters because there will be two very different populations post development. The private part of the future demographic will be high income in alignment with other parts of the inner city, the other community will be governed by the NSW Housing allocations policy which allocates housing to those most in need. This is not an average community it is a bi-modal community. By using the mean figures it masks the fact that it will contain two very different communities, with different needs, spending patterns, car usage and relationship to employment and business. What works for one community might not work in the same way, or at all, for the other.

An example of this is that the public housing community includes a significant concentration of people with mental health and cognitive impairment. Some of those people are supposed to be placed on the ground floor of buildings to help guard against anxiety or suicide risk. While there is a random distribution of potential “jumpers” in the community, that group is concentrated more in public housing because recent allocation policy is based on assessed high and complex needs. Design solutions for suitable high-rise public housing have to provide enough dwellings to as far as possible limit access to areas where people might be able to suicide. It also needs to have places where people can retreat when they feel overwhelmed.

We also do not have a clear idea of what the needs might be for tenants when the ABS figures are distorted by the 21% private returns. As an example, according to LAHC’s figures released in 2017 their records show that 30% of tenants are on Disability Support Pensions and that around 18% need assistance. The GHD report puts the need for assistance at only 11%, while anecdotally health workers put it at well over 20%.

The Metro Quarter sits alongside the Waterloo Estate development and while it will only contain 10% social housing, it needs to understand and respond to this demographic and to the adjacent bi-modal community with which it will interact.

REDWatch is very concerned that the proponents “most suitable data set” in the demographic and social baseline reports does not recognise the bi-modal distribution of its current community.  Appendix 8 of the demographic study shows a graphic representation of the SA1s covering the estate, but it does not show that some of the area within the estate is also private. At no point does it seek to unpack the public / private housing make-up and the implications of the make-ups for projecting the seven SA1s. The GHD report misses three of the SA1s when it references them in it appendix.

One of the other concerns is that the demographics study does not deal with the accuracy of the census statistics. ABS has undertaken a number of promotions around census time to try to improve both return rates and the accuracy of returns in public housing. Neither of these two issues is addressed. It is well known that there are many unregistered tenants living in public housing and these are likely to go unreported also in the census figures. This is especially so in the 2016 census when it was widely announced that data would be shared with other parts of government. Because of these issues, local agencies are always uneasy about the use of census data to provide an accurate picture of the public housing community.

Are the growth projections correct?

If it is not possible to quantify the public housing and to know how many people already live here, a way to look growth in the community is by looking only at the growth in housing proposed. Based on the Metro SSP proposal and the just released Waterloo Estate preferred masterplan [6,800 units - 30% social, 5% affordable, 65% private] the proposal is to increase the total number of units on the SSP sites by 5,346. Of these, there will be 98 extra social housing units, 375 affordable housing units and 4,873 private units.

Based on the 2016 census figure of an average of 1.97 people per unit (https://profile.id.com.au/sydney/household-size) these 5,346 additional units could deliver an additional population of around 10,530. Id’s model on page 72 of the demographics study predicts an increase in population of 9,691 people from an increase of 5,313 new units. This equates to 1.82 people on average per residence. [REDWatch has not been able to establish the basis used for the starting point of 2,024 units which conflicts with 2012 public units, 125 privates on the estate and 17 units still showing on the partially resumed Metro Quarter in the 2016 census).

The demographics study does not disclose how it arrives at its figures so it is not possible to check why there is a difference in the estimates. Even if the 98 social and 375 affordable housing units had a lower occupancy rate, this does not seem to explain the differences. On the face of it the population growth projections are understated and the Department should ascertain why the average occupancy rates for the City of Sydney LGA are not applicable.

We suspect that the error comes from the base model used, which on average could be distorted by lower occupancies in public housing units. When projected this could underestimate occupancy and hence population growth.

In doing our analysis, we also analysed Figure 71 Assumed dwelling change – Waterloo Precinct in the demographic study. This showed an anomaly that no one has been able to explain to us. Upon analysis, the graph shows a nett reduction from the current stock of 2012 units of public housing of 600 or greater public housing units by 2029, 2030 and 2031. LAHC has advised REDWatch that this is not correct and there is no intention to undertake staging that would run down public housing other than in the initial stage. Where the SSP requests such projections, the results should realistically reflect what is likely to happen. In this case it does not.

Social Baseline Study Problems

REDWatch also notes that many issues have been identified in the GHD Social Baseline report. Attached is a copy of some of the issues identified by Groundswell Agencies. These errors may not invalidate the report’s ability to support increased planning controls, but if they were taken as an accurate representation of the human services and facilities available in Redfern and Waterloo, they would distort decisions about human services and facilities planning.

We find the GHD document a sub-standard document. Appendixes A & B purport to describe the statistical areas, but omits three of the seven SA1 areas used in the study. The Social Infrastructure needs assessment (Appendix H) is not mentioned in the table of contents nor is it discussed or even mentioned in the body of the report. There is no attempt to relate this aspect of the study to the rest of the “findings” in the baseline study.

Appendix D contains information on SLHD policy framework for Waterloo, but this is not reflected into the body of the GHD report. Health issues, and how they are dealt with, are a major concern for public housing tenants and a major Health Equity issue for SLHD. This is a major omission.

It is noted in Appendix H that SLHD “Advised that an integrated primary care facility is need in the town centre / metro quarter”. Table 13 | Outline of State and regional infrastructure associated with Waterloo Metro Quarter (Metro SSP Study p146) states that no health facilities are proposed for the Metro Quarter while the GHD report says there is a need for “Community health: one multi -purpose community and health centre of approximately 2,500 – 3,000 square metres” (Metro SSP Study P150).

REDWatch is particularly concerned that the Metro proposal does not contain the recommended community health centre. This is specifically of concern as “health facilities, primary health care services” has been added in the SSP requirements for Metro 8.7 when compared to SSD requirements for the Estate 8.8. “Health facilities” are only mentioned twice in the SSP requirements – here and in 7.1 in both sets of requirements.

The proponents need to explain why they have not included a health facility in the Metro proposal. The proponents have listed it as one of a range of community facilities that could be provided rather than something that will be provided. REDWatch, with other agencies, has been working closely with Sydney Local Health District in an attempt to improve its health service delivery to Waterloo.

SLHD was keen to see a health impact assessment included in the SSP requirements, but it did not eventuate. The current study does not deal with health issues in a satisfactory manner, especially in the way they affect the existing and future marginalised public housing community. One of the problems of not using a bi-modal population model is that the high needs of public housing tenants can be hidden or understated.

Some of the problem in overlooking public housing tenant issues lies within the GHD report methodology. While it talks about the need to accessing ‘on the ground knowledge’, it does not do it because GHD only did a desktop review, and even that not well. In its methodology section is has a section entitled “Definition of social sustainability” however at no point does it provide the definition. It does put up diagram from Berkley Group in Figure 5 of the ‘Four dimensions of social sustainability” but then looks almost exclusively in its analysis at Amenities (10 mentions) and Infrastructure (122 mentions). Voice and Influence is not explored in this study; Social and Cultural life, from other than a facilities angle, also is absence. Change in the neighbourhood is touched on a little, but not in relationship to the model.

Assessing cumulative impact

REDWatch is strongly of the view that the Waterloo Metro and Estate SSPs need to be assessed together and that it is unrealistic to assess them otherwise. For example, 50% of the public space in the Metro Quarter is supposed to get solar access. That will happen if what is on the Waterloo Estate site stays as it is, but it might not be the case when the Estate Metro Plan is finalised and buildings to the east and north may cast morning shadows over the public space at the Metro. The Waterloo Estate park has moved since the Metro proposal was submitted how does its shadowing now impact the proposal for the park and the buildings facing Cope Street?

Transport and traffic issues

Traffic is the other area where a cumulative approach must be made to determine if the site can carry the density applied for. The Metro report says the 700 units will generate 98 peak hour car movements (630 per day). With a proposed uplift from the estate preferred plan being 5436 units, on a pro rata basis the combined developments would deliver 756 peak hour car movements and 4,811 car movements a day.

These levels are unworkable for a site surrounded on three sides by roads taking arterial loads with little room for changing the traffic-light phasing. The key intersection for people needing to travel west is the most affected – the intersection of Botany Road, Henderson Road and Raglan Street. This intersection receives a Loss of Service rating of F with the average delay per vehicle in excess of 70 seconds at this intersection. The Metro traffic study says that by 2036 the morning delay at this intersection is expected to be 92 seconds and in the evening peak 107 seconds. The above station development, the report argues, will only add a second or two to these delays. The cumulative impact of the Metro and Estate developments will add a very much greater delay.

The traffic study was done before three bus routes (301, 302, 303) were re-routed to go through this intersection. The routes head west along Raglan Street reducing the number of cars that can exit the redevelopment area during a light cycle through Raglan Street. The return trip has the buses turning left from Botany Road into Raglan Street across the major pedestrian movement from the new station.

The traffic study suggests the bus stop next the Waterloo shops be moved to the middle of the Metro site block, which may work for buses that continue south down Botany Road but this will not work for the re-routed buses that drop at the Waterloo shops and then after George Street on Raglan Street. These new bus routes and their impact need to also be factored into the base and post development intersection modelling.

It is usual practice for the proponent to have to propose what is needed to bring intersections impacted by the development back to acceptable capacity. In this case, the proponent says the intersection is already bad and this development will not make it much worse. This argument can only work if you isolate the OSD from the Waterloo Estate. If the Metro delivers 99 peak hours vehicle movements then the combined SSP developments will deliver 756 peak hour vehicle movements on a prorate basis. Bringing the combined traffic impact into the picture, the proponents proposal that they need do nothing because their development only adds a second or two to already unacceptable average wait times cannot be accepted.

The proponent seems to admit that its decision to put a station at this location contributed significantly to the problem but then wants to duck any responsibility for it. For example, ‘Intersection modelling of the surrounding road network indicates that there would be an increase in average vehicle delay with Waterloo Station in 2036 due to the large increase in pedestrian demand, however additional impacts due to the Metro Quarter would be negligible’ and ‘Botany Road / Henderson Road / Raglan Street is forecast to experience delays with or without the Metro Quarter development by 2036’ (Waterloo Metro Quarter / State Significant Precinct Study page 130).

If possible the Department should not let the proponent through the SSP and SSDA part of the planning system duck responsibility for addressing the loss of service problem because the major  problems at the intersection relate to impacts from an earlier SSI application by the same proponent.

Some possible change of light phasing is suggested, but given that Botany Road is a key arterial thoroughfare it is difficult to see phasing being changed to improve exit times out of the site at the expense of through arterial traffic.

REDWatch is of the view that the surrounding arterial capacity roads create a major constraint for car driven development within the Waterloo Metro and Estate developments. Either the proponents need to reduce the traffic generated by the development through tight restrictions on car parking availability (to reduce ownership and usage)  or they must decrease the size of the development so it produces a workable level of peak hour car movements. Even then, REDWatch would argue that the proponent needs to come up with solutions that can deal with the level of traffic generated without further impacting the LOS on key intersections. Otherwise, there is a strong case that the site is not suitable for the level and type of development proposed.

REDWatch notes that there is a view among many public housing tenants that there should be parking with each unit. We note however that there will be only 70 public housing units in the Metro Quarter development. The more parking that is built in the more the people who buy into the site will expect to use cars. Minimal parking will attract buyers who do not own or want a car, with the consequence that there will be less people getting into cars and trying to leave the redevelopment area at peak and other times in a car.

For the combined proposal there needs to be a traffic desire line analysis so that paths for cars leaving and entering the estate from different directions can be assessed. As indicated earlier in this submission, for cars travelling west Raglan Street would be the existing desire line. It would then become possible to assess the likely wait times from various directions and not just the average wait times for all cars going through an intersection.

