As part of the Waterloo State Significant Precinct redevelopment, REDWatch and local agencies pushed for a Human Services Plan to go alongside the built environment master plan. In 2017 FACS / LAHC agreed such a plan would be undertaken.
In the email to the FACS Executive requesting the plan, the bulk of which you can see at REDWatch Request to FACS for Human Services Plan, REDWatch said “For REDWatch … time is of the essence as we could not support a master plan for Waterloo without a comprehensive human services plan accompanying it.”
As the Department of Planning and LAHC negotiate an MOU process and the master plan parameters, LAHC no longer wants to discuss a human services plan. The aim seems to be to negotiate the new arrangements and then submit as quickly as possible. The last 12 months that LAHC set aside for the human services discussion has passed. What REDWatch feared looks set to happen. LAHC will put up a Master Plan without a human services plan to sit alongside it.
REDWatch is not looking for another human services plan add to our long list of Human Services in Redfern and Waterloo: A potted history listing of plans, interventions, activities, consultations and reports. We have made it clear to LAHC and FACS that a successful plan has to understand why these previous plans have not delivered for our community.
REDWatch has argued extensively, as can be seen in the Waterloo Human Service Plan part of our website that a human service plan needs to address the existing human services challenges facing tenants and agencies, and not just the service issues around the development relocation and post redevelopment. Fixing the buildings does not address the challenges faced by those living in buildings made up of people with increasingly complex issues with little support.
Yes, this is an issue across the state, but it will affect Waterloo disproportionally due to the size of the estate and because the same number of public tenants will be living with their existing problems in a redevelopment with three times greater density than exists in the area at the moment.
Irrespective of how good the master plan might be, if the issues facing the people who live there now and into the future are not addressed in the Human Services Plan that LAHC promised then it is looking like REDWatch will likely have to campaign against the Master Plan.
The Waterloo Impact Project explored local perceptions to establish what views existed around the local client referral system and coordination between agencies, both government and non-government, and the needs for any improvement. George Barrett did a large number of interviews with service users, and both government and non-government services. The draft report from the project is available for further input. Download the report - DRAFT - Waterloo Impact Project Mapping Local Client Referrals and Agency Services Coordination
Broadly, the recommendations entail:
The next agency workshop to discuss the report is proposed for 24th February 2020 10:30 am at Inner Sydney Voice. Please save the date for now. If you would like to be involved or have any questions please contact Adam Antonelli on 9698 9569 or email Counterpoint on info@counterpointcs.org.au.
Over the last couple of years, NGOs have undertaken a number of data collection exercises to provide input into improving human services. This is the latest, but previous ones appear to be falling on deaf ears.
In the August 2018 Masterplan brochure LAHC said that LAHC’s focus for 2019 was to be developing a Community Facilities Plan and a Human Services Plan. There has been no movement on either of these crucial elements, and certainly the consultations promised to services and tenants on these topics have not eventuated.
There have certainly been delays to the Master Plan because LAHC did not get its proposal lodged in early 2019 and hence ran into the “state election caretaker period”, the City of Sydney alternative proposal, the machinery of government changes, staffing changes at the top of LAHC and then the handing of planning powers back to the City.
While LAHC was unable to progress the Masterplan it could have had the other crucial consultations that were promised. It did not and there are no indications that LAHC plans to consult on these matters prior to the master plan exhibition. This has all the marks of acknowledging these are crucial issues but then ignoring the issues to push ahead with the development.
Conversations on both topics would have been assisted by public access to studies LAHC has undertaken, but they have not been shared with the community. The first of these is the Social Sustainability Study, which was not in the Metro Quarter study requirements and hence no one has any idea of what might be in this document until the master plan is exhibited. The second report supposedly addresses consultant GHD’s greatly deficient Final Social Baseline Report for Waterloo and looks at what is needed into the future.
Both these reports should have been available as part of the proposed consultations with the community. They were not released because while the Department of Planning told REDWatch that LAHC could release these reports, LAHC were being told by the Department that it did not want the reports released because they might create confusion when it came to the formal exhibition. As we have pointed out to LAHC the solution was very simple – change the report name or do an extract and call it something else so there would not be confusion between two documents of the same name!
