Mr Robert Domm,
CEO
Redfern-Waterloo Authority
PO Box 3332
Redfern NSW 2016

RE: Built Environment Plan

Mr Domm, I am writing to your with regards to the Built Environment Plan. Whilst I believe that Redfern would benefit from some development and I support a pro-active model, yet I also have serious reservations and concerns.

In particular I would like to focus on the elements of the plan that surround the Redfern Station and surrounds. Of chief concern are:
• The incredible height that is proposed.
A height of 18 stories is too high for this area; it will dominate and destroy the character and the fabric of the community in this area.
Many many cities around the World don’t even consider the heights that are being proposed here. Built form in cities such as Paris, Washington and other major cities is the limit is approximately 6 stories. I would ask that where you have these huge monsters that these be brought back down in height and building scale.
The height that is being proposed holds no regard for true and proper planning principles, with regard to the light, privacy and amenity to existing buildings. Not only this but the traffic implications are grave, the increase in traffic, the huge built canyons that are being proposed with the building scope that you have created.
• The removal of existing green open space.
The removal of Marian Park is utterly abhorrent. The thought of providing all these large building masses coupled with the removal of green space borders on lunacy. In an area that is significantly short of green lungs and open space the thought of removal is just plain wrong. This needs to be retained and fully gazetted as a permeant park.
It is about time that governments and developers and government corporations respect and value parks as a highly valuable commodity, one to be reserved and protected. This park provides a lung to recycle the polluted air from the major arterials that run to and from the City. It supports an abundant array of wildlife and flora. It provides a recharge point for deep soil aquifers through free draining soils; this is unique and rare in this inner city environment.
This green open park space that is so essential to be retained and fully gazetted also allows a welcome respite to the communities that work, and live in the surrounding built environment. Allowing the community to work, rest and play is essential, this is a fundamental key that is missing from your plan. Humans need contact with the Earth, and with nature, parks are one of the only ways that this can be achieved, and by this we mean green parks, not built form products. Marian Park needs to be retained as it provides people with places to play, educate and teach children about not just nature, but society, social justice and social skills, learning how to interact with others including nature, people and animals.
Marian Park is a vibrant park that is essential to retain. In that note it needs to be retained and not killed by overshadowing of 18 story buildings. The buildings need to be brought down to a reasonable built form and scale that suits the setting and environment that is here.
Parks are unquantifiable in accounting language; they cannot be valued in a dollar sense, the community satisfaction that is provided and the reduced health costs that they provide. Health costs to the community are rising, we are facing an obesity epidemic and here we are removing open park space. Spaces where children can learn gross motor skills play sport, yet even learn fine motor skills. Active spaces such as Cope Street Reserve, passive like Marian Park. The learning of drawing life objects, building sculptures, observing nature at play. The cost will only be attributed to society and burden the tax-paying constituent even further. In SimCity a computer modelling of building cities, you are rewarded for keeping Sims Happy – an ‘Aura’; this is a black box that is hard to quantify yet here you are destroying things that keep Sims and Constituent’s happy. Happy Constituent’s and happy Sims reward those who share common visions and goals. There are similar elements in many role-playing computer games, it may be a valuable lesson and relatively cheap if many of your planners went and played some of these. I am sure that many valuable lessons could be learnt.
• Parks are Assets NOT liabilities and NOT development sites
Parks are assets that we need to leave, improved and intact for our children, our grandchildren and the community at large. If it wasn’t for the great foresight of our fore-fathers we would not have the wonderfully rich and invaluable assets such as: Centennial Park, Hyde Park, our pristine wilderness, our catchment areas just to name a few. Australia has a short history, yet we have valued and protected much of the original native environment. We have come to value these; we appreciate the importance and the inability to place a dollar value on them. Parks in the city, whilst not original vegetation needs to be protected. Where we can we need to provide Parks, and if possible re-vegetate and improve these, with natural vegetation and original styles or interpretations.
Parks are assets that are passive and active, Marian Park services a minimum of 1500 direct residents, countless commuters and many many more additional community functions. Marian Park is a passive park that provides fresh air, and respite to so many.
Marian Park has been fought for before, it has been public open space for many many years, you must believe that ‘if it walks like a park, smells like a park, talks like a park – then it is a park’ this must be considered. Alternatively another test is that the old adage ‘possession is 9/10th’s of the law’ then the public owns the land, the public uses the land then it must stay public land and NOT be sold to private developers. As the public is in effect squatters on its own land, then the public also has rights, in excess of 30 years as a park, maintained as such in one way or another needs to be respected and considered.
• The Built Environment Plan takes into disregard much of the present built form.
In the precinct bounded by Cornwallis St, Botany Road, Cleveland St, and Henderson Road, currently has low built form providing character and form to the environment. Your plan for this particular precinct attempts to destroy this. You are building towers with no regard to the impacts. There has been no traffic plan, no parks and open spaces retained or protected. The plan appears a blatant grab for funds and the building of a towered environment. Towers are unwelcome and unsympathetic to the area. Your advice that you have received is fundamentally flawed.
• The Rachel Forster Site
I believe that the Redfern-Waterloo Authority as an overarching body to bring many organisations together and provide a stronger coherent force with greater stronger and more efficient service delivery is in concept, great. However it could also become a great bureaucracy in itself. There is potential for non-community consultation, and strong-armed tactics.
The concept of bringing services, employment and training is valid. One such site that lends itself to bring great strengths and win support is the Rachel Forster Hospital. Aged care and invalid support is a strong request at the community level. This site lends itself to such a format. Succulently and this would need greater fleshing out would be the following:
o Aged and Invalid residential accommodation
There is a need for this to be local as many multiple generations of people live in the area, and we do know that aged people are provided with greater comfort and support if they stay within their local community with friends and family access. This would also reduce the offset costs and ease transport burdens, and provide greater social networks and support.
o Training, Education and support for the following:
• Hospitality
• Social Work
• IT & Computer
• Clerical
• Nursing
• Cleaning & Linen cleaning