The main question to be answered in the SSP is what the appropriate controls for this site are. For REDWatch this question has not been appropriately answered. The traffic and transport study indicates that a low car proposal is required. The SSDA proposal doesn’t fulfil this.

Is the land usage approved appropriate?

It might be more appropriate for example, that the above station development be commercial space providing employment with minimal parking rather than residential, if the residential comes with significant parking. It is surprising that the proponents have not explored the possibility of greater commercial space on the site given the ease of access provided by the new Metro line.

Poor pedestrian movement

REDWatch is also especially concerned about the movements of pedestrians from the station and the development towards ATP as the major employer in the area. Because of the twin pair arterial roads and the station location, to get to ATP pedestrians will need to cross three streets (Raglan or Henderson, Botany Road and Wyndham Street). On a 120-second cycle, it will take up to 6 minutes waiting to “cross the road”. This is not a pedestrian friendly precinct for many who will live or arrive at the Metro Quarter.

When Premier’s Department came into Redfern in the early 2000s one of the issues it spent a lot of money on was trying to find a way to better connect Redfern Station and Redfern Street across the twin arterial roads. The Waterloo Metro development will create the same problem for people needing to cross to the ATP, Alexandria and the expanded campus of Alexandria Park Community School. The Metro development should be required to look at options for underground exits from the station especially to the western side of Botany Road for bus interchange.

REDWatch notes the plans include an optional mid-block pedestrian crossing across Botany Road however; the argument is that there is nothing to attract people to the other side. REDWatch contends that the west side bus interchange should be seen as the attractor irrespective of other attractors. If the west side bus interchange was moved close to the proposed mid-block crossing, interchange to north and south buses could share common wayfinding and be serviced through that pedestrian crossing taking some pressure off the Raglan Botany intersection pedestrian crossings and also increasing the number of cars that could left turn from Raglan Street within a cycle. Light phasing on the crossing could synchronise with the Raglan Street lights.

Is the quantity and administration of open space appropriate for the size of development?

REDWatch is concerned that there is only 15% open space in the SSP proposals. We appreciate that the City of Sydney has set this target for Central to Eveleigh corridor developments, but it is unclear to us if Council envisaged the very high-density proposal currently being proposed. Clearly the more people that you fit in a given area the greater the number of people that need to use the available open space. This is especially so for the public housing cohort. A Central Park type solution where grass gets worn out and replaced by AstroTurf or more hard surfaces does not deliver the open space amenity required in a high density development. REDWatch is of the view that the density proposed is excessive when seen alongside the public benefit.

REDWatch is also concerned that the public space will be administered by the development rather than by Council. Waterloo have had a number of problems over the year because open space has not been run by the local council. SLHD and LAHC have still not been able to reach an agreement after many years to allow health workers to pick up sharps on LAHC land like Waterloo Green.

Limited temporary Affordable housing

REDWatch has argued that the SSP developments, including the Metro site should deliver 10% affordable housing. If government owned land is not used to deliver significant quantities of affordable housing it will be difficult to see how the need for affordable housing will be met. On government land, the delivery of affordable housing should be required to meet the upper end of GSC range of 10% not the lower 5%. This is particularly important where social housing is provided so there is a transition mechanism for the so called “opportunity cohort” to move from social to affordable housing.

REDWatch certainly opposes the proposal that the affordable housing be only for 10 years. If Sydney Metro cannot make it the affordable housing in perpetuity the site should be left under the City of Sydney’s new affordable housing mechanism as this would result in long term affordable housing. Ten year affordable housing kicks the can down the road as a short-term measure. The initial extra housing this policy has produced will reach its 10-year marks soon forcing many people who have had, and continue to need, affordable housing back into the affordable housing market. Affordable housing on government owned land must be permanently gazetted.

The SSP and SSDA recognise the importance of the Aboriginal community to Redfern and Waterloo through art and cultural places. Ironically, however the local Aboriginal community is being driven out of the area because of a lack of affordable housing because of the gentrification of Redfern and Waterloo. There was a strong message out of the Visioning and Options Testing that there should be significant affordable housing delivered from these projects for specifically for Aboriginal families.

There is an over representation of Aboriginal people in public housing and some who live in the private market who bought property in the area when it was comparatively cheap or Aboriginal people who have high incomes and can afford to buy in the area. There is however almost no middle. Most Aboriginal kids who grow up in Redfern and Waterloo cannot afford move out to live in the area. They identify here and might come back and play for Redfern All Blacks, but cannot live in their traditional community.

REDWatch has argued that any redevelopment of Government land in Redfern and Waterloo needs to deliver 5% of the total hosing as affordable housing for low income Aboriginal working people. This is needed to maintain a viable mixed age and income community that can keep a viable Aboriginal community in Redfern and Waterloo into the future. If this does not happen we run the risk that, we will have artwork commemorating Redfern Waterloo as an historical Aboriginal centre but without a viable Aboriginal community living here creating a future for Aboriginal people in this place.

REDWatch proposed that of the 10% Affordable housing requested that half should be designated Aboriginal Affordable Housing and the other half provided for general affordable housing provision.

Sell off of Government Land opposed

Finally, REDWatch is opposed to the selloff of government land to fund public and affordable housing. Low income and key worker housing needs to be seen as part of the infrastructure provided for a viable long-term equitable community. The market cannot provide housing for low-income people on government benefits if it is not economic to do so. This is the point where the state needs to provide funding for accommodation for those in most need. It is also the point where the state needs to provide affordable housing for low waged workers providing key services for the city.

A model where the Government sells of government owned land to provide social and affordable is not supported by REDWatch. The proposal for build to rent models or other models that do not see scarce inner city land lost in the long run to social and affordable housing are preferred by REDWatch. For REDWatch potentially selling of 70% of social housing estates to renew 30% of social housing is not a viable long-term option, especially as the waiting list grows and public housing and lands are sold off to keep the remainder of the public housing system running.

Density is too great

REDWatch has sort to work closely with government agencies throughout the development of these plans and we welcome some of the improvements that have come from collaborations between Government, non-government and community groups. These have made improvements around the edges but not in REDWatch’s view addressed the key issue that the density proposed is too great for the location and the need for the public domain and open space to provide the level of amenity required for the bi-modal communities that will live around it.

This is especially important because the activation strategies used in many high density developments rely on a significant level of privatisation of the public domain through coffee shops, small bars and on street eating. To utilise these spaces you have to be a paying customer – what happens then to those on pensions and government benefits who cannot access these spaces where is their amenity? The retail study notes that the Waterloo shopping precinct is run down, but it is precisely this low cost precinct that services the existing public housing community. It was that community that fought for an Aldi supermarket in Waterloo. I am sure other low end chains would also bring retail offerings to the public housing tenants, but it is about more than low cost retail it is about low cost services, cheap coffee and beer and the other services they enjoy in that run down Waterloo precinct where rents are low enough to sustain these amenities.

There is much more work to be done to craft a community that will meet the needs of both ends of the income spectrum and for the reasons outlined in this submission we do not think the current proposal does that.

As a result, we urge DPE to require more work to be done on both the SSP, which we do not believe is adequate, and also on the SSDA which does not adequately address the impacts of the proposal on the surrounding area or the surrounding public housing community.

Yours Faithfully

Geoffrey Turnbull                                                                   

REDWatch Co-Spokesperson

c/- PO Box 1567

Strawberry Hills NSW 2012                                           

Ph Wk: (02) 8004 1490

Mob: 0401 529 931                                                           

email: mail@redwatch.org.au

REDWatch is a residents and friends group covering Redfern Eveleigh Darlington and Waterloo (the same area covered historically by the Redfern Waterloo Authority). REDWatch monitors government activities in the area and seeks to ensure community involvement in all decisions made about the area. More details can be found at www.redwatch.org.au.

APPENDIX:

Social Baseline Report Preliminary detail issues and comments

NOTE: REDWatch, like other NGOs, found it impossible to read both sets of documents in the time provided and to prepare a detailed submission. By necessity we limited our submission to some key issues we have raised publically and in our email updates. 

Waterloo Options Material Released

Finally, the additional material for Waterloo options testing today became accessible on the www.communitiesplus.com.au/waterloo website. It was posted the day that focus groups for options testing started. The material posted is in addition to the initial Waterloo Redevelopment Options Brochure and gives additional material to that shown to REDWatch and the WRG a month ago.

The additional material is made up of an annotated explanation of each option and artist impressions and perspective views of each option. There is also a side-by-side comparison of the three options across the five key areas that Land and Housing Corporation (LAHC) wants community feedback to focus on.

The direct link to the options boards are below:

Option 1 - Waterloo Estate

• Overview of design features
• Artist impressions and perspective views

Option 2 - Waterloo Village Green

• Overview of design features
• Artist impressions and perspective views

Option 3 - Waterloo Park

• Overview of design features
• Artist impressions and perspective views

The thematic boards comparing options are:

• Culture and community life
• Environment and open space (a second page has comparative artist impressions)
• Housing and neighbourhood design (a second page has comparative artist impressions) - Note LAHC has changed this file since first posted - new version has height ranges for low mid and high rises.
  
• Transport, streets and connections
• Shops, community services and facilities

LAHC has also released a new  Indicative Staging Plan that provides no greater detail on staging than that provided in the initial options brochure other than to state that a mix of housing will be equally distributed across the estate.

Waterloo SSP Baseline Investigations - Key Study Summaries may also be of use in looking at some of the issues on the thematic boards.

Scale Models for each of the options have also been prepared. You can see them at Waterloo Connect and the Information Days. The models are very small and lack human scale. They model the actual floor space allowed in each option. They are also the only place you will get an idea of height. Contrary to expectations, LAHC has not released the actual building heights in each model nor the associated shadow diagrams. So, you will need to pull-out your phone, turn on the torch and be your own sun to get an idea of what shadows the up to 40 storey buildings will throw. [The LAHC boards provide detail of the date and time that its shadows represent. This is helpful but it does not take the place of standard shadow diagrams for the options at the standard reference times of the year such as mid winter.]

If you plan to feed back to LAHC during options testing; you need to look at the additional options material above to make informed input and to answer the survey or group questions. You will also be able to see the above boards at the consultation events.

Options testing timeframe of concern – it maybe only 22 days!!

REDWatch is concerned that after there was considerable backlash to UrbanGrowth’s 21 days consultation for the Waterloo Metro, that LAHC is currently planning to close the options consultation 22 days after the options materials were placed on its website! The Waterloo Redevelopment Group of the Waterloo NAB negotiated with LAHC that there would be a two month period between the start of options testing and the release of the preferred option, and that the community would be able to continue to respond to options after LAHC’s focus groups were finished. With Rob Sullivan and Donna Lantavos leaving the Waterloo project these undertakings do not seem to have been passed back up the chain. We have contacted LAHC about the need to honour the undertakings that have been made to tenants. Hopefully this is just an oversight and it will be fixed soon - LAHC are looking at the issue.

The problem arises because LAHC was of the view that it would get most of what it needed to know from the focus groups. The WRG and Groundswell argued that everyone need to have access to the option materials and the opportunity to input into the process. We pushed for the options materials to be made available at the beginning of the process, two open days, the opportunity for groups to hold their own group discussions, and for the focus groups to be open to everyone through an expression of interest process. In short the community wanted as many as possible to be properly informed before they were asked to make their contribution. If the LAHC timeframe slipped, as it has, tenants did not want their time to participate cut short as a result.