The effect of the non-release has been to deny the community important information about key issues of that concern it. This does not excuse LAHC however from having the conversations with the community that it promised. It could have done that without either report. The community should have been involved in key conversations about their community and its future and they have not been.
We do not know what position Council might take as the new consent authority. Even if Council was happy for LAHC to release these studies early, ultimately the decision is up to LAHC. Based on practice to date we expect LAHC will push ahead to get the master plan exhibited ASAP and try to kick the crucial community facilities and human service plans down the road until the master plan is finalised and awkward questions cannot stand in its way.
Adding salt into the Community Facilities wound, is speculation about LAHC’s deal to get the PCYC out of the Redfern site to maximise that development. At the Redfern consultation, people were told PCYC needed a larger facility and that it would be “within walking distance”. This is widely believed to means that LAHC is already committed to bring an expanded PCYC into the Waterloo redevelopment in closer competition with existing services at NCIE and potentially replacing social services with a greater sport and recreation approach.
LAHC has to consult with the community and services in the area about the future of community facilities and service. Everyone needs to be assured that the redevelopment will bring a robust social services plan and the necessary facilities needed to support that plan.
REDWatch has been pushing for improvements in the co-ordination of human services in Redfern Waterloo for over 15 years and it looked like with the Waterloo redevelopment there might have been some progress. We were assured by the then head of LAHC, who was also a Deputy Secretary in FACS, that there would be a human service plan to sit alongside the Waterloo master plan.
At that time, LAHC was a part of FACS and we were assured that the proposal had the support of the FACS executive. While we had initially approached FACS it had shown little interest in the problem and so another part of FACS taking up the issue seemed to cover off the bases, especially as we were told it was supported at the highest levels within the department.
Since then LAHC has been moved out of FACS into the Department of Planning and effectively downgraded – the head of LAHC is no longer a Deputy Secretary. On top of this, both the person who made the undertakings, as well as the person delegated to develop the Human Services plan have both moved on following the LAHC restructure. In the process, the commitment to a Human Services Plan for Waterloo seems to have been lost.
LAHC was split out from FACS between 2011 and 2013 and then reunited. This happened during the last bout of master planning for Redfern and Waterloo. The experience and the buck-passing was something we feared would be repeated when last year the decision was made to move LAHC to the Department of Planning. On raising these issues with the then head of LAHC, we were assured that everyone had learnt the mistakes made last time and that Memorandums of Understanding were being entered into between Ministers and Departmental Secretaries to make sure those problems were not repeated. Six months on history is starting to repeat.
Previously everything came out of the same budget bucket, now there needs to be clear delineation between what LAHC is and what Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ – previously FACS) is. Around human services discussions and aspects of the Waterloo redevelopment, the lines between what was FACS and what was LAHC were quite blurred. LAHC positions, for example, partly filled the hole left when FACS ended the Housing Communities Program community development program in Waterloo. Lines are now being more finely drawn between what is redevelopment related what is something that DCJ should fund itself or do as part of its arrangements with LAHC. The community is struggling to hold in place some of the earlier arrangements.
The challenge of improving human services for public housing tenants and addressing systemic problems in the service system are particularly vulnerable in this split because no one sees human services for tenants as being their responsibility unless it fits into the tightly targeted early intervention policy or other very specific programs.
For public housing many of the problems are systemic across the state rather than related just to Waterloo, even though with the re-development of Waterloo they will become more acute. Within LAHC the work to date on the promised Human Service Plan has been done outside the team responsible for the redevelopments. While we were promised that we would be involved in this work, we have seen nothing of substance for almost two years. A high level overview to the Waterloo Redevelopment Group told people little and LAHC refused to release the presentation.
One bit that was useful were regular meetings set up with FACS to look at what could be some small changes that might make a big difference. This was set up by LAHC with the FACS District Director. Many of the issues we raised were considered by the FACS District Director as things she wanted to see as “business as usual” across the region and we agreed to model changes in Waterloo and then scale them up across the district. Meetings were set up quarterly with the District Director and key FACS and LAHC staff with monthly meetings with the FACS Housing Director, the relevant Manager of Operational Services and the Waterloo Team leader. This has given us a good insight into what roles FACS Housing plays and does not play.