this would require no contracting out of services, rather the site be setup in the vain of old teaching hospitals. It would require tremendous support and lateral thinking to bring together the service delivery and the onsite training and development.
This would all have a strong local contingent in the workforce; you would aim for an 80% local resident. This would provide locals caring for locals and further build to community strength and character.
Such a program would allow this to be developed as a World leader and the site to become a study site. I for one would be love to be part of such a tremendous programme. This would be a fantastic employment sink for the area, whilst responding to additional needs and services that are required.
• Difference in SEPP & BEP
There is strong concerns as fundamental differences in the SEPP (the legal planning instrument) and the BEP that was exhibited. I draw to your attention that on the Marian Park site, that is the amalgam of many different lots is zoned in the SEPP as for all to have built form upon them, whilst the BEP shows a small amount of residual green space on the southern most tip.
This is but one that I could easily identify, how many other irregularities are there in what has been presented to the community.
The Built Environment Plan has been printed on fancy paper (in contrast to your other Planing documents), as a ‘sexed’ up document, or should I call it a sales document. This concerns me. Why is it that this is being so keenly sought rather than that of the other plans, your Human Services and Employment and Enterprise plan? There is a strong lack of trust being built with the approach and the system that is oozing from the Redfern Waterloo Authority.
• The support of the linkages to Wilson St and Newtown
I support the re-linking of the east-west corridors of Redfern and Newtown. The further strengthening these is invaluable. The concern of the car tunnel to Wilson St is of concern; this needs further exploration and community consultation. With this exception I do believe these links are vital and need to be supported and encouraged.
• Environmental Factors
Strong consideration needs to be given to review the advice given regarding building towers, and civic space surrounding the station.
The wind factors, the noise from the canyons that are proposed from the Built Environment Plan are distressing. The modelling and public exhibition of these is a must. You are likely to discover as many of the residents will tell you that the plans wills only esabate and create a horrible environment.
I ask that the consideration of bringing the civic space south towards an existing landmark building ‘The Watertower’. There does already exist publicly owned land that historically was open civic space. This space that is now presented as a car park for railway staff. This is a clear example of fundamental flaws in NSW Government planning. Railway staffs don’t even use the public transport system (where they can at reduce or even free cost) to travel to and from work. They require a carpark so that they can undertake their employment – paid for by us the constituent taxpayer. This land south of Lawson Street, part of the original Marian Park is much more friendly to the environmental factors, and presents a superb opportunity to provide open Civic space, coupled with green space. This area is conveniently located as a key site that can be utilised to connect, the existing Redfern CBD to ATP, utilising an existing Landmark/Anchor building. This would also provide a strong opportunity to bring a Henry Deane (at Railway Square) style plaza that brings the Redfern Station into the 21st Centaury yet allowing homage and reduce pressure on significant heritage elements.
• The Towers and Open Space built form that the Built Environment Plan purports
The plan is based on an architectural style that is totally unsympathetic to the area. The plan appears to based on a tower and open space plan. This is fundamentally inappropriate and flawed. The Waterloo towers are strongly disliked and attract highly undesirable community developments. This appears to have repeated itself worldwide in many many areas. I strongly ask you to consider smaller denser built form, where incorporation is much stronger and communities are more vibrant, just look at ‘The Watertower’ as an example of a successful planning and conversion.
• The disregard to Architectural Significant building (Landmark Buildings)
The Built Environment Plan has taken no regard of ‘The Watertower’ rather it has ‘shat upon it from a great height’. To be brutally honest the plan as it stands appears to: erect barricades on two sides of the historically significant building. Not only that it places ‘arseholes of buildings’ in the face of a landmark building. The building that are likely to be built upon these areas are likely to have service areas, carpark’s and the like open to face ‘The Watertower’; as it is known that under these sites are the railway tunnels that support the southern lines. Whist acknowledging these, they are not complete concrete casing preventing water recharge to deep soil zones. These service access’ and the likely first and second story car-parking present what is often known to as the ‘arsehole’ of a building – how would you like a sewerage plant and barricade built in the centre of your residential area. I am left wondering if the redevelopment of Redfern Station can also erect a barrier for the last remaining side, it appears that on the far-side there is an attempt in your plan to do so. Be warned you may be barricading us but we will fight you on the beaches…
There are historical significant buildings, landmarks and areas, these have not been acknowledged; would this style of development be allowed or even contemplated in the Rocks, Walsh Bay and the like.
There has been sensitive development in Redfern, much of the ATP, the Aboriginal Medical Centre, the Redfern Community Centre are examples of sympathetic designs and outcomes. The Built Environment Plan does not appear to encourage these types of developments; rather just vertical blots on the landscape. I ask and encourage re-visiting these thoughts and reviewing the inferior advice that you have unfortunately poorly spent our taxpayer dollars when you could have used it to fund a design competition that resulted in many many more ideas and thoughts being provided.
• Redfern Waterloo Built Environment Plan versus East Darling Harbour
These are currently two major planning initiatives that are in the forefront of community planning yet are being approached from two different angles.
There has been a widespread consultation, a hotly contested design competition, yet Redfern Waterloo just gets the dregs! You want us to take you seriously and believe that we have the best outcome – how is this so when similar sized area is getting such different approach and styles. Where is our design competition, our innovative approaches???
This is a stronger grab than that of East Darling Harbour, yet there is more planning, thought and competition to such a public domain. Why is not the same effort of planning and thought being given? The Redfern Waterloo Authority has 35 hectares, East Darling Harbour 22 hectares, yet half must be public open space, WHY is this not the case. Where is Redfern Waterloo’s 17.5 hectares of public open space – it has not even been acknowledged?
East Darling Harbour calls for 330,000m2 of employment space, you only call for 440,000m2, a ratio difference of 1:1.25 as opposed to 1:1.5 for East Darling Harbour – should I be that happy & relieved?
Why is open space valued in one area and not in other? We are seeing contradictory Government policy, which is right!!!
The market will be competing against itself in these two hubs? Both have similar time frames.
As a constituent I feel that there is some disparity here, there is no constancy. East Darling Harbour is a ‘brown-field’ site the same as Redfern Waterloo, in both cases we have the opportunity to set the pace and the building framework for the next 200 years, why, why don’t we get the same level of service.