How you can have your say about the options

Feedback Option 1: Information Days and Pop-Ups

Attend the Community Information Days on 13 October 2018, 10-2pm and / or 26 October 2018, 2-5pm on Waterloo Green. All the options material will be on display and you can make comments to the people on the stands. A free BBQ and refreshments will be available. Pop-up consultations will also be held at various other times. Contact Waterloo Connect for details at Shop 2, 95 Wellington Street, Waterloo waterlooconnect@facs.nsw.gov.au or 1800 738 718

Feedback Option 2: Survey

A survey is online at Waterloo consultation survey and you will be able to complete the survey at the Information Days and pop ups if you cannot get online. To complete the survey you really need to have the support materials in front of you because the survey asks you a question about aspects of each of the options, which option you prefer,  what is most important for you in preparing a plan and how you would like social, affordable and private housing mixed. You can get a print version of the survey from Waterloo Connect or download it from the REDWatch website here before you do the survey.

Feedback Option 3: Focus Groups

LAHC is holding 13 focus groups of people from different groups. Most of these will be groups of around 10 people. If you wish to be in one of these contact Waterloo Connect at waterlooconnect@facs.nsw.gov.au or call 1800 738 718. You can see a timetable for proposed focus groups here. Registering for a focus group does not mean that you will be selected to participate.

Feedback Option 4: Hold your own discussion

Focus Groups will not cover everyone so if you and some friends, your church, club or social group want to hold your own discussion then you can do so. A study guide is being prepared, similar to the questions for the focus groups. Here is the link to download the Options consultation kit for groups. You can also contact Counterpoint at The Factory or Inner Sydney Voice for the guide and any assistance you may need. You can report your group’s comments to LAHC. Apart from inputting into the process, it is likely that a group discussion will help people in the group better understand the proposed options and inform their discussions with other members of the community.

21 March 2002 - Redfern/Waterloo Package of Initiatives announced with $7.2M funding over 3 years to target the highest priorities identified by the community. The Redfern Waterloo Partnership Project (RWPP) established following stone throwing by youth at buses in Elizabeth St and after calls for government to address issues in Redfern. It was established through the place making section of NSW Premier’s Department in partnership with South Sydney Council, which was subsumed by City of Sydney in 2004.

2003

March 2003 - The Redfern Waterloo Street Team established (Central Sydney Area Health Service, Metropolitan Local Land Council, South Sydney Youth Services, Aboriginal Resource Centre with DoCS Metro South East Region as lead agency)

October 2003 - RWPP called for nominations for a Community Council to advise the RWPP on community concerns about Redfern Waterloo issues. It includes elected representatives as well as representatives from different sectors. Appointed for 12 months it met during 2004.

2004

6 February 2004 - Redfern-Waterloo added to City of Sydney LGA when South Sydney Council was and City of Sydney merged by proclamation.

14 February 2004 - Civil Unrest upon death of an Aboriginal young person.

March 2004 - Redfern Community Centre opened after years of discussion and pushing by groups like Redfern Residents for Reconciliation for a Council run community centre next to The Block.

First half of 2004 - Morgan Disney undertook a review of Redfern/Waterloo Human Services.

10 March 2004 - Redfern-Waterloo Community Safety Plan adopted by Council. It operated from 2004 to 2007. It was produced by the Redfern-Waterloo Community Safety Plan Taskforce and was an initiative of the RWPP with Council as the lead agency. Redfern Waterloo Community Safety Plan

March 2004 - Redfern-Waterloo Community Safety Plan Action Review (copy held)

2004 - Centacare’s Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Counselling Service Program funded under The RWPP located at The Factory as a partnership project.

27 May 2004 - State Government Extends Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project until 2006 announced. At the time of the announcement, RWPP programmes included:

• The eight-person Redfern-Waterloo street team, which operated seven days a week and worked with children and young people, aged 11 to 16 years
• A specialist three-person Department of Community Services (DoCS) team, which provides a whole of government approach to dealing with high risk children;
• Barnardo's Intensive Family Support Service-which provided an intensive home visiting service to local families;
• Mudgin-Gal Aboriginal Home Family Support Service-provided practical support for Aboriginal families;
• Mentoring programs and the Redfern Police Youth Holiday Camps to build or restore relationships between local kids and police; and
• Redfern-Waterloo Anti-Drug Strategy-which targeted the commercial supply of heroin and related social issues.

2004 - Strike force Coburn – Analysis of Redfern Local Area Command Response To Civil Unrest 15-16 February 2004 - www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/Pages/inquiryprofile/issues-relating-to-redfernwaterloo.aspx#tab-otherdocuments

August 2004 - Interim Report on Inquiry into issues relating to Redfern and Waterloo - Final Report December 2004 NSW Government Report to Inquiry into issues relating to Redfern Waterloo

December 2004 - The Redfern-Waterloo Plan #1 factsheet advises the RWPP to continue until 2008 in parallel with the RWA, produced Human Services plans with Govt and NGOs working together to solve the areas problems with Government moving towards pooling funding and or amalgamating services (copy of factsheet held)

November 2004 - Making Connections: Better Services, Stronger Community – Report on Review of the Human Services System in Redfern and Waterloo for NSW Premier’s Department. Morgan Disney & Associates released. Review of Human Services in Redfern and Waterloo

December 2004 – Lawson Street Community Health Centre announced Community Health Facility Factsheet and Redfern Mobile Needle Exchange Van To Close and New Primary Health Care Facility to Open

December 2004 - Government Announces Jobs Plan for Redfern Waterloo

3 December 2004 - Human Services review Factsheet released explains outcome of Morgan Disney report and announces the Implementation Working Group Human Services Review Factsheet

2005

March 2005 - Human Services Advisory Committee (HSAC) with Govt and NGO Co-Chairs replaced the proposed Human Services Implementation Working Group (HSIWG). It first met on 3 March 2005 as part of the transition of Human Services from RWPP to RWA completed by 30 June 2005. It eventually becomes the Human Services Ministerial Advisory Committee (HSMAC) Redfern-Waterloo Human Services E-Newsletter - Issue One - March 2005

April and May 2005 - Cluster Groups held. The Cluster Groups were Aboriginal, Health, Families and Children and Youth clusters. Links to final cluster reports:

• Aboriginal Services: Final Cluster Group Report
• Family & Children's Services Final Cluster Group Report
• Health Services Final Report
• Youth Services Final Cluster Group Report

April 2005 - Reshaping Public Housing announcement of changes in eligibility and income criteria to ensure that access to public housing is targeted to those most in need. This increased the level of human service needs of people coming into and in public housing, which is cumulative over time.

May 2005 - CEO Steering Group established to advise the minister on the content of the Human Services Plan Redfern-Waterloo Human Services E-Newsletter – Issue 3 - May 2005 and CEO Steering Committee Announcement

May 2005 - Implementation Senior Officers Group set up in Human Services Plan

26 May 2005 - Case Co-ordination Framework Direction regarding privacy arrangements signed for management of complex cases and crisis cases involving children, young people and families in the Redfern-Waterloo area. The Case Co-ordination Project went on to include NGOs under HSP1 (printed copy held).

June 2005 - Evaluation of the Redfern/Waterloo Pathways to Prevention Project by Erebus International (printed copy held)

16 June 2005 - Terms of reference released for Employment and Enterprise Advisory Committee and the Built Environment Advisory Committee to sit alongside the earlier Human Services Advisory Committee Ministerial Advisory Committees Terms of Reference

1 July 2005 - Redfern Waterloo Partnership Project absorbed into RWA. This has significant implications for human service follow up.

July 2005 - Miller Group conducts community consultation about community reaction to the Lawson Street Redfern Community Health Facility to assess alternative locations. Report was never released but it is subsequently announced Redfern Community Health Facility will be located in the former Court House and Police Station.

October 2005 - Draft of RWA Human Services Plan Phase 1 (children and families, Aboriginal people, young people, health services) released for comment and submissions. Draft Human Services Plan - October 2005

October November 2005 - Comment and submission on Draft RWA Human Services Plan 1 - Submissions can be seen at Redfern Waterloo Human Services Plan Phase 1. Elizabeth Rice’s comments were of particularly of interest given her previous work for NSW Human Service’s CEOs Group.

October 2005 - Reading List supplied by RWA on One Stop Shops

December 2005 - Final RWA Human Services Plan Phase 1 released (Children and families, Aboriginal People, Young People, Health services) RWA Final Human Services Plan (Phase 1) - 22 December 2005 - PDF and Final Human Services Plan comparison with Draft

October 2005 - The Draft Redfern Waterloo Street Team Evaluation December 2005 RPR Consulting  Appendix released as RWST Literature and program review (full copy of draft held).

December 2005 - The Final Redfern Waterloo Street Team Evaluation by RPR Consulting – Release of report under FOI denied - The Street Team was subsequently wound up.

14 December 2005 - Report on Youth Taskforce and Youth Cluster Outcomes by EJD Consulting (print copy held) – This is the May 2006 membership of the RWA Youth Taskforce Membership

12 December 2005 - Draft RWA Employment and Enterprise Plan released and a couple of submissions are at Draft Employment and Enterprise Plan - 12 December 2005

Late 2005 and early 2006 - A series of Taskforces announced including:

• Youth Taskforce  December 2005
• Capacity Building Taskforce January 2006
• Street Drinking Taskforce January 2006
• Family Violence Taskforce March 2006
• Youth Health Services Working Group April 2006

2006

2006 - Draft Housing and Human Services Accord  on exhibition and finalised in 2007. Little information on HNSW website about progress. Is this a basis useful for Waterloo Human Services?

April 2006 - Human Services Plan Implementation Framework and Report #1 (not released)

19 May 2006 - Final RWA Employment and Enterprise Plan Redfern-Waterloo Employment and Enterprise Plan 19 May 2006 - PDF and Comparison of Draft and Final Redfern-Waterloo Employment and Enterprise Plans

1 June 2006 - A ten-year Redfern – Waterloo Partnership Agreement signed between the Commonwealth and NSW to co-operate on enhancing the economic and social revitalisation of Redfern-Waterloo in relation to the Indigenous community (print copy held by REDWatch).

6 June 2006 - The RWA Human Services RWA Evaluation Framework and RWA Human Services Plan Performance Indicators .

24-25 July 2006 - RWA Human Services 2 day Forum – Issues Papers and workshop reports along with comments on the Forum papers and the draft Human Services Plan Phase 2 are under Human Services Plan Phase 2 on the REDWatch website.

October 2006 - Draft RWA Human Services Plan Phase 2 (Older people, people with disabilities, migrant communities, homeless people) released October 2006.

November 2006 - Redfern Waterloo Case Co-ordination Framework Guidelines (soft copy held). This replaced the Redfern Waterloo Case Co-ordination Principles and Guidelines (revised early 2006) to reflect programme running under joint auspice of Senior Offices Group and operational Management Group (operational mangers and NGOs).

November 2006 - Creating a Culture of Work in the Redfern Waterloo Area by Arrilla Indigenous Consultants and Services - Creating a Culture of Work in the Redfern Waterloo Area

2007

May 2007 - Human Services Plan Implementation Report #2 (not released)

14 June 2007 - Redfern LAC finalised Waterloo Green Safety Audit (soft copy held)

16 August 2007 - Helen Campbell EO of Redfern Legal Centre is not reappointed to the Human Services Ministerial Advisory Committee and provides report to community on her time on the HSMAC - HSMAC NGO Report Back - 16th August 2007

September 2007 -The Waterloo Green Action Plan 2007 – HSMAC response to community concerns about anti-social behaviour and related safety issues on Waterloo Green response has a Human Services element - Waterloo Green Action Plan

2008

May 2008 - Redfern-Waterloo Community Safety Plan Process and Outcome Evaluation by Jenny Bargen CHD Partners. Redfern LAC’s CSPC subsumed the Community Safety Taskforce and the Community Safety Plan was absorbed into a Citywide Safe City Strategy 2007-2012. The Neighbourhood Advisory Boards continued Safety Audits of the public housing estates.  Redfern-Waterloo Community Safety Plan Evaluation 2008

July 2008 – Final RWA Human Services Plan Phase 2 (Older people, people with disabilities, migrant communities, homeless people) Draft was October 2006 - RWA Human Services Plan Phase 2 - July 2008 and Human Services Plan Text Comparison of Final with Draft

2008 - Establishment of Redfern Waterloo Community Drug Action Team (CDAT) with Government and Non-Government agencies.