As time went on and FACS personnel changed, we increasingly got the message that some people did not know why they were involved or what the meetings were supposed to achieve. These meetings are now in danger as DCJ District has asked the new LAHC management why they are doing this. LAHC have responded that nothing needs to happen until the future of the master plan is finalised.
As you can imagine, REDWatch and the Groundswell agencies involved in these discussions are very concerned, especially as we have been unable to meet with the new senior LAHC management now calling these shots.
One of our initial focuses with FACS / DCJ was around what happens during Client Service Visits that might help connect tenants with any services they might need. These visits are when FACS Housing visit tenants, check on their unit, and are in a position to have a discussion with them. The meeting that is supposed to happen from 6-12 weeks after a new tenant moves in is particularly important.
From our conversations and briefings, we have learnt that FACS Housing staff are not trained to do even basic human service assessments and that asking questions about any services a person might be having difficulty accessing is not in the state-wide mandated app nor measured in their KPIs. FACS is mandated to look out for any child protection issues, a question about NDIS coverage is asked, and hording and squalor are obvious during inspections as they are a risk to the property.
It appears as if LAHC’s agreement with FACS Housing to manage its tenancies does not include any human service function during a Client Services Visits. REDWatch has previously pointed out that public housing Client Service Visits in the ACT have four very specific human service support questions that are asked during a visit. We have asked both DCJ District and LAHC why these are not a part of the role LAHC asks DCJ Housing to undertake.
Putting human service aspects into Client Service Visits seems to us to be a key element in improving human service access for tenants. Other important elements include, a welcoming attitude in the local FACS office and access to staff there who can help people connect to the services they need.
The only way human service questions would be possible at client service visits at the moment would be if someone who was appropriately trained attended with client service officers when they make their visits. While the client service officer goes through the check list the other person could be asking how the tenant was going, if they are having problem locating services etc. The problem of course is that someone has to pay for that and if it is not mandated then it is not likely to happen. This is especially so when the new departments are cutting back on expenditure to deliver the promised savings from the mega amalgamations.
The separation of LAHC and FACS is highlighting some important systemic issues. The separation means assumptions about who is supposed to do what are being challenged. With the separation maybe it is the right time to think about a NSW upper house inquiry into how human service supports for public housing tenants work or do not work.
There has been a lot of work recently getting homeless people into public housing. However, if the supports are not there for those we put in public housing, are we really addressing the problem? We cannot assume that just putting a roof over someone’s head addresses his or her problems.
2020 is shaping up to be another challenging year for Redfern and Waterloo.
]]>Please join Land and Housing Corporation (LAHC) to learn more about the project and have your say. You can drop in at any time during the event, visit the display and talk with one of their staff about the project.
The new homes are being delivered under the NSW Government’s Communities Plus housing model and will be built for people to rent. No homes or land will be sold.
We look forward to seeing you.
The project at a glance:
• New fit for purpose social and affordable housing (up to 35% of all homes)
• New public plaza and garden
• New shops, cafes and community space
You can download the poster for the event from: Communities Plus Community information sessions - October 2019 - Poster
]]>Please join Land and Housing Corporation (LAHC) to learn more about the project and have your say. You can drop in at any time during the event, visit the display and talk with one of their staff about the project.
The new homes are being delivered under the NSW Government’s Communities Plus housing model and will be built for people to rent. No homes or land will be sold.
We look forward to seeing you.
The project at a glance:
• New fit for purpose social and affordable housing (up to 35% of all homes)
• New public plaza and garden
• New shops, cafes and community space
You can download the poster for the event from: Communities Plus Community information sessions - October 2019 - Poster
]]>by Michael Parris
Michael Cassel is leaving his position running the Hunter and Central Coast Development Corporation to head up the state government's social housing portfolio in NSW.
HCCDC chief operating officer Valentina Misevska, a former lawyer and University of Newcastle graduate, will take over from Mr Cassel as acting chief executive from September 30.
Mr Cassel led the government's Revitalising Newcastle program from 2014, took over as Hunter Development Corporation boss in 2016 and oversaw its annexing of the Central Coast last year.