I urge you to reconsider, the advice that you have paid too much for is providing fundamentally flawed advice. I ask that you look, review and consider alternative plans that have been submitted and that look at other options.

The plan to build large monstrosities is fundamentally wrong for this area. The designs proposed and the removal of green open space principally at Marian Park and the other at Cope St Reserve will continue to support the decline in health of the constituents in this area.

I will continue to fight the development of open green space into built form.

In summary:
• To Urgently declare Marian Park as a protected park, (including the original area that is now closed off to form a carpark)
• To reduce the height limits proposed on the developments to reduce negative impacts and shadowing
• The protection of Cope Street Reserve as a green lung and deep soil recharge zone, viz: declaration as a permanent park
• To call for the release of plans for the Redfern Station Upgrade
• The support of the re-instatement of linkages to Wilson Street and Newtown
• The release of the Traffic Plan, the Open Space Plan,
• The removal of the Towers and Open Space strategy that this plan supports – this is fundamentally flawed advice and needs to be reconsidered, there are other built forms resulting in the same usable space
• The support of building concentrations within walking distance to transport hubs, viz: the development of ATP
• The establishment of dialogue with the community in the revision process
• A clear consultation of the community and plan that is open and transparent

As a potential bumper sticker should read:
I love green open spaces, and I VOTE.
I know that the plan is from your advice, but you have it in your power to reject bad advice, listen to you soul, listen to the inner being, listen to all the choirs of people that are suggesting much more sound advice. This is your responsibility as a social human being. It is wrong to continue along the path that provides no greater gain and only destruction and death.

I am also thought we left the dark ages behind us, as I learnt in history. Yet as a resident of The Watertower I fear that I am one the verge of stepping into the Dark Ages, where our building will be shrouded in darkness. ‘The Dark side of the force is very strong Luke’ –be wary. The shadows that we are being faced with cause concern. I ask that there is you strongly reconsider and please:
Reduce the heights of the buildings
Preserve Green Space that already exits – Gazette these as permanent parks.

I leave you with the thoughts from Nemo ‘ Think happy thoughts think happy thoughts’. I have faith that you will do the right thing and look forward to reviewing and having consultation before the revised plan comes out. Please feel free to contact me at any time if I can be of assistance.

Yours Faithfully

Jason Cameron

CC: Mr Frank Sartor MP
Ms Clover Moore MP
Ms Kristina Kenneally MP
Dr Meredith Burgmann Duty MLC
Ms Lee Rhiannon MLC
Ms Sylvia Hale MLC
Ms Verity Firth Deputy Lord Mayor of Sydney
Mr Tony Pooley Councillor
Mr Michael Lee Councillor
Mr John McInerny Councillor
Ms Tanya Plibersek MP
Mr Peter Garrett MP
Prof David Richmond, RWA
Mr Michael Collins, RWA
Ms Marcia Ella-Duncan OAM, RWA
Dr Col Gellatly, RWA
Mr Richard Johnson MBE, RWA
Ms Samantha Mostyn BA LLB, RWA
Ms Lucy Turnbull LLB MBA, RWA
Ms Jennifer Westacott BA, RWA
Mr Graham West MP
Mr Morris Iemma Premier, MP

Appendix

Pictures of the park in Action:
Pictures available upon request – removed for ease of email.
Children building Sculptures in the Park
Children Playing in the Marian Park
Community Activities in the Marian Park,
Children playing in Marian Park

**SUBMISSION in response to the Refern-Waterloo Authority draft Built Enviroment Plan**

dear Mr Domm,

I am writing to express my concern at the proposed development of the Redfern-Waterloo community as outlined in the Draft Built Environment Plan by the Redfern-Waterloo Authority.

I am a visual artist with commercial studio premises located in Redfern, as well as a longstanding employee of the neighbouring University of Sydney.

Redfern-Waterloo is a vibrant, dynamic, richly historical and multicultural inner-city community in need of engaged, sensitive and community responsive development of its services and infrastructure. I am not confident that the RWA draft Built Environment Plan is proposing to actualise development in this form.

Chief among my concerns are:

* the diminishing of Aboriginal housing in the area known as The Block and disregard of the longstanding community and cultural significance of this site to indigenous residents of Redfern-Waterloo.