2008 - A Community Assistance Support Team (CAST) was established to engage Street Drinkers.

July 2008 - 18 Month Evaluation of Human Services Plan Phase 1 released. This is the only evaluation released even though regular evaluation was promised over its 10 year life (It wound up after 6 years with the RWA windup) Human Services Plan Phase 1 - 18 Month Evaluation Report

30 Sept 2008 - Community Safety Meeting about problems around Waterloo Shops – (Minutes held)

October 2008 - Community Safety Survey Results Redfern/Waterloo local businesses (copy held)

2008 - Waterloo NAB restructures into Thematic Action Groups, the Waterloo Learning Employment Enterprise Action Group (LEEAG), Waterloo Safety Audit Group (WSAG) (subsequently Waterloo Wellness Safety Audit Group (WWSAG)), Waterloo Events Group (subsequently the Redfern & Waterloo NAB Events Group) and Housing Standards.

November 2008 - Inquiry into Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage Final Report 081125 Final Report for website.pdf

2009

2009 - Possibility of wet centre for street drinkers explored by City of Sydney and FaCS.

14 July 2009 - MOU between City of Sydney and Housing NSW 2009-2012 to work collaboratively with the community to significantly improve the amenity, safety, health and well-being of residents living in and around public housing areas MOU between City of Sydney and Housing NSW

July 2009 – High-rise caretakers like in Scotland at the top of wish list supplied by The Factory to Local Member and Planning Minister Kristina Keneally.

November 2009 - NSW Ombudsman Report on The implementation of the Joint Guarantee of Service for People with Mental Health Problems and disorders living in Aboriginal, Community and Public Housing

2009 - Change in Legislation to allow Alcohol Free Zones on LAHC land achieved.

2010

January 2010 - National Centre for Indigenous Excellence opened its doors on the former Redfern Public School site.

February 2010 - Redfern Health Centre opened in the former Court House / Police Station site.

19 February 2010 - Waterloo Green Neighbourhood Project publically announced. Project was to place concierges into building improve security, address maintenance and provide jobs for public housing tenants. Pilot for Stronger and Safer High Rise Public Housing

April 2010 – Waterloo NAB LLAG’s 11 week landscape gardening course starts

2010 - Redfern Waterloo Drug and Alcohol Taskforce established (Govt & NGO)

October 2010 - RWA Family Violence Taskforce, Action Plan and Forum (NGOs admitted in October 2009)

2010 - NSW DoCS Early Intervention Team with a manager and four case workers covering the Redfern Waterloo area

October 2010 - What the Community told us (Report on Key Stakeholder Consultation) HNSW

2011

27 January 2011 - RWA Places Draft Built Environment Plan Stage 2 for Redfern and Waterloo public housing on exhibition. Many submissions made over the following month – for details see Built Environment Plan Phase 2 - Public Housing Estates

2011 - Draft Community Services Consultative Framework discussed with agencies

6 April 2011 - REDWatch and NGO’s establish Groundswell Redfern-Waterloo in response to the need for training and capacity building following the BEP2 announcement.

29 April 2011 - Redfern Waterloo Public Housing Tenant Survey HNSW Housing NSW Baseline Study

15 June 2011 - Redfern Waterloo Operational Area Social Infrastructure Plan NGO Workshop by Cred Community Planning. Government agencies workshop held 29 June 2011. A combined NGO and Government Workshop was then held on 27 July 2011 – report Community Facilities Review - Cred Community Planning

July 2011 - The $138,000 federally funded Beyond Walls project commences operation out of the Factory Community Centre to work with street drinkers. The RWA supported the project, which was to make recommendations to CDAT. Only limited term funding secured and the project lapsed within 2 years for lack of funding.

July 2011 - RWA Stakeholder Engagement Report on Feedback Received from Exhibition of the draft BEP2 – this report on the BEP2 consultation refers to human health issues raised in submissions. (soft copy held). RWA Releases BEP2 Stakeholder Engagement Report

August 2011 - Housing and Mental Health Agreement - The primary mechanisms for implementing the Agreement are the Housing and Mental Health District Implementation and Coordinating Committees (DIACCs). The agreement was to be implemented in partnership with NGOs. Last Housing and Mental Health Agreement - Annual Report 2013-14 indicates implementation hampered by restructuring in FACs regions and programmes, which has been ongoing since Going Home Staying Home.

August 2011 - HNSW Preliminary Master Plan Consultations for Redfern and Waterloo start - HNSW Preliminary Master Plan

November 2011 - Redfern Community Safety Audit (2010) released after much delay and agitation. It raised a number of concerns about safety and Redfern public housing Redfern Community Safety Audit (2010),

31 December 2011 - Windup of RWA. Its ends RWA’s Human Services Co-ordination and operation of committees such as HSMAC EEMAC and BEMAC. Some employment programmes passed to ATP and human service programmes were to continue under relevant agencies. As there was no longer a central co-ordination point to refer Human Service issues, from this point onwards, we have included approaches made directly to agencies with the aim of achieving improved human service outcomes in this document as getting action became a major issue.

2012

April 2012 - Scotland establishes Social Housing Charter recognised the need to ensure tenant support. There are calls for it to be implemented in NSW - Scotland Housing sets a high bar – Can NSW measure up?

May 2012 - SMDA Report for Social Impact Scoping and Assessment Consultation Outcomes Report

2012 - What Residents want out of the Redfern & Waterloo Preliminary Master Plan HNSW – feedback from tenants for Redfern and Waterloo (copy held). Details of the Preliminary Master Plan (PMP) were never released. After a review of the PMP and BEP2 by the Government Architect, government did not proceed with planning controls or master plans for Redfern or Waterloo.

13 September 2012 – Critical incident in McKell Building Redfern. The next day The Factory raised concerns in an email to senior agency people about the co-ordination hole left with the winding up of human services co-ordination by the RWA.

16 October 2012 - Special Community Safety Meeting initiated about Housing Issues requiring attention especially those raised by Redfern NAB

30 October 2012 - Community Forum at Redfern Community Health Centre on proposal for Automatic Needle Dispensing Machine Redfern Health Centre After Hours Needle Dispensing Machine

November 2012 - Draft Waterloo Green Neighbourhood Project: Mid Term Evaluation by Hal Pawson and Crystal Legacy City Futures Research Centre UNSW. (Only Executive Summary released).

December 2012 - Waterloo Safety Audit report released, conducted by Waterloo Neighbourhood Advisory Board lead by City of Sydney Council Waterloo Safety Audit report 2012

December 2012 - ADM Management Plan Working Group established includes NGOs and interested community members. Draft SSWSHS Redfern Harm Minimisation Program Management Plan

2013

4 February 2013 - Push for new HS mechanism with SMDA and other parties as reported in South Sydney Herald in - www.southsydneyherald.com.au/human-services-co-ordination/#.URIDDWciuN4

January 2013 - Kate Reakes started in her part time role of SLHD’s Harm Minimisation Program Manager and liaison officer. Kate successfully provided the link role between SLHD and the community that NGOs and REDWatch had requested. The case for the 2018 SLHD senior Link worker role was based on Kate’s early work.

Early 2013 - A human services group, involving NSW Health, senior Police, Housing, Family and Community Services was set up during the Automatic Dispensing Machine (ADM) discussion. This group expanded in early 2013 and was to meet monthly to address Redfern’s complex social, drug and welfare issues. In the second half of the year, NGO and community representatives were invited to every second meeting until this ceased. Sydney Local Health District Statement on Installation

March April 2013 - Discussions regarding need for NGO and community involvement in a human services integration mechanism with Area Directors Clive Bradshaw and Paul O’Reilly as well as with SLHD’s Nobby Alcala and the Redfern LAC Commander

26 June 2013 - City of Sydney Social Housing Wellbeing and Safety Action Plan Workshop. A draft plan was prepared but not progressed

28 November 2013 - Letter to Co-ordinated Services on Health & Drug Related Issues about every second meeting not working for community and NGO representatives. Long standing mechanism like CDAT were also sidelined from a process that they had focused on for many years.  (copy held)

2014

28 January 2014 - In response to the letter about process the Co-ordinated Services on Health & Drug Related Issues Committee unanimously agreed that community members should not be at the table. The agencies were not comfortable with community people at the table as there were concerns about confidentiality / high level co-ordination and a need to focus on drug health. From this point, onwards NGOs and community groups received only an occasional glimpse of what agencies were doing in Redfern and Waterloo. At some point, a decision was made to wind up this group.

May 2014 - First collections from sharps bins introduced to Redfern and Waterloo Estates after community pressure based on success of Northcott bins. The Factory / Counterpoint asked to manage trial on the three sites.

September 2014 - Meeting about setting up a broad human services group with Karen Kiel from SLHD

November 2014 – The Factory applied for The Floating Support, to support tenants at risk of eviction, via Partners in Recovery Inner West Sydney (unsuccessful)

2015

January 2015 – Peter Jack started working in Redfern as the Aboriginal AOD Outreach Worker for Sydney Local Health District

4 February 2015 - Following Sept 2014 meeting Karen Keil from SLHD proposed a Draft Terms of Reference for a Govt NGO mechanism

20 April 2015 - Michael Shreenan provided feedback on Govt NGO mechanism

Mid 2015 - Consultation undertaken by Judith Stubbs and Colleen Lux regarding Redlink

June 2015 – Waterloo Low Rise Building Safety Audit report released, conducted by Waterloo Neighbourhood Board lead by Counterpoint (previously The Factory and subsequently it merged with South Sydney Community Aid). Waterloo Low Rise Building Safety Audit 2015

15 July 2015 - Karen Keil from SLHD advises Health currently reluctant to establish another committee.

29 July 2015 - Redlink launched in Redfern with $1.3m committed for the centre and its outreach services. It operates out of the McKell building after a $3.2m security upgrade.

31 July 2015 - REDWatch formally proposes to Redfern Co-ordinated Services on Health & Drug Related Issues a broader human services co-ordination mechanism for human service co-ordination in Redfern and Waterloo following individual discussions at Redlink launch.

24 September 2015 – Letter from Redfern Co-ordinated Services on Health & Drug Related Issues advised that they could see no “obvious benefit” for an additional meeting.

26 October 2015 - City of Sydney Council resolved to write to FACS Minister to advocate for better coordination of service delivery and a mechanism for community consultation and representation following concerns from NGO’s REDWatch and NABs about the response to a establishing such a mechanism.

December 2015 – Sydney Local Health District submitted joint funding application with NUUA under the Social Housing Community Improvement Fund re: sharps waste management in Redfern and Waterloo (unsuccessful)

16 December 2015 - Waterloo Estate & Waterloo Metro redevelopment announcements.

2016

11 February 2016 - Minister Hazzard asked to address Human Services in parallel with Master Planning by Councillor Irene Doutney at Public Meeting early 2016. Minister asks Paul Vevers to follow it up.

18 February 2016 – Minister Hazzard NCIE Meeting

22 March 2016 - Draft Central to Eveleigh Infrastructure and Social Issues Review (Darted September 2015) released.

2016 - REDWatch Called for Human Services alongside Master Plan and has discussions with FACS Regional Director Mandy Young about a human services mechanism.

5 July 2016 - Tenant Support Service Co-ordination Workshop on human services with Mandy Young. Follow up meeting in July (report of 5 July meeting held).