He was at times regarded as a de facto government spokesman in the absence of Coalition MPs in Newcastle and often took the flak for the city's controversial light rail project.
The government credited the former Mission Australia Housing boss with delivering the tram "on time and on budget", in stark contrast to the time and cost blowouts of Sydney's light rail project.
Mr Cassel has been appointed chief executive of the Land and Housing Corporation, which employs more than 500 staff in the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.
The corporation owns and manages 130,000 properties, including land, buildings and other assets worth more than $35 billion.
Michael Cassel will control the state's social housing portfolio.
Mr Cassel will be based in Sydney and oversee the government's $22 billion Communities Plus plan, which aims to increase the stock of social housing by 23,000 in 10 years through contracts with non-government and private sector partners.
The program, launched in 2015, has conducted three rounds of land releases but has been slow to turn that activity into bricks and mortar.
Mr Cassel's new appointment comes barely months after his duties expanded to include deputy secretary for development and transactions in the housing and property cluster of DPIE. That role included controlling part of Property NSW.
A government spokesperson said Ms Misevska, a Newcastle local, had been an "integral part" of HCCDC for 11 years.
"Valentina's leadership will see HCCDC continue to deliver government projects, including the Revitalising Newcastle program, and the ongoing transformation of Honeysuckle," the spokesperson said.
"Michael leaves a strong legacy for the people of Newcastle, with the significant, city-changing delivery of the Revitalising Newcastle program.
"He has spent five years as a passionate advocate for the region, and he looks forward to watching HCCDC continue to thrive under Valentina's leadership."
The development corporation, which traces its origins back to 1992, is still selling government land at Honeysuckle.
]]>The City of Sydney’s City Plan 2036 – a draft plan for planning and land use is on exhibition until 11 October 2019. This is an important plan as it shows where the city expects growth to go in the future. We have invited Ben Peachey from Council to the REDWatch meeting on Thursday 3rd October to explain the proposed plan and council’s thinking for incorporating growth in their local government area. One area that is flagged for investigation in the City Plan for growth is the Regent - Botany corridor. It would put growth in proximity to Redfern station and the proposed Waterloo Metro station.
Also on exhibition until 11 October are two other important proposals. The first is the City of Sydney Housing for All – its draft housing strategy that looks at where new housing will go in the City of Sydney and what Council needs to do to meet its targets. The second important exhibition is City of Sydney’s Community participation plan. All councils also have to set out Community Participation plans detailing how council will consult about their plans and developments.
These three plans will be talked about during the Council presentation. So if you want to know where growth is headed in the area come along on Thursdays 3 October 2019 at 6pm to The Factory Community Centre 67 Raglan Street Waterloo. These are just some of the current exhibitions being run by the City of Sydney. You can see what plans are on exhibition at any time at www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/council/your-say
The plans on exhibition flow from changes made by the state government to planning laws to put greater emphasis on strategic planning. All Councils in the state have to prepare a local strategic planning statement (LSPS) which will set out the 20-year vision for land-use in the local area, the special character and values that are to be preserved and how future change will be managed. The local strategic planning statements must implement actions in the state government’s regional and district plans in addition to council’s own priorities in their existing community strategic plans. The local strategic planning statements will shape how the development controls in local environmental plans (LEP) evolve over time to meet community needs. The LEP is the main planning tool to deliver the council plans.
]]>
On 6th August 2019, REDWatch and Reconnect Redfern presented a community option for a southern concourse at Redfern Station to Transport for NSW (TfNSW). This was followed by a discussion of the issues between local residents from Little Eveleigh Street, The Watertower, Councillor Philip Thalis and TfNSW staff. You can see the PDF of the presentation on the REDWatch website. These notes are to add some of the presentation details not taken up in the slides.
Following the presentation of the four options by TfNSW at the Redfern Community Centre, REDWatch met and decided that the best way forward might be to try and formulate a community option that addressed the concerns of REDWatch and the residents from both sides of the railway line who had come together under the banner of Reconnect Redfern. REDWatch Co-ord member Damion Minton undertook to lead the project and did much of the work but was overseas at the time of the presentation, so REDWatch spokesperson Geoff Turnbull was asked by Reconnect Redfern to do the presentation.