* that the employment generated by the actualising of the RWA Built Environment Plan will be largely unsympathetic to the employment needs and skills base of the existing Redfern-Waterloo community.

* the loss of key community service and infrastructure sites through property development including:

- the Redfern Court House, being of significant heritage value and ideally located for the implementation of local initiatives such as the circle sentencing program, which has proven effective in breaking cycles of incarceration and recidivism.

- the Rachel Forster Women’s Hospital, also well placed to meet the health needs of the Redfern-Waterloo community and indeed an ideal existing site to house a nursing home to support the many elderly residents of Redfern-Waterloo.

* the disregard through planned redevelopment of the limited existing parkland and green space such as that at Marian Park. The value of open-space and parkland in an inner-city community such as Redfern-Waterloo is signficant, providing amenity for both residents and workers and acting as ‘green lungs’ to alleviate urban density and sustain air-quality.

I look forward to your consideration and response to these concerns,

with sincere regards,

Lisa Kelly

148 Abercrombie St, Redfern NSW 2016

Dear Robert,

It was kind of you to come and meet the residents of the Watertower a few weeks ago. It was an awkward circumstance for everyone. It is my opinion that you are doing well in managing the rage and apprehension felt in the community.

Upon reflection over the communications of the past few weeks there seem to be issues that would make you, if you were in my place, question the reliability of the Draft Built Environment Plan (the plan) and those who stand behind it.
For example, elements which have been included in the proposed plan and later referred to publicly as “Pie in the sky”, like the tunnel to Darlington, saying “we had to put it there, but it won’t happen”.
Further, Chris Ford stated well before the publication of the BEP that Regent and Gibbons Streets will not revert to two-way operation, however on page 28 of the plan the opposite is inferred. Yolande Gill repeated this false claim at a Focus Group conducted as late as 20 March.
Further, when asked why not start with mass development at the ATP, where Gill admits there is potential for higher densities, the response was “to avoid complaints from Alexandria residents”.
How can you be taken seriously?

Robert, it appears that we also have a safety issue. I have heard you mention the ‘disconnects’ on quite a number of occasions. On page 50 of the plan they are described as a “major safety issue for pedestrians” that “disconnects the station from the retail heart of Redfern”.
How can you talk about bringing 18,000 new people to work next to the disconnects, before making it safer for them to cross the street?
Wouldn’t the ideal solution be to move the traffic underground at the top of Gibbons street? Shouldn’t moneys be directed there for a true solution?
It seems that the pedestrian safety, just one of the complex issues of Redfern/Waterloo, is not in line with the Minister’s agendas for the area.

The pedestrian safety issue has a commercial implication. Local businesses on Regent and Redfern Streets will not profit from the redevelopment of 18 storey complexes with lots of new retail outlets. Why would workers want to cross a dangerous street when they can get all they want in the new established retail outlets at the bottom of their building.

I have been a strong supporter of the RWA and a believer in its ability to bring positive change to the area. When asked, as a community representative on the RWA’s Built Environment Ministerial Advisory Committee, about the unique aspects that make Redfern/Waterloo a special place, I felt that someone was really listening. I felt very optimistic that any change brought by the RWA would be sensitive to the unique character of the area, respecting its residents and understanding the value of social currency.
I could not have been more disillusioned when the draft Built Environment Plan was first released to the public. The proposed magnitude was unfathomable – I was shocked.

I could not begin to imagine what effort went into the production of such document, but in all fairness I believe it holds more words than required for what it’s really telling us: Many strategies and design concepts are described only in general terms, promising a more detailed study to be undertaken at some point in the future, while others are embedded with caveats or aspirations, and they’re all presented in language somewhat inaccessible to the demographics described in Appendix 1 of the plan.
How can you push for approval of a plan that is incomplete and will probably end up in a disaster because no one has thought it through?

What is evident and a true standout of this document is the generous FSR and height allowance ‘on offer’. One might think this document is aimed at developers, somewhat like a marketing brochure. Supporting this perception is the fact that the other two plans, Human Services and Employment and Enterprise have been printed on normal white paper stock with black ink, while this professionally designed, full-colour, printed on high-grade recycled paper looks quite attractive. As you explained (in your own words), it’s about creating a framework for developers.

Subsequently, many residents who enjoy living in what the plan describes as the “unattractive and uninviting” area South of the Railway Station, are asking themselves who is Redfern being revitalised for? Over 400 people (erring on the safe side) will be immediately affected by the loss of Marian Street Park. 100s more indirectly. These include residents at the Watertower, Ariane, Parkview, Katia, Rosedale. The reductionist view that Marian Park is an under-utilised space because there aren’t masses of people occupying it at all times is as unintelligent as suggesting that an apartment should not have windows if its occupier works during business hours and only uses it for a few hours before going to sleep.
Robert, green space in inner-city areas should be non-negotiable, no matter what a developer will pay you for it. Before any development goes ahead it is essential for Marian Park to be rezoned as Reservation Open Space in its entirety (including the parking lot between the Watertower and the Railway Station). It would be a show of good will to have those park benches back in the park too. The concrete bases are still solid where the benches used to exist.

Sitting cosily behind the park with a ubiquitous spatial presence is the Watertower Landmark building. Its historical value as the first Sydney warehouse conversion is unquestionable – The Old Shoe Factory marks the tipping point and a paradigm shift in Sydney’s attitude towards its physical history and heritage: Preservation instead of demolition. The cultural significance of the building is monumental and should be celebrated not camouflaged behind 18 storey buildings on its East and North. The Loft Book, a 250 page American book about lofts has but a single Australian case study, the Watertower. With its international reputation it sits perfectly on the Airport to Sydney CBD corridor. There is potential to attract tourists to the Sydney that’s beyond Darling Harbour and the Rocks, to show the world Australians respect their own heritage and that Austarlian culture is not just glam facades, prison bars and vegemite.
Hiding the Watertower behind contemporary skyscrapers would be an atrocity. Just another step in the making of a city without a soul.