August 2016 - SLHD asks Inner Sydney Voice to sit on Green Square Health Impact Assessment (HIA) Steering Committee

Late 2016 and early 2017 - Counterpoint and Inner Sydney Voice seek to follow up on Tenant Support Service Co-ordination with Gary Groves after he replaces Mandy Young and in Targeted Early Intervention (TEI) forums.

2017

10 March 2017 - SLHD EquityFest – Dr Teresa Anderson announced SLHD will also do HIA for Waterloo

1 May 2017 - Meeting with Dr Teresa Anderson at SLHD to map out Health needs in Waterloo. This involved the need for a HIA lens across the Master Plan, a Waterloo Health worker, a Waterloo Health Forum and the need for Human Service integration in Waterloo.

July 2017 – UNSW Community Development Project (CDP) ceases after 20 years in Redfern and Waterloo

2 August 2017 - REDWatch letter to FACS Executive requesting Human Service Plan and reply from Anne Skewes advising there will be a significant human services stream alongside the master plan.

August 2017 - SLHD undertakes gaps analysis of Waterloo studies with Health Impact Assessment Lens

August 2017 – Redfern NAB carries out Community Safety Audit, report being finalised

September 2017 - Draft Redlink Evaluation Stage 1: Process Evaluation by Judy Stubbs

27 & 28 September 2017 - SLHD’s Building a Healthy and Resilient Waterloo Now and into the Future Forum

16 November 2017 - Human Service Element in Master Plan Workshop for NGO Managers.

30 November 2017 - Human Services element in Waterloo Master Plan Workshop for NGO frontline staff.

2018

February 2018 - Scheduled start date for SLHD Waterloo Health Link worker

List of Government Agencies Involved in earlier Redfern Waterloo Human Services Co-ordination:

Human Service Govt bodies under Case Coordination Framework:

• NSW Police
• Department of Community Services
• Department of Health
• Department of Housing / Housing NSW
• Department of Aboriginal Affairs
• Department of Education and Training / TAFE NSW
• Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care
• Department of Corrective Services
• Department of Juvenile Justice
• Premiers Department
• Sydney South West Area Health Service
• Redfern Waterloo Authority

HSP Review includes above plus

• City of Sydney
• Australian Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
• NSW Attorney General’s department

This potted history has been prepared by

Geoff Turnbull, REDWatch Co-Spokesperson

16 January 2018

Ross Smith: Grass roots activist, compassionate supporter, uncompromising advocate, faithful friend … and sorely missed. Photo: Kings Cross Community Centre

Michael Shreenan from The Factory anchored the morning, which was opened with an Acknowledgement of Country by Auntie Millie Ingram and closed by the Rev. Dorothy McRae-McMahon on behalf of The South Sydney Herald and South Sydney Uniting Church.

Images of Ross were on display around the room and during a tribute at the beginning of the memorial. A video by Clare Lewis of a recent Tour of Beauty showed Ross talking about his favourite subject – the Waterloo Estate and public housing. Those gathered heard Ross in his own words as Simon Shabshay, a fellow Neighbourhood Advisory Board (NAB) representative, read Ross’s contribution to the 2012 RedWater montage Volunteers… the Heart of our Community

“When you live in an area, you get to know people and you get involved in the area. I’ve associated with different organisations over that period… and you sort of get kidnapped! You become involved in the direction of them, the policies, where they’re going and what they attempt to do …

What do I get out of it? It’s a community; it’s a family; you’re part of a structure. Call it what you like, you’re part of the area that you live in. When people ask why I become involved in community work like this, I tell them that it’s because I’d like to think that one day someone would help me. And why be scared? It’s a community – if you have any concern for the people around you, if you’d like to have friends, be able to nod to people as you go down the street and say hello to them … it’s only a small extension from that to ask them how they’re feeling today and having a brief conversation with them. It’s about being friendly; talking to people and relating to people. In the inner city in particular, it can be a very lonely place if you don’t want to talk to people.

So don’t be scared – it can’t bite you!

Volunteering is your choice, as far as what you get involved in, and the degree to which you become involved.”

Geoff Turnbull on behalf of REDWatch dedicated the song “Across the Western Suburbs” to Ross.

Speakers including close friends Jose Perez, Dianna Whitworth and Rozita Dei Leoni covered the range of Ross’s involvements. The speakers were either involved locally with Ross or in his activities regionally or at a state level representing tenants.

Brett Louat and Michael Modder from Housing NSW, an agency of the NSW Department of Family and Community Services, spoke on behalf of the large number of bureaucrats Ross had dealt with over the years, many of whom were present. Tanya Plibersek spoke because Ross was a very active member of the Labor Party, involved on many ALP committees at various levels of government.

Finally, Bill Yan from South Sydney Community Aid (SSCA) and Katherine Johnston from the Kings Cross Community Centre spoke representing community organisations. Over the last 30-40 years Ross was on boards of management at SSCA, the Factory Community Centre, the Central Sydney Region Public Tenants Council, Waterloo NAB, Social Housing Tenant Advisory Committee and other organisations.

A life spent in service to the community – Garry Mallard

The public housing sector mourns the loss of one of its most colourful characters, long-time Waterloo resident, advocate and activist.

Ross passed away unexpectedly while on Waterloo Green in the heart of the community he loved so much. He had been running one of the many regular errands his community depended upon and appears to have passed away relatively peacefully.

He was relentless in his pursuit of fair treatment for social housing tenants and worked tirelessly to give meaning to often cynical Tenant Participation processes. Ross’s capacity to analyse and assess the risk of policies on the run and in every detail was formidable. His powers of recall and his intimate knowledge of social housing history were matched by few.

Sometimes abrasive and often misjudged, Ross’s commitment to his community was completely selfless and his many acts of compassion in support of the elderly and disadvantaged have been too long overlooked by those who saw only the fierce and uncompromising advocate. Few have given more time and effort to the affordable housing sector and with such passion as Ross and his death is an incalculable loss to grass roots activism.

Ross will be missed by community members, friends, colleagues and adversaries alike, who will draw some solace from the certain knowledge that any issues the residents of the afterlife may be experiencing right now will be well and truly sorted by the time we arrive.

Plenus annis abiit, plenus honoribus
(He is gone from us, full of years and full of honours)

Source: South Sydney Heald December 2016 - http://www.southsydneyherald.com.au/community-gathers-to-remember-ross-leslie-smith-1941-2016

He was relentless in his pursuit of fair treatment for social housing tenants and worked tirelessly to give meaning to often cynical Tenant Participation processes. Ross’ capacity to analyse and risk access policy on the run and in every detail was formidable. His powers of recall and his intimate knowledge of social housing history were matched by few.

Sometimes abrasive and often misjudged, Ross’ commitment to his community was completely selfless and his many acts of compassion in support of the elderly and disadvantaged of his community have been too long overlooked by those who saw only the fierce and uncompromising advocate. Few have given more time and effort to the affordable housing sector and with such passion as Ross and his death is an incalculable loss to grass roots activism.

Ross will be missed by community members, friends, colleagues and adversaries alike, who will draw some solace from the certain knowledge that any issues the residents of the afterlife may be experiencing right now, will be well and truly sorted by the time we arrive.

Plenus annis abiit, plenus honoribus
(He is gone from us, full of years and full of honours)

Garry Mallard is a long time housing activist and friend of Ross Smiths

Ross

At morning tea

he usually sat on the stairs,

a tall man folded up, fitting

long limbs into a narrow space.

Late evenings he often walked

through Waterloo Green

as my dog came down

for its last micturition.

‘Hello,’ he’d say, ‘Time

you took your mother upstairs

and made her a cup of tea.’

Morning, afternoon he was busy

with odd jobs, scheduled meetings

about bicycle paths, garden fences,

decayed spouting, inconvenient

trees or neighbours, street lighting,

equity for walk-ups, tenants’ rights,

and delivering the South Sydney Herald;

a faithful man filling a generous space.

He usually wore a polo shirt,

a blue of faded intensity,

and he often turned scarlet

lowering his head

and I could hear his anger

pawing at the ground.

It is strange and painful,

that someone

so particularly present can

suddenly

not be there.

Catherine Skipper

(For Ross Smith)

We loved him and he loved us

Many topics we liked to discuss

Identity politics, abandonment

of the working class

He loved us and we loved him

The way is a state of delirium

Making our prayers

to regain equilibrium

Revolution

We loved him and he loved us

Reading a book by Saint Maximus

About a time before passions,

ignorance, illness

Revolution

He loved us and we loved him

The state is a site of delirium

Calling on Jesus –

on every poor, renegade pilgrim

Revolution

Cherries for Christmas,

a coffee to the brim

A paper to deliver in the interim

Many are the things

we hold in common,

and we loved him

Revolution

Andrew Collis

There is a web page looking for comment on the Sydney University vs Waterloo station proposals which can be found  here – currently lots of comments in support of Sydney University option. 

The Waterloo Station detail is sketchy. The official map Sydney Metro Waterloo - Sydney University Options seems to be centred on Waterloo Green on Raglan Street however this is thought to be unlikely as that is where the airport line goes. A JBA Urban Planning consultants have produced a paper on  Sydney Metro Key Stations –this paper has the station centred on the existing Waterloo shops. It also has Sydney University centred on where the University joins Victoria Park.

Either Waterloo option would fit with the stated aim of connections to Botany Road buses and UrbanGrowth’s density proposal based on the Waterloo station option being accepted – see UrbanGrowth’s Indicative Density Central to Eveleigh May 30 2015

The proposal says of a Waterloo Station:

A new metro station at Waterloo would help revitalise the Waterloo precinct and support the extension of the CBD to the south.

It would also:

• Provide a high quality connection with bus services along Botany Road 
• Provide additional connectivity to Australian Technology Park and Redfern Station
• Contribute to the NSW Government objective to transform Waterloo and Redfern.

The metro station would also allow further development and expansion of the Global Economic Corridor between the Sydney CBD and Green Square.

UrbanGrowth have their consultation underway during June on http://engage.centraltoeveleigh.com.au/

We encourage you to look at these proposals and make your views known.

“There was a history of mistrust and hatred between the Aboriginal community and the police that needed to be reconciled. This stemmed from the Aboriginal Protection Board era when kids were taken from their families and it was up to the local sergeant and constable in the area to do that.

“Back in the mid ’80s the Aboriginal community and the police decided they wanted a better relationship so they put together Aboriginal units within the police service and from these units employed Aboriginal Community Liaison Officers.

“A key role of an ACLO is to intervene when an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person is in custody. They make sure that their legal rights are met, that they are fine, and not at risk of harm or hurt in any way. We also contact legal services and family friends.

“When I started we really saw the need to build on this liaison work and work more closely with the community, especially young people.

“In the late ’90s it seemed like we were fighting a losing battle with the drug use and associated crime in the area. It was distressing for many of us who have lived in the area for years to see our own people selling drugs to kids.

“Then the police started programs in partnerships with the community. For example, about six years ago we organised camps with the kids. This proved to be very successful. I started to hear of kids that would come to the police station and ask for a certain constable or sergeant who they had met on the camp. If the kids saw an officer on the street they would stop and talk to them. They wouldn’t run away if they saw a police vehicle on The Block. That’s one of the things we don’t want anymore. We don’t want the kids to be scared of police. We want to build up a really good rapport.

“And about four years ago the current Local Area Commander, Superintendent Luke Freudenstein, launched the Clean Slate Without Prejudice program which is a program that worked with the kids who were getting into trouble, trying to clean up their act. They would participate in a variety of programs such as boxing, touch football, OzTag or anything like that. Tribal Warrior, a community organisation led by Shane Phillips and managed by the elders, worked very hard to make these programs a success by running mentoring programs.