REDWatch has had a long involvement monitoring Redfern Station and North Eveleigh. You can find historical proposals and studies for the upgrade of Redfern Station on the Redfern Station tab at www.redwatch.org.au
The material in the presentation reflects a number of meetings both by REDWatch and Reconnect Redfern and numerous conversations with local residents and key institutions.
The groups decided on five key priorities:
1) Support the improvement of Redfern Station accessibility including to platforms 11 & 12 and to a bus rail interchange
2) Improve pedestrian rail commuter flow, reduced congestion and improved safety to all platforms including to platforms 11 & 12
3) Enhance public pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to key local destinations was a key concern. This aspect was considered inadequate in the TfNSW proposals. The TfNSW Future Transport Strategy 2056 says “The Strategy and Plans also focus on the role of transport in delivering movement and place outcomes that support the character of the place and the communities we want in the future.” Movement and Place are considered a key aspect of future transport planning, and guidelines are currently being developed by the NSW Government Architect. Currently it is the community view that key Movement and Place considerations are not adequately dealt with in the TfNSW options. Key public pedestrian and bicycle connectivity needs to link:
4) Protect and promote heritage and local culture
5) Retain local residential amenity
The groups also decided five major issues needed to be addressed by any option:
1) Connectivity between North and South Eveleigh
2) Accessibility to platforms 1 to 10
3) Accessibility to platforms 11 and 12 and to bus train interchange
4) Impact on Little Eveleigh Street. This includes
5) Impact on Marian Street. This includes
The point was made that residents of Little Eveleigh and Marian Streets had a strong reaction to the visuals from the TfNSW options that showed only a few people in the proposed treatments rather than a peak hour representation. The point was made that traffic and pedestrian studies use peak time movement assessments and that TfNSW needs to do similar analyses and model how the proposed treatments would work with the interactions between bidirectional flows and interactions with cars and bikes. Reference was made to the experience of residents trying to move towards the station of a morning in Lawson Street against a tide of students travelling to Sydney University.
The background and context focused on the broad “Movement and Place” issues:
1) Lawson Street is the only way across the railway line for pedestrians, bikes and vehicles
2) The twin arterial of Gibbons and Regent Streets is a barrier that separates Redfern Street from Redfern Station – In the early 2000s a number of studies on tunnels and overpasses were done by The Premier’s Department to try to address this major problem
3) The lack of a bus rail interchange sees communisers having to cross the twin arterial roads to catch most busses
4) The railway line itself is a barrier between Darlington and the University, and Alexandria and South Eveleigh.
5) The need for station accessibility and safe use of all platforms including platforms 11 & 12
The presentation then showed a number of illustrations from the Redfern Waterloo Authority (RWA) Built Environment Plan One, The North Eveleigh Concept Plan and from the exhibited “Eveleigh Heritage Walk” to show that a pedestrian and cycle connection between North and South Eveleigh had been a key component of RWA planning for the area. This connectivity is missing from the TfNSW options. It was pointed out that:
1) The pedestrian and cycle bridge was expected to be connected to the rail concourse in some form (see floor space ratio map)
2) There are strong heritage interpretation reasons to reconnect the former Eveleigh Railyards from North to South as historically there was a bridge at this location.
3) The Australian Technology Park sale agreement to Mirvac included a covenant that a cross railway bride could land at South Eveleigh. This was one of a number of covenants pushed by REDWatch and others at the time after a City of Sydney risk assessment of the ATP sale.
4) This connection will be very important in the future for students travelling from the Waterloo Metro station to Sydney University.
5) A bike connection would allow a Southward connection toward Alexandria to connect to the main Wilson Street bike path and take some pressure off Lawson Street and problems for bikes trying to get up Gibbons Street past the station and the pedestrian holding area.
None of the RWA options directly addresses how this cross line connection connects to the station. Station upgrade plans had stalled by 2008 when the RWA proposed its “Eveleigh Heritage Walk”.
Each option was assessed against the “Major issues to be addressed” discussed earlier and this assessment was shown on the slide with ticks and crosses.
No option presented connects currently to platforms 11 & 12 or to a bus rail interchange as TfNSW is looking to sell the site above platforms 11 & 12 for an over station development and does not want to pre-empt what a developer might want to do.