I would like to commend the RWA for undertaking to create an affordable housing program in the area. While, like much of the information in the plan, the extent of the program is vague, it will obviously be much needed to avoid displacement as a side effect to gentrification occurring in the area. As the sociologist Ruth Glass, who coined the term in 1964 explains “…Once this process of ‘gentrification’ starts in a district it goes on rapidly until all or most of the original working-class occupiers are displaced and the whole social character of the district is changed”. I am sure the RWA is not undertaking social cleansing of the area, but is it taking the necessary precautions?

It has been argued that sustaining neighbourhood character and culture (recognising the social capital) can mediate the effects of gentrification while encouraging regeneration. So what is it, that unique character that Redfern has, which stimulates disdain in some and attraction in others? While the modernists would not accept this notion, it is widely acceptable today that the unique character of an area is made up of its built form and the social construct which takes place in the space between physical elements – the two are inseparable and they both play an important role in the human experience. When you radically change the built form, or when you radically change the social mix of an area, you are bound to change the human experience and lose its unique character.
Robert, it is therefore imperative for any change to respect the existing social mix and the existing built form and that any change happen organically, or by small increments.

If the RWA is really listening and is genuinely interested in preserving the unique character of the area it should stop focusing solely on the undesired elements of the area and its social disadvantages.
It’s time to consider the positive aspects of the area, to interpret what’s already working well and to understand why such an interesting diversity of people have been attracted to settle here, despite distorted reputation. The shared human experience of all residents in Redfern and Waterloo is what’s giving its 19,000+ residents a real sense of place.

I have a real hope that the amended Built Environment Plan (Stage 1) will demonstrate a better consideration and understanding of these issues.

Redfern-Waterloo Authority Draft Built Environment Plan

Dear Mr Domm,

I write to voice my concern about several aspects of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Draft Built Environment Plan.

Although I do not live within the immediately affected area, I regularly visit various homes, shops and galleries that fall within the scope of the plan, and more generally have a personal and professional interest in developments within Sydney’s urban environment.

Firstly I am surprised by the overall density of proposed development for the area. Will such a high level of development be met by matching demand for office and residential space? And even if this is the case, I believe this is not the appropriate location, on the edge of the City of Sydney, and within medium density housing, for such an extension of very high density buildings, related functions and services.

Secondly and more specifically, the proposed eighteen storey office block buildings surrounding the Gibbons and Marian Sts intersection will be entirely out of scale and character with the historic and more recently constructed buildings adjacent to the area.

Thirdly, there will be a substantial, indeed massive, loss of open public space in this already densely populated and highly traversed area.

Fourthly, and perhaps most alarmingly, the Plan envisages the loss of the Marian St Park. A scarce piece of green space remaining within this region of the inner city fringe which is proposed to be ‘developed’ with an eighteen story building!? By what good fortune for the city and neighbourhood has this park been spared into the 21st Century? Surely it would be a travesty of common sense and urban planning experience and expertise to lose it now.

Finally the proposed plan represents a huge loss of amenity for local residents and visitors to this significant inner city residential and mixed-business area. Amenity relates to the availability, condition and character of spaces and buildings. This precinct has a distinctive, and in some areas, like the Water Tower, a truly unique character. The Redfern-Waterloo Authority Draft Built Environment Plan as it currently stands will largely destroy this amenity and character.

I submit that the Plan should therefore be revised to take into account the serious concerns identified.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Howard

Re: Redfern-Waterloo Authority Draft Built Environment Plan and the future of the Marian St Park.

Dear Mr Domm,

I am writing to express my concern about the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Draft Built Environment Plan. I am particularly concerned about the likely loss of the Marian St Park in the proposed plan.

This publicly owned land must remain a park, as a public reserve, in perpetuity. Any proposal to increase the commercial and residential density of the Redfern area will correspondingly increase, not decrease, the need for public open, green space. Redfern already has below average (for Sydney) open spaces. Trees within this area are a rarity.

The Marian St Park provides a resting and recreation area for locals and visitors alike. It is a scarce inner city haven where people, trees and birds cohabit. An aesthetic experience of real value within the busy metropolis.

It is not acceptable in the 21st Century, considering our awareness of the importance of green spaces as quiet zones, as breathing spaces, as buffers against noise and air pollution and the contribution such spaces make to the overall health of cities, to follow earlier patterns of development and planning that see their demise as acceptable, even inevitable.

The Marian St Park should, must, be saved and upgraded in any proposal for the redevelopment of the Redfern Waterloo area.

Yours faithfully,

Lucienne Fontannaz-Howard

I am writing in reference to the proposed development of Marian St Park in Redfern.

I am a resident of the City of Sydney and am very proud to live in the heart of one of the world’s great cities. One of the things that makes Sydney so wonderful is how green our city is and how livable our inner city areas are.

It is mind boggling then that our precious green spaces can be threatened in the name of ‘development’. Surely a proper definition of development is about improving places for people to live. This would mean that not only building new dwellings but simultaneously catering for all the other essentials. Efficient public transport, well maintained amenities and substantial amounts of green, leafy spaces are non-negotiables in terms of the standard of living in contemporary Sydney.