“Our crime rate with youth in the area has dropped dramatically over the years. It really has, and it is all thanks to people like Shane Phillips, Superintendent Luke Freudenstein, our youth liaison officers and many others.

“Holding the Family and Culture Day every month on The Block for the last four years has also brought positive change. Shane Phillips and others involved would get out days before these events, walk around The Block, knocking on doors and handing out brochures, spreading the message that these days were for our community, to bring the community back together and that there will be no dealers, no drugs and no alcohol. The police were keen to come along to the events to show their support.

“Now that The Block is under development, the event has moved to Waterloo Green. The first was held in February and was a great success. There was face painting, jumping castles, live entertainment, and with a variety of cultures such as Chinese dancers and international singers. We see it as an opportunity for elders and children to feel comfortable and safe in their community.”

The next Family and Culture Day will be on Saturday May 26, from 12 midday to 3pm at Waterloo Green.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury) [5.23 p.m.]: I speak on behalf of the Opposition on the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Repeal Bill 2011. The proposed amendments to the Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Act 1974 are welcomed by the Opposition because they continue the strategy and good work of the previous Labor Government in encouraging urban renewal, including by way of transport reform. I know the member for Heffron will address that point so I will not dwell on it. I do not make a political point but this was commenced by the previous Government and this bill continues that work.

The amendments deal with repealing the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Act 2004 and amending the Growth Centres Act to allow the transfer of assets, rights, liabilities and certain functions of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority to the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority. On 21 February 2010 the Labor Government announced the setting up of the new Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority as part of the wider Metropolitan Transport Plan: Connecting the City of Cities reforms, which built on the success of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority model.

I watched with great interest the creation and development of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority, partly because it was such a new thing to do and partly because it focused on particular urban areas in Sydney. Redfern, which is an extraordinary part of Sydney, has a history of industrialisation. Aboriginal communities settled there in the 1930s and migrant people moved there when they arrived in Australia, particularly post-World War I and World War II. Redfern has a colourful history for many reasons. The Eveleigh Street railway yards are also located at Redfern, and the redevelopment of that site under the Redfern-Waterloo Authority has been wonderful to behold. It has added markets and cultural developments in that part of the world and it has added cultural developments for the whole city.

The authority has created a new precinct in a part of the city that was not being used. When one goes down to the Eveleigh Street railway yards and sees the magnificent way in which the railway yards are being used to create urban spaces it makes one very proud. It was always our intention in government to incorporate the Redfern-Waterloo Authority within the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority to expand on its capacity to deliver meaningful urban developments, particularly in the area of transport. The Redfern-Waterloo Authority brings with it to the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority a number of key assets that are of Sydney, regional and state-wide significance.

Those assets include the now iconic Australian Technology Park, which continues to be a source of innovation excellence for the community and business. The New South Wales Labor Opposition is watching Australian Technology Park carefully to see how it progresses under the new Government. The Australian Technology Park acts as a catalyst for the development and funding of new intellectual property. This activity lies at the very heart of long-term job creation momentum in New South Wales by raising the growth potential of the economy. Indeed, as the global financial crisis continues to linger into its fourth year the Australian Technology Park remains crucial in supporting and creating new jobs and business opportunities.

The Redfern-Waterloo Authority also maintains its jurisdiction over key development sites at Redfern, Waterloo and the former Carlton United Brewery site at Broadway. Driving down Broadway one can see the changing of the brewery site and the development that is going on in that part of Sydney. Those sites provide the potential to demonstrate the benefits of medium- and high-density housing in solving Sydney's well-documented housing supply problems. The Labor Opposition, which has taken into account the early October Reserve Bank of Australia research paper on urban structure, believes it is imperative for policy development to take account of the strong linkages between the planning process, zoning regulations and housing supply. Of course, that is one of the great challenges in relation to planning and infrastructure development in New South Wales, particularly in Sydney.

Without labouring the point, housing supply is a challenge that cannot be solved by just popping more houses onto the outskirts of Sydney. A discussion must be had about the culture of housing in our community. The incorporation of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority into the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority importantly maintains key provisions in relation to the Aboriginal Housing Company. This has been an ongoing issue in the area known as The Block, but the Aboriginal Housing Company in Redfern has a lot more stock than just that area; it provides housing across the inner city. It is important that the key provisions of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority are contained in the new arrangement proposed by this bill. It is important for these amendments to ensure that this body and other relevant representatives of the Aboriginal community are consulted in all developments in the area bounded by Eveleigh, Caroline, Lewis and Vine streets in Redfern.

The transfer of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority into the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority allows the positive innovation in residential and cultural developments in the Redfern-Waterloo area to promote similar advances in the Sydney area. This will allow the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority to further enhance its ability to promote urban renewal through developments such as the remaining lots of land at the iconic Australian Technology Park site. That will give this innovative precinct greater critical mass. Against this background we see the proposed amendments as endorsing and continuing the good work and planning already put in place by the previous Labor Government.

We support the amendments of the Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Act 1974 and the repeal of the existing Redfern-Waterloo Authority Act 2004 to transfer its assets and the majority of its functions to the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority. As I lead in debate for the Opposition I reiterate that the Opposition supports this bill. It is continuing the work that Labor began in government. It was always our intention to move the Redfern-Waterloo Authority into the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority.

Mr BART BASSETT (Londonderry) [5.32 p.m.]: I support this bill which will repeal the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Act 2004 and amend the Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Act 1974 to transfer the responsibilities and assets of the authority to the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority. As a former mayor, I have firsthand experience of the Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Act and endorse the provisions in that Act. During my time as the Mayor of Hawkesbury City Council I sat on the local government advisory panel for the Northwest Growth Centres Commission that was formed under the Act. While that commission had a mandate different from the mandate for Redfern-Waterloo—it dealt mainly with land planning issues and greenfields sites—the fundamentals and planning mechanisms were the same as the Redfern-Waterloo Authority that was established to guide urban renewal of the precinct.

The Growth Centres Commission was a mixed bag that could be best described as good in parts but an overall failure because it was only a bandaid solution to a bigger and deeper problem—the planning framework in New South Wales. The standalone statutory bodies were not properly resourced and did not get the support and leadership from government and the administrative instrumentalities through the different Acts and regulations that were required to fulfil its mandate. It was a good idea with some outcomes but, like most things, it ended up an overall failure and was consigned to the planning reform graveyard.

The former Government set up the administrative architecture to implement the metropolitan strategy. The North West Growth Centres Commission and the South West Growth Centres Commission were established as part of this structure, as well as the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority, which was established in 2010 and which started to assume responsibility for the Redfern-Waterloo Authority. This was meant to cut through the labyrinth of red tape and bring about a coordinated approach between multiple stakeholders, government agencies, local government, the development industry and landowners to ensure that effective management, proper consultation and communications of the strategy were done in a comprehensive yet timely and efficient manner so new release areas could be rolled out in a realistic time frame. At the time these reforms were seen as a step in the right direction. To be fair, there were some improvements in coordination and communication between the Department of Planning and stakeholders and progress was made.

However, like anything without leadership—from the elected government through to the responsible Ministers and a planning framework that backed up reforms with the tools and resources needed to do the job properly—the reforms ended up, like a lot of others that preceded it, as nothing other than add-ons that got in the way and that defeated the original charter and objectives by causing added delays. It was a case of a good idea with poor implementation. The Redfern-Waterloo Authority was established in 2004 by the former Minister Frank Sartor and reported directly to the Minister. To be fair, in my opinion the idea was well intentioned. It was intended to provide the leadership necessary to cut through red tape and achieve a realistic outcome that allowed for increased densities as part of the renewal of a historic precinct while respecting and protecting the environment and heritage components in the precinct.

Like the North West Growth Centres Commission and the South West Growth Centres Commission, the Redfern-Waterloo Authority sounded like a good idea that would achieve a balanced outcome in a realistic time frame. I know from my experience with the north-west growth centres and from dealing with applications that there is too much red tape, buck passing and indecision that results in unnecessary delay and poor planning outcomes that do not take key issues into consideration, such as transport, infrastructure, open space and access. For new South Wales to become the economic driver of Australia we must ensure there is a proper rollout of new residential, industrial, commercial and employment developments, and supporting infrastructure.

In creating bodies such as the Redfern-Waterloo Authority and the North West Growth Centres Commission and South West Growth Centres Commission the Government tried to bypass the malaise created by the existing planning framework, but it did not work. The former Government had already abolished those commissions. I endorse the action to abolish the Redfern-Waterloo Authority and to transfer its responsibility to the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority. This action is necessary as the new Government has embarked on a full and comprehensive review of the planning framework, and all aspects should be considered as part of this review. For the reasons that I have outlined, I congratulate the Minister on his work and commend the bill to the House.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY (Heffron) [5.36 p.m.]: I support the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Repeal Bill 2011. Unlike the member for Londonderry, I have been to Redfern and Waterloo. In fact, I represent that area in this Chamber. I will speak about this bill not only as the local member but also as someone who has held the portfolio of Redfern and Waterloo in Cabinet. It might seem a bit odd for a local member to support a bill repealing an authority that was designed specifically to provide services and urban renewal to an area within her electorate. Indeed, in 2004 I spoke strongly in support of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Bill and I note that the bill received bipartisan support. But we are now repealing this authority, as was always our intention. The Redfern-Waterloo Authority was never intended to be a permanent government bureaucracy. It was not set up to live forever; it was set up to drive urban renewal, employment, education and environmental planning for Redfern and Waterloo.

The Labor Government announced in February last year that it would create the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority and it created that body. It announced then that the Redfern-Waterloo Authority, which had been a successful example of driving urban renewal in those two suburbs, would be expanded to become the broader focused Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority. The new authority was created and the new board was established under the previous Labor Government. It was always intended that the Redfern-Waterloo Authority would evolve and enlarge into the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority. As was intended by the previous Labor Government, and as will happen under this legislation, the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority will continue to play the key role of driving renewal within Redfern and Waterloo. A number of projects that are extremely important for the area are still on the boil.

I want to look back to 2004 and highlight some matters. At that time I was the member for Heffron but the electorate only covered the suburb of Waterloo; it expanded to cover the suburb of Redfern after the 2007 redistribution. In 2004 when I spoke in this Parliament 95 per cent of public housing residents in Waterloo received income support from the Government. That means 95 per cent of people did not get up and go to work every day. Fifty-one per cent of households in Waterloo earned less than $399 per week compared with 20 per cent for the rest of Sydney. The unemployment rate in 2004 was 16.6 per cent, almost triple the figure for the rest of Sydney at the time. Indeed, there were 2,000 units of public housing in Waterloo then, which represented 67 per cent of dwellings in the suburb. Waterloo had been ranked in 2003 in the top 5 per cent of the most disadvantaged postcodes in New South Wales in a report entitled "Communities of Advantage and Disadvantage" prepared by Professor Tony Vinson.

In recounting those statistics I do not mean to portray Waterloo as a difficult or indeed a dangerous place. There was a resilience and a strong community spirit in that suburb. As someone who regularly visits the high-rise public housing towers, stands on street corners holding mobile offices and doorknocks the area I can say I have never felt threatened; I have always felt welcomed. The people of Waterloo face enormous daily challenges. In 2004 they wanted a healthier and safer community and a better social mix. That indeed was what the Redfern-Waterloo Authority was designed to deliver.

The authority was designed to promote the economic and social development of its operational area. It was required to prepare and implement a Redfern-Waterloo plan and it was specifically required to promote and coordinate the orderly economic development and use of the operational area, including the development and management of land, provision of infrastructure and the establishment of public areas. It was to provide and promote housing choices in Redfern and Waterloo as well as provide and promote employment opportunities for local residents. Importantly, it was to promote and coordinate cultural, educational, commercial, recreational, entertainment and transport activities and facilities in Redfern-Waterloo. It was also to have development and management control over sites deemed to be of State significance by the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning.