The TfNSW options are:
1) TfNSW Option 1: Little Eveleigh Street Connection – The key issues with this model are discharge into Little Eveleigh and Marian Streets which create the problems earlier mentioned.
2) TfNSW Option 2: Ground Level Pathway (Wilson St Connection) – This option avoids Little Eveleigh Street but it is not a direct route, goes down and up, and does not address problems at Marian Street.
3) TfNSW Option 3: Aerial Walkway (Wilson St Connection) - This option avoids Little Eveleigh Street, but to make it more direct, goes over the top of the heritage building and places a privacy barrier at the rear of South side Little Eveleigh St residences. It does not address problems at Marian Street.
4) TfNSW Option 4: South Eveleigh to Wilson St Connection – this is the only option that addresses Marian Street issues but even TfNSW argues this is not viable as it does not provide a single concourse.
The community options were presented as the Journey that people had gone on to develop the proposed option.
Journey – “H” Design – This was an early option from The Watertower. It was in line with the RWA proposal for a bridge between North and South Eveleigh that linked to a southern concourse. It puts the concourse where it needs to be for the platform constraints and the non-paid North South connection where it needs to be and links them. Transport has argued that this is three bridges and it is only building one bridge as part of an access upgrade. There is a lot of support for this option.
With TfNSW ruling out this option, the community then set about developing a hybrid bridge model that tries to make one bridge fulfil both purposes. This is a difficult task as the concourse stairs need to be as close as possible to the platform buildings while the North South connection ideally needs to be as direct as possible. Whatever option emerged from this compromise it had to sacrifice some of the desirable features of the “three bridge option”.
Journey - Hybrid Option 2 + 4 (modified) – This was an option after the four TfNSW options were released. Again it came from the Watertower and it is a marrying of Options 2 and 4. The aim was to make a viable option 4 given that TfNSW had not succeeded. TfNSW also sees this as a two bridge option although it is doubtful it involves less construction that their own option 4.
Journey - (Cracknell & Lonergan Architects v1) – This option was produced by Cracknell & Lonergan Architects in response to a brief prepared by Damien Minton after discussions with REDWatch and Reconnect Redfern. It captures the essence of the 2 & 4 hybrid in a more ascetically pleasing form, but it did not address how it connects to Wilson Street.
Journey - (Cracknell & Lonergan Architects v2) – This option was a response to a Reconnect Redfern meeting asking why can’t we go through the heritage building and adaptively reuse it. This was seen as an acceptable alternative to a flyover option that was higher than people’s back fences. While Cracknell & Lonergan drew this as going through the building lengthways this was not necessarily the intention of the meeting.
It was felt by REDWatch and Reconnect Redfern that this proposal was close enough for a concept drawing for presentation as the community option 5. It shows how to combine both a pedestrian and bicycle cross-railway bridge with a paid concourse. It is not an ideal outcome but it fits with TfNSW’s stated aim of only having one bridge. It meets the concerns raised by REDWatch and Reconnect Redfern.
In closing the presentation, reference was also made to the $100m budget for southern concourse work. During the preparation of the preferred plan REDWatch was contacted by a civil engineer, who said they undertake railway work. That person advised that $100m was a lot of money for this work – It is almost the equivalent of three Tibby Cotter bridges. They also said that they believed the costing was for a concrete bridge and that a metal bridge using the lift cages for support would provide a much cheaper alternative. REDWatch in not in a position to verify this but as cost is likely to be an issue we have provided this information.
TfNSW’s response to the proposal raised concern about its width and size, however Councillor Thalis showed the meeting a number of wider suburban concourses that have both a paid and unpaid concourse.
There was a strong call at the meeting from residents for a master-plan for the site and for a high level connectivity plan that shows how the concourse, North Eveleigh and the over-station development are expected to work together to deliver on the “movement and place” goals promoted by TfNSW and The Government Architect.
The meeting was advised that we would soon see a newsletter from TfNSW about North Eveleigh that will provide some of the information we are seeking. We await this further detail and a further meeting with TfNSW when it has considered the community proposal and the other input from the latest exhibition.
Geoffrey Turnbull
Spokesperson
REDWatch
]]>