It is therefore distressing that the Authority would seek to destroy the rare oasis that is Marian St Park rather than working to increase the green spaces and thus the living standards in Redfern.

Yours sincerely,

Abi Monaghan

Paving Paradise to turn Gibbon Street into a Parking lot

Submission regarding the Redfern Waterloo Authority Draft Built Environment Plan

[Photo: The view towards Marian Park from the corner of Boundary and Gibbon Streets. Note this the last traffic light before the railway station (about 400m away).]

DRAFT PLAN AND SEPP AMOUNTS TO A BLANK CHEQUE.

There is so little information in the Draft Plan and SEPP that it effectively amounts to a blank cheque.

The Redfern Waterloo Authority is yet to indicate that it shares resident’s views on what is important and needs to be preserved or enhanced in rejuvenating the area. This plan was an important opportunity to prove commonality. To assure us that it not just a vanguard for developer land grabs.

The plan should be held over until more detail on how these height and usage zoning can be supported and their probable effects on the utility of Redfern Waterloo.
Significant change in traffic patterns
The bulk of the plan involves the rezoning of areas that have extremely narrow roads or that would affect arterial roads yet the plan gives no indication that these have been planned for.

These height and business zonings imply increases of thousands of resident vehicles and significantly more transient vehicles. Yet most of the roads in the area are so narrow that fire brigade vehicles cannot travel freely.

Logically many properties will need to be seized to allow for the widening of roads especially around the railway station.

SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN POLLUTION PROFILE

The draft plan and SEPP should not proceed at this time as no consideration has been given to the significant changes in the amount of pollution created by changed traffic patterns along Gibbon Street and Regent Street.

SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN NOISE PROFILE

The draft plan and SEPP should not proceed at this time as no consideration has been given to the significant changes in the amount of noise and the type of noise that the plans represent.

It displays no consideration of the
* Noise absorption that the Earth bank and trees provide
* The beneficial noises that the trees and birdlife provides to residents
* The effect of noise reflected off the new buildings.
* The additional traffic demands of the new buildings.
* The effects of the changed traffic patterns will have.
* The type and quantity of traffic that will be forced onto narrow side streets.

These changes will make Gibbon St. and the side streets surrounding the Marion Park “Penisula” increasingly unlivable, with increasing noise turning to mostly braking and acceleration noise.

DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT NOISE PROFILE

[Photo: view of Marion Park roughly where Margaret St. would cut across the park.]

Traffic between the region Gibbon St. between Boundary St. and Margaret St. REDFERN is mostly flowing, being one of the last great traffic runs before the city.

Three (3) lanes plus one lane parking (4 total) wide heading toward the city. Traffic is only stopped by the traffic lights in front of Redfern station at the top of the hill which are mostly in sync with the traffic lights at Lawson St.

There is significant amounts of traffic noise that existing buildings are not designed to handle. But as the traffic mostly whizzes past at close to 60 km/ hour, even the most extreme noise is fleeting. The booming bass of car stereos late Saturday nights fly past the apartments before any significant annoyance can take effect.

[Figure. a sectional view at the corner of Gibbon and Margaret facing the city..
Note the steep hill that Margaret St. is expected to travel across if made into a through road. Not to scale but the slope is an adequate representation]

[PHOTO: Marion Park from the Corner of Margaret and Gibbon Streets. Note that most of the parks usable space has been zoned for towers and roads.]

WEEKDAY SAMPLE OF NOISE FROM THE CORNER OF GIBBON AND MARGARET ST.

* On weekdays traffic noise on Gibbon St. starts at around 3:30am,
* 4:30am the traffic noise is loud enough to wake you up.
* 5:30am the noise is constant with occasional stationary moments. But traffic tends to trickle past.
* Sunrise: the morning chorus of the birds from Marion Park can actually drown out the traffic noise. Birds from surrounding parks fly in and all the local pet birds start chirping out their territory. This can last up to an hour when it fades I wake up and get ready for work.
* Upto 10 am traffic trickles past slow but constant.
* 10am Traffic starts flowing freely, extreme fleeting noise, residents can enjoy a day off work with the aid of headphones.
* 3pm Traffic starts slowing to Peak
* 8pm Traffic starts flowing; traffic flow remains constant with frequent lulls caused by the traffic lights at Boundary St.
* 11pm Traffic becomes increasingly infrequent

CRITICAL EFFECTS OF DRAFT PLAN AND SEPP

CURRENT DESCRIPTION OF MARGARET ST.
* Margaret St. is barely two (2) lanes wide.
* Two way street acting as a link road between Gibbons and Regent St.
* Currently Margaret St. is broken where it crosses Marian Park (between Gibbon and Rosehill St.).
* A removalist truck or taxi is enough to block Margaret St. causing sometimes entertaining altercations between frustrated drivers.
* Cnr. Gibbons and Margaret is a frequent location of accidents and near misses during peak hours.
* Margaret St. is a step climb from Cornwallis St. upto Rosehill St.

EXTENSION OF MARGARET ST TO BECOME A THROUGH ROAD
* Extending Margaret St. across the Park would mean a steep climb from Gibbon St. to Rosehill St. This would mean significant acceleration and breaking noise to traverse this climb.
* Margaret St. does not have adequate capacity to take the extra demands of the proposed towers and shopping plaza.

EXTENSION OF MARION ST TO BECOME A THROUGH ROAD
* Marian St. at three lanes wide is the only street wide enough to provide adequate capacity for the proposed towers, it would probably be the only street wide enough to feed the carparks necessary to support a shopping complex above the railway space.
* None of the side streets on the railway side of Marion Park are capable of taking the capacity that Marian St. could provide. This would result in congestion on that side of Marion Park.

SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF EARTH BANK AND TREE NOISE ABSORPTION
* The earth bank of Marian Park absorbs and diffuses significant amounts of noise.
* The significant numbers of established trees diffuse the noise as it reflects between the buildings either side of the park.

CHANGE OF TRAFFIC PATTERNS FROM MOSTLY FLOWING TO STOP / START
* Safe operation would require the addition of traffic lights at both Margaret and Marian St. frequently turning Gibbon St. into the proverbial parking lot. Traffic lights will cause Gibbon Street to gets upward of 4 lanes of braking, idling and accelerating vehicles. Significant increase in frequency and type of noise. Pollution from idling and accelerating vehicles.
* Traffic would bank up in Margaret and Marian Streets causing significant noise and pollution.
* The addition of significant cross traffic would have a detrimental effect on the arterial roads of Regent and Gibbons street. The resulting congestion would make the William Street lane closures feel like a Labor party fund raiser.

LOSS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONNECTION
* Marian Park has a significant psychological effect on residents.
* It provides a convenient park for locals to walk their pets, with the community that forms between pet owners.
* Abundant birdlife that roost in trees in Marian Park and trees above the existing railway station, can often drown out traffic noise and contrasts with the significant traffic noise.
* The proposed towers and road works would consume most of the park, leaving a small steep wedge of park land, that will be difficult for locals to enjoy safely.
* Most of the parks open space is immediately under the proposed 5 storey and 18 storey towers.
* No accounting for the climatic effect that the green space has on surrounding buildings.

SIGNIFICANT INCREASE OF TRAFFIC NOISE AND POLLUTION
* As indicated previously the plan implies significant increase in vehicles.
* The plans imply that these vehicles will be moving through the area at slower speeds, with frequent stopping
* The plan gives no indication how the associated noise and pollution will be handled.

LOSS OF OXYGEN OUTPUT
* Marion Park has a significant number of trees; I suspect it has a marked effect on the air quality that residents inhale.
* The proposed towers and road works would remove most of the established trees leaving less than 20% of the current number of trees, mostly younger trees.

CONCRETE CANYONS INCREASE REFLECTED NOISE

[Figure. A before and after sectional view across Margaret St looking towards the city.]

* The proposed towers as indicated by the height rezonings would create a concrete canyon along the busiest part of Gibbon St.
* This would have significant effects on reflected noise, especially considering they would remove the absorption effects of the earth and trees they replace.

INCREASED RELIANCE ON AIR CONDITIONING
* Increased noise and pollution from the changes mean surrounding residents will need to close their windows.
* This will result in an increased reliance on Airconditioning.
* Many of the existing buildings have not been designed for airconditioning and strata restrictions will inhibit the installation of more efficient systems.
* I predict the increased usage of inefficient personal / room airconditioners.

TRAFFIC DEMANDS OF PROPOSED TOWERS
* The proposed towers as indicated by the height rezonings would create their own demand for car parks and service vehicles.
* If the towers were allowed to have vehicular access from Gibbon St. then it would cause traffic to slow around these entrances.
* Rosehill street is too narrow to accept increased traffic that these buildings can generate.

EFFECT OF RAILWAY TUNNELS ON SUBTERRANEAN CAR SPACES
* The area in around the railway station has the Eastern Suburbs railway tunnel that travels under the Marian St. Park.
* Towers built on that park will not have any subterranean space to provide suitable parking for their tenants. This will require them to consume above ground floor space for parking or utilize the minimal kerb parking.

LACK OF ABORIGINAL OPPORTUNITY AND INCLUSION
* The proposed plans seem to make good on various politicians suggestions of “bulldozing the block”
* The “Block” is historically a meeting area for Aboriginals from across the state, many of whom do not have adequate housing or access to telephones. Communications is by word of mouth and travels extremely quickly. Aboriginals can locate family members and accommodation, and pass important messages. This will not change simply because the block been concreted.
* As the Aboriginal community on Eveliegh St. is dispersed to nearby suburbs, such as Waterloo and Surry Hills, criminal elements travel in from as far away as Mount Druitt to commit crimes before returning to their suburbs. There will no longer be adequate presence in the Eveliegh St. area of Aboriginals of various standing to self police and support the community.
* The proposed zoning of Eveliegh street district seems to deny affordable housing for significant numbers of Aboriginals of various means, within the historical “Block” region. As all land by Aboriginal co-ops are denied adequate zoning and aboriginal residents in and around Eveliegh St. are destined to be compelled to give up their leases and titles.
* Yet the plan seems to be filling the same area with significant proportions of non-Aboriginal housing, a sort of “whitewashing” either intentional or not.
* Aboriginals dispersed to nearby suburbs run the risk of being moved further away as their accommodations are “re-modelled” under the RWA grand scheme.
* There is no indication of low income housing in the Eveliegh Street plan.

LACK OF OPPORTUNITY FOR LOW INCOME REDFERN WATERLOO RESIDENTS
* The proposal gives no indication on how they intend to improve the job prospects of locals.
* There is no net growth of public housing under the RWA grand scheme and no indication of low income housing in this draft, which means many low income residents will end up living outside the area and have to commute to gain these job opportunities.
* Many will be moved away from the district while there accommodations are “re-modelled” under the RWA grand scheme.