Having recounted those original aims of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Bill, I turn to some of the things that have occurred in Redfern and Waterloo since 2004. Many members may have visited the Redfern and Waterloo premier markets, the Eveleigh Farmers Market, which won the Sydney Morning Herald 2010 Foodies Guide Award for best markets in Sydney, having been operating for only seven months at the time. Of course, at The Block the Pemulwuy project received approval for its development in July 2009, something I was proud to do as Minister for Planning. In March 2010 my Government provided the Aboriginal Housing Company with a $2 million grant to kick off the development of that project.

The National Centre of Indigenous Excellence was established at the former Redfern Public School site. It is worth noting that one of the first things that occurred under the previous Labor Government was the closure of several schools in South Sydney and the establishment of the Alexandria Park Community School, a K-12 school, which has seen enrolment and attendance in education in South Sydney rise significantly. There have been some remarkable outcomes from Alexandria Park Community School. The Redfern Public School site was sold to the Indigenous Land Corporation and the Natural Centre of Indigenous Excellence opened there.

A specialist health centre for Redfern opened at the former courthouse site. That was funded through the sale of the Rachel Forster Hospital. That centre, which is run by Sydney South West Area Health Service, provides a range of services including mental health, drug and alcohol, HIV services and others to the local community. Channel 7 has relocated to Eveleigh along with Pacific Publishing, bringing some 2,000 jobs to the area. We have also seen movies being made at CarriageWorks as a result of the work that has been done by the Redfern-Waterloo Authority, again bringing job opportunities and economic activity.

I particularly mention two services—Yaama Dhiyaan, which is a hospitality training course specialising in Indigenous food and culture, which has had remarkable success. More than 129 graduates have gone through that program, 79 graduates have been employed and another nine have gone on to further education. That program, which is run by Aunty Beryl Van-Oploo, does a remarkable job. Another service that has been set up as a result of the work of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority and its focus on employment is the Les Tobler apprentice centre, which is run by Rowan Tobler, who has won a number of awards. Again, they have had a remarkable success rate placing many Aboriginal apprentices in jobs.

By consent, General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) postponed to permit the conclusion of the current debate.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: The Les Tobler centre has had remarkable success in placing Aboriginal construction apprentices in jobs, particularly with the Channel 7 development and the redevelopment of housing on Elizabeth Street, Redfern, which is providing 100 new units of public housing. It is a beautiful housing development. I was there recently to rename the community centre after Betty Makin, an elder who is well known for her support of young people in the area. The redevelopment of the Elizabeth Street site is another commitment by the Government to the revitalisation of Redfern and Waterloo.

We also have seen a commitment to the Waterloo Green Neighbourhood Project, which is a $12 million three-year program providing concierge-style front desk staff, on-the-ground maintenance teams and extra security measures for six Waterloo high-rise public housing buildings. My constituents are quite pleased with the success of that project. They are also very pleased that, through collaborative work between the Redfern-Waterloo Authority and the Department of Housing, we have been able to implement alcohol-free zones in public housing land in Waterloo and tackle what has been a difficult problem for residents for many years.

The Roll Up Redfern group, which brings together the City of Sydney—I acknowledge the Lord Mayor is in the Chamber today—and the Redfern-Waterloo Chamber of Commerce, Redwatch and Souths Cares, an organisation on whose board I sit, are doing terrific work to change the perception of Redfern, launching Brand Redfern and working in particular to ensure that Redfern sheds its reputation as a suburb where the shutters come down at night. Anyone who has been on Redfern Street or Regent Street at night knows what I mean. Indeed, if you go down those streets now you see a much more vibrant Redfern.

The Heritage Taskforce that has been set up by the Redfern-Waterloo Authority is looking in particular at protecting heritage in the Eveleigh rail yards areas. I could go on and on talking about youth services such as the wonderful South Sydney Youth Services, which does excellent work and has run a number of successful programs, and the midnight basketball program, which has worked well. The police have done remarkable work particularly with Mundine's boxing gym. Last year we saw a significant drop in crime in Redfern and Waterloo and a significant rise in housing prices. Indeed, housing prices in the area rose by 38 per cent between 2005 and 2009, having climbed by 12 per cent in 2009 alone despite the global financial crisis.

I mentioned that the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority needs to continue its work in Redfern and Waterloo, particularly around Redfern town centre and the redevelopment of Redfern station, as well as its long-term plans for the revitalisation and rezoning of public housing estates in Redfern and Waterloo. I encourage the Government to maintain the commitment made by the Labor Government to sustain the levels of public, social, community and affordable housing in those two suburbs. Significant work still needs to be done, and I look forward to that work being done by the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority.

I commenced this speech by remarking that the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority is an initiative of the former Labor Government. It was announced in February as part of the Metropolitan Transport Plan. Subsequently it was incorporated into the Sydney Metropolitan Plan. The Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority will assume the Redfern-Waterloo Authority's functions and use that authority as a model for all of Sydney. On this point I acknowledge that the Minister for Planning, the Hon. Brad Hazzard, has taken up an initiative of the Keneally Government, particularly when it comes to the development of Sydney and urban planning. He has taken up that initiative in retaining the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority, and maintaining the successful model of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority and taking that forward.

It should be acknowledge that the Minister has picked up and run with the Labor Government's vision on how Sydney should be developed, particularly in respect of urban renewal and transport-orientated development. I look forward to seeing how the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority in particular incorporates the Premier's commitment to a 50:50 split between infill and urban development, a move away from the previous Labor Government's policy of 70 per cent infill and 30 per cent greenfields. That will be a challenge for the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority, and I look forward to seeing how it meets that challenge. I look forward also to the Minister visiting Redfern and Waterloo. I know he did so in June 2011, because it was breathlessly announced by the Factory Community Centre that the Minister was given a tour of Redfern and Waterloo. It is both remarkable and wonderful that the Minister has chosen to visit those suburbs. We look forward to his coming back.

Mr MARK SPEAKMAN (Cronulla) [5.51 p.m.]: I support the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Repeal Bill 2011. The bill will repeal the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Act 2004 and amend the Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Act 1974. The Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority was established last year to drive the development of high-quality urban precincts, the initial precincts being Redfern-Waterloo, which includes the Australian Technology Park, and Granville. But, in the meantime, the Redfern-Waterloo Authority has continued to carry out its functions. This continued operation has disadvantages, including a requirement to perform duplicate administrative functions, with overheads and reporting obligations.

This bill will dissolve the Redfern-Waterloo Authority. Its assets, rights, liabilities and some of its functions will be transferred to the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority. Sole membership of Australian Technology Park Sydney Limited will transfer from the Redfern-Waterloo Authority to the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority, so the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority can undertake immediate urban renewal on remaining development lots of the Australian Technology Park. The Redfern-Waterloo Authority Fund will be transferred to the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority. Provisions of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Act which relate to the levying of development contributions for development at sites in Redfern and Waterloo and at the former Carlton United Breweries site at Broadway will continue.

The Aboriginal Housing Company and representatives of the Aboriginal community will continue to be consulted in relation to the area known as The Block. The bill will end the switching off of the Heritage Act provisions within the Redfern-Waterloo area. The bill provides for transitional arrangements for the Redfern-Waterloo Plan as an approved scheme under the Growth Centres Act, and this will allow the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority to undertake the key renewal strategies outlined in the plan. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Sydney) [5.54 p.m.]: I will make a brief contribution on the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Repeal Bill 2011: a more comprehensive contribution is not possible given the bill was introduced only this afternoon. When the Redfern-Waterloo Authority legislation was introduced in this House I represented Redfern, which was in the electorate of Bligh. Both Redfern and Waterloo are in the City of Sydney local government area. At the time I opposed the legislation because it gave the Minister unfettered power to approve development with the accountability and normal checks and balances that apply with local government assessments removed. The local community was alarmed that the legislation was only about ensuring land development and not about urban renewal or addressing social issues in the Redfern-Waterloo area or The Block.

There was widespread concern that the community would have little say in how their neighbourhood was changed. The City of Sydney has long been committed to working with the State Government to address the urban renewal and social issues in Redfern-Waterloo. I welcome changes this month that handed to the city approvals for developments valued at less than $10 million. This will ensure that the majority of development proposals will be subject to the city's rigorous assessment processes and community consultation. Indeed, all development should be able to be assessed by the city because the Central Sydney Planning Committee deals with development worth over $50 million and has a greater number of State government appointees than it does city appointees. I maintain that developments above $10 million should go to the city instead of the Minister for Planning.

The city's submission to the recent draft Built Environment Plan No. 2 broadly supported the latest proposed rezoning with the recommendation that development only occur if a train station is built in Waterloo, which of course would provide public transport for the proposed increase in population that is possible given the route of the city to the airport railway runs directly underneath. I understand that the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority will be required to report to the Minister for Planning, who will determine what instrument is the most appropriate for rezoning the area. Plan-making should be done through the comprehensive City Plan process, which will assess the area holistically as part of the entire inner city and with the city consulting closely with the local community.

The Central Sydney Planning Committee has the capacity and expertise to establish the most appropriate zoning for the inner city, and creating new bodies to take on this role is wasteful duplication. I have long opposed areas of the city being excised from the city, the creation of qangos, and the divvying up of the City of Sydney to various bodies, such as the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority. There should be an integrated and coordinated approach to the city, and I will make that case to the Minister when the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority provides a report for Redfern-Waterloo plan making. The city will continue to work with the Minister and the Government on this very important urban renewal area.

Mr CRAIG BAUMANN (Port Stephens—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.56 p.m.], in reply: I thank the members for Canterbury, Londonderry, Cronulla and Sydney for their contributions. I particularly thank the member for Heffron, who made her third contribution in this Parliament and her second today. That is good because it enables the new backbenchers to see the former Premier in action. As indicated, the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Repeal Bill is an important step in the ongoing renewal of the Redfern-Waterloo area. Through this bill the Government is ensuring the ongoing commitment to the renewal of this important area of Sydney and New South Wales. The bill reflects the ongoing reforms that this Government has introduced to the New South Wales planning system. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

Source: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20111018035?open&refNavID=HA8_1

See Minister Hazzards Speech: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20111018032?open&refNavID=HA8_1

(DFS) - Department of Finance and Services (DFS) - ex HNSW asset staff moved to DFS

(HNSW) - Housing NSW Staff in Department of Family and Community Services.

Principal Project Group

Mark Shepherd — Strategic Projects A/Executive Director (DFS)

Nigel Sharpe – Development Director, Strategic Projects Division (DFS)

Paul O’Reilly — General Manager, Central Sydney Region (HNSW)

Joshua Brandon – Development Manager, Strategic Projects Division (DFS)

Greg Dowling - Project Director, Scott Carver

Clive Bradshaw — CSR Area Director (HNSW)

Mark Wolczak — CSR Resource Planning Director (DFS)

Dare Kavanagh — Project Manager, Community Engagement, Strategic Projects (DFS)

Mike Van Der Ley — CSR Service Improvement Director (HNSW)

Planning and Urban Design

Principal Consultants:

• Scott Carver
• David Lock Associates
• Aecom
• GHD

Greg Dowling - Project Director, Scott Carver

[Note: REDWatch has requested a breakdown on the areas of responsibility / reports being undertaken by each consultant as has been provided by the SMDA for their consultants so far without success]

Preliminary Masterplan Community Engagement

( Strategic Projects, Department of Finance and Services)

Dare Kavanagh — Project Manager, Community Engagement, Strategic Projects

Tuyen Duong — Projects Coordinator

Martin Clark — Project officer

Karen Gibb — Communications

David Lilley — Research and data

A/Prof. Bruce Judd — UNSW City Futures — Advisor

HNSW Redfern East Project (Walker St)

Clive Bradshaw — Area Director

Kevin Crider — Team Leader

HNSW Waterloo Green Neighbourhood Project

Jim Green – Team Leader

HNSW Client Service Teams

Kevin Crider — Team leader (Redfern)

Jim Green — Team leader (Waterloo)

Source: Strategic Projects, Department of Finance and Services 20/03/12

DEVELOPMENT NEWS

Draft BEP 2 consultation

Draft BEP 2 thank you barbeques for social housing residents

Heritage Interpretation Plan

NEWS

Join the Redfern Brand evolution

Building a brighter future through Aboriginal employment

A Night Off the Grog Forum

Local kids learn about healthy lifestyles

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

Internal fit out and additional flues - Biomedical Building, 1 Central Avenue, Australian Technology Park

Filming in the area bounded by Eveleigh, Vine and Louis Streets, Redfern

Modification - temporary Gardener's Compound, Australian Technology Park

Installation of a Solar Power System, NICTA Building, Australian Technology Park

Use of the former Clothing Store building, North Eveleigh

WHAT’S ON

21 and 22 March – draft BEP 2 Thank You Barbeques for social housing residents

Good Neighbourhood Barbeques

23 March - Good Neighbourhood BBQ, Waterloo

27 March - Good Neighbourhood BBQ, Darlington

30 March - Good Neighbourhood BBQ, Redfern

Farmers’ Market – every Saturday 8am to 1pm

DEVELOPMENT NEWS

Draft BEP 2 consultation

The draft Built Environment Plan Stage 2 (BEP 2) for Redfern and Waterloo went on exhibition for community consultation from 27 January – 28 February 2011 to provide an understanding of key issues relating to this significant proposal and to encourage feedback. Draft BEP 2 is a proposed planning framework to continue the renewal of Housing NSW sites in the Redfern and Waterloo area including South Eveleigh over a 20-25 year timeframe to ensure improved social housing and to help create a more sustainable community.

RWA and Housing NSW undertook extensive consultation processes during the draft BEP 2 exhibition period. This included RWA information sessions, Housing NSW street drop in sessions, 4,500 feedback forms distributed to social housing residents, a specific draft BEP 2 newsletter for 18,000 local residents, fact sheets, and a dedicated telephone help line.

Through the street corner sessions over 750 social housing residents were consulted which represents over 14 per cent of public housing tenancies, while over 70 people attended the information sessions at Redfern Town Hall. In addition, both the RWA and Housing NSW conducted key stakeholder briefings for groups such as REDWatch.

RWA would like to thank all members of the community for submitting their feedback. Over 500 feedback forms and 28 written submissions have been received to date. An independent specialist consultation firm will review and collate this feedback.

Draft BEP 2 was the first stage of consultation for the redevelopment of social housing areas. There will be further opportunities to provide feedback on the redevelopment through the Urban Renewal SEPP process and the Housing NSW Master Plan process.

For more information on the draft BEP 2, please visit www.redfernwaterloo.nsw.gov.au/bep2

Draft BEP 2 thank you barbeques for social housing residents

A barbeque to thank social housing residents for their input during the draft BEP 2 exhibition period will be held on Monday, 21 March at Poet’s Corner Redfern and Tuesday, 22 March, at Waterloo Green from 12pm-2.30pm. The barbeques will be hosted by RWA. To RSVP please email redfernwaterloo@rwa.nsw.gov.au or call 9202 9100.

Heritage Interpretation Plan

The draft Interpretation Plan for the former Eveleigh Railway Workshops is on exhibition between Wednesday, 9 March and Wednesday, 6 April 2011. The aim of the plan is to:

• Recognise the site’s heritage significance and to maintain this character as the sites are developed; identify existing audiences and explore opportunities to enhance visitor numbers;
• Achieve better public understanding of the history of the site and it’s significance to residents, workers and visitors through tourism, education and recreation activities;
• Ensure interpretive devices and their content engage provoke public interest and are viable, accessible and sustainable.

A community consultation Heritage Field Day was held on Saturday, 30 October 2010 at Innovation Plaza, Australian Technology Park as part of the preparation of the Interpretation Plan for the former Eveleigh Rail Yards. A Field Day report containing details of the day’s activities is currently in preparation and will be available on RWA’s website shortly.

To view the draft Interpretation Plan and for more information please visit http://www.redfernwaterloo.nsw.gov.au/community_consultation/heritage.htm

Submissions can be made on the draft Interpretation Plan until 5pm on Wednesday, 6 April 2011.

NEWS

Join the Redfern Brand evolution

The Redfern brand continues to gain momentum with many members of the local community promoting the brand whether it is through wearing a Redfern tshirt or using the logo on collateral.

A Facebook page has been set up to promote the positive developments in Redfern and the surrounding areas of Waterloo, Darlington and Eveleigh. All of the community can help promote Redfern as a welcoming place for both business and recreation. Simply visit www.facebook.com/redfernwaterloo - and don’t forget to tell your friends!

If you are interested in purchasing some Redfern brand merchandise, please contact the South Sydney Business Chamber at info@ssbchamber.com.au. If you would like to use the brand in local marketing material, please contact City of Sydney on 9265 9333.

The Redfern brand is an initiative of the Roll Up Redfern Group comprising Redfern-Waterloo Authority, City of Sydney, South Sydney Business Chamber, South Sydney Rabbitohs and REDWatch.

Building a brighter future through Aboriginal employment

Over 820 employment opportunities have been created for Aboriginal men and women in the construction and hospitality industries with the assistance of RWA’s local Aboriginal Employment Program.

Part of the Aboriginal Employment Program involves brokering deals with large construction companies and mentoring potential Aboriginal employees. With 720 construction jobs created since 2006, this number is set to increase with the recent development of 80 positions for Aboriginal employees at the Centra Park development on Broadway. Over 100 positions have been successfully filled through the Yaama Dhiyaan Hospitality Training School.

The Aboriginal Training and Employment Program provides benefits for both the community and the construction and hospitality industry as graduates are equipped with the immediate skills they need to work on site. Through the 8 week course, students start to build their skills and confidence, with many going on to do apprenticeships and cadetships.

The program continues to create and negotiate employment opportunities for Aboriginal people. This includes working with many large construction companies such as Watpac and Multiplex with hospitality graduates going on to work for international hotels, catering companies and restaurants. Hundreds of further construction job opportunities are currently being negotiated with UTS and Barangaroo.

A Night Off the Grog Forum

Alcohol – how much is too much and what effect is it having on the Redfern and Waterloo community? ‘A Night Off the Grog’ provided the opportunity for residents and service providers to have a say on the affects of alcohol on the local Redfern-Waterloo community and what can be done to improve the current issues. The event took place on Tuesday, 15 March at Redfern Town Hall and was hosted by the Redfern-Waterloo Community Drug Action Team. The program featured:

• Suggested practical action to improve safety and amenity
• Expert speakers in the field
• What local service providers are doing to address local alcohol-related issues
• An opportunity for community discussion

Many local representatives attended including NSW Police, City of Sydney, Aboriginal Medical Service, Housing NSW, Sydney Local Health Network, Weave Youth Family Community, and South Sydney Alcohol Accord.

Local kids learn about healthy lifestyles

Over 900 local children met their favourite Rabbitohs players to learn about healthy lifestyles at an event at the ATP Performance Centre in February 2011.
The One Community event for local schools in the South Sydney region took place in conjunction with the Eat Well, Play Well, Stay Well campaign. NRL players met with the children to promote a healthy lifestyle and facilitated clinics to teach the children basic rugby league skills. The children were given the opportunity to get autographs from their favourite players and to chat about their dreams and aspirations. The Rabbitohs also ran this event regionally with players travelling to Coffs Harbour and surrounding areas to run clinics at local schools.
The Eat Well, Play Well, Stay Well NRL campaign promotes the importance of eating well and playing sport to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Players educate school children on healthy food options and encourage an active lifestyle. Australian Technology Park is a proud supporter of the Rabbitohs Souths Cares program.

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

Internal fit out and additional flues - Biomedical Building, 1 Central Avenue, Australian Technology Park

A development application had been received for the change of use and internal fit out of Suites 101 and 301 in the Biomedical Building to create additional teaching/laboratory spaces. This includes the installation of five new flues on the rooftop. The application was on exhibition from 15 February to 1 March 2011.

Filming in the area bounded by Eveleigh, Vine and Louis Streets, Redfern

A development application has been received for the use of the area bounded by Eveleigh, Vine and Louis Streets, Redfern, for filming between April and late July 2011 and associated construction of the production set. The application is on exhibition from 2 to 16 March 2011.

Modification - temporary Gardener's Compound, Australian Technology Park

An application to modify a previously approved development consent has been received to extend the use of the Temporary Gardener's Compound until 30 April 2016 and the reinstatement of the area until 30 June 2016. The application is on exhibition from 9 to 23 March 2011.

Installation of a Solar Power System, NICTA Building, Australian Technology Park

The application to install a solar power system on the roof of the NICTA Building, 13 Garden Street, Australian Technology Park, was approved on 16 February 2011. The solar power system will have a peak capacity up to 69 kilowatts and will generate 97,000 kilowatt-hours of renewable electricity each year.

Use of the former Clothing Store building, North Eveleigh

The application to use the former Clothing Store building at 231 Wilson Street, North Eveleigh, for counselling support services, art workshops and exhibitions was approved on 7 March 2011.

Please note that all Part 3A applications are determined by the Minister of Planning. Other development applications are lodged with the RWA. For the full list of Notices of Determination please visit: www.redfernwaterloo.nsw.gov.au/development_applications/notices_of_determination.htm

WHAT’S ON

21 and 22 March – draft BEP 2 Thank You Barbeques for social housing residents

A barbeque to thank social housing residents for their input during the draft BEP 2 exhibition period will be held on Monday, 21 March at Poet’s Corner Redfern and Tuesday, 22 March, at Waterloo Green from 12pm-2.30pm. The barbeques will be hosted by RWA. To RSVP please email redfernwaterloo@rwa.nsw.gov.au or call 9202 9100.

Good Neighbourhood Barbeques

Come along to your local Good Neighbourhood BBQ to meet your neighbours and learn what City of Sydney and local Police are doing to improve your neighbourhood. The get togethers will feature Kidzzoo mobile animal farm, live music, children’s activities, a free BBQ and information on safety and security initiatives in your area. Contact John from City of Sydney on 9246 7883 or Dom on 9265 9954 to find out more.

23 March - Good Neighbourhood BBQ, Waterloo

Venue: Crown Park, Crystal and Broome Sts, Waterloo

Time: 5.30pm-8pm

27 March - Good Neighbourhood BBQ, Darlington

Venue: Charles Kernan Reserve, Abercrombie St, Darlington

Time: 11am-2pm

30 March - Good Neighbourhood BBQ, Redfern

Venue: Poet’s Corner, Morehead St, Redfern

Time: 11am-2pm

Farmers’ Market – every Saturday 8am to 1pm
Eveleigh Farmers’ Market is an undercover, traditional, authentic weekly Saturday Farmers’ Market held in the historic Blacksmith Workshop of the one-time Eveleigh Rail Yards on Wilson Street in Darlington. It is Sydney’s only ‘rain, hail, shine’ venue and an inspiring heritage backdrop. The Farmers’ Market is held every Saturday from 8am to 1pm. For more information please visit www.eveleighmarket.com.au.

To be added to the RWA Update distribution list, to make comments, or to suggest a news item, please contact RWA’s A/Communications Manager Natalie Kikken on 9202 9112 or email natalie.kikken@rwa.nsw.gov.au.