LOSS OF PANORAMIC VIEW FROM REDFERN STATION
[PHOTO]
* The path outside Redfern railway station offers one of the best panoramic views of Sydney’s fireworks displays without getting amongst the crowds. You can see the city silhouetted by fireworks from Darlingharbour across to Rose Bay.
* The proposed height restrictions on Eveliegh street and surrounding streets effectively reduces the panoramic view to insignificance, therefore removing another positive aspect of the Redfern Waterloo area.
No provision for bus terminus on the plan
* With significant development occurring in and around Redfern station there is no indication where public infrastructure such as a bus terminus will be located.
No indication of protection for railway station and other historic buildings
* The draft does not indicate whether the historical railway station will be preserved
* The draft does not indicate buildings of significance and what protection will be provided.

SIGNIFICANT NECK INJURIES AS RESIDENTS LOOK SKYWARDS FOR THE HORIZON
[PHOTO: A Sunset viewed along narrow side street between Gibbon and Regent Streets.]

* This is far fetched I admit but there are significant psychological benefits from being able to look towards a horizon across Marian Park. If you are wearing headphones to block the traffic noise you can almost forget the cars are there.
* As tall towers and apartment blocks sprout over Redfern we increasingly only see our environment if we look skywards.

NO PROTECTION OF GREEN SPACES
* The draft plan does not suggest how the green spaces will be preserved.
* The draft plan seems to imply that existing green space is merely included as undeveloped real estate.
* The draft should consider that the green spaces are what differentiate the Redfern Waterloo region from surrounding suburbs such as Surry Hills.

SEPP OR SOMEONE ELSES (POLITICAL) PROBLEM
* Fans of “Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy” get a good chuckle when they see the letters S.E.P. together. They stand for “Someone Elses Problem”.
* The major political parties lost their opportunity to control over development applications in the City of Sydney mayoral race.
* The Redfern Waterloo Authority appeared almost overnight to override the Council approval processes and established legislation, guaranteeing the State Government control over lucrative development applications within the councils area.
* At a time when political parties are desperate for campaign funds the potential for political corruption by developers is enormous, as they vie for previously unattainable land without all of the usual compliance requirements.
* The Redfern Waterloo Authority can be directed to follow the whims of the state government which is determined by whichever political party gains office.
* But at the end of the day, it is the people of Redfern / Waterloo and the Sydney City Council that must live with the developments, the road congestion, the noise, the loss of trees, the pollution, and the non compliance with applicable legislation.
* We deserve significantly more detail before these plans are approved, this will provide us assurances from the changing priorities of the state government.

Submission prepared by

Patrick Ryan
Margaret St
Redfern NSW 2016

Wednesday 12 April 2006

Dear Robert,

I join with voices in the Redfern-Waterloo community to express disappointment, sadness and great anger as I begin to construct a meaningful response to my reading of the Draft Redfern-Waterloo Built Environment Plan (Stage 1) February 2006.

I fail to understand how the creation of an 18 story building on one of Sydney’s (surviving) precious open green spaces, Marian Street Park, can in any way facilitate the process of urban renewal and revitalisation in the Redfern-Waterloo area!

The RWA Plan describes activating, defining, appropriating, managing, supporting, reinterpreting and far too forcefully, developing the space that is Marian Street Park as well as other targeted areas in Redfern-Waterloo.
MARIAN STREET PARK IS ALREADY an active, defined, appropriate, managed, supported, constantly reinterpreted, and developed space (it has seen its fair share of landscaping and I dare say there is more to come!).

In support of this statement, I find that it is important to listen to how the community describes the place that we speak of. These words …breath, buffer, green lung, spirit, ideas, nature, feeling, recreation, peace, pleasure, health, access, native garden, urban oasis, open, local character, culture, cherish, light, air, harmony, solace, visual, silence, history, memory, social, community…what more meaning could possibly penetrate this space? What other structure could possibly continue to provide this experience to all who move through, witness, and live in proximity to Marian Street Park?

I am not a resident of the Watertower building, however I have close relations with many who are. It is a piece of built heritage. It does provoke a majestic presence that is a visual pathway to the CBD. It does trigger history and memory in this cultural, social, and politically diverse space in the inner city.

For this rich sense of place to continue to exist, the Watertower must remain to be seen! Nurturing these spaces and structures can connect generations, can educate and inspire generations; people share, protect, preserve and take responsibility for the welfare of their natural and built surroundings.

IT IS NOT THE HOUSES. IT IS THE SPACES BETWEEN THE HOUSES. Like the poet who wrote these lines (James Fenton in A German Requiem 1981) evoking memories without revealing them, we in the Redfern-Waterloo community are concerned with how the immediate development proposals will destroy a capacity for a space to tell its history.

Marian Street Park and the Watertower building hold an historically significant place in Sydney’s inner city.

I have hope.

Yours sincerely,
Ruth Paillas

You may be aware that the Marian Park has been threatened by plans for development in the past; over 15 years ago, as a child, I organised a group letter from young residents of Marian street to protest against plans to change the park into a transport hub. We won that battle, and the reason we won it was because the council and state planning authorities recognised the park was an important resource for local residents, and for children in particular, who are too small to travel easily to parks in Waterloo, Alexandria and Chippendale.

Mr Domm, if the Council recognised over 15 years ago that this park must be kept, how can this proposed redevelopment be justified when the area surrounding Marian Park has only become more populous in the meantime?

The only reason such a decision could be made would be to make profits by developing an already over-developed part of the inner-city, at the expense of current residents and tax-payers. Instead, I urge you to consider the needs of Redfern residents – both adults and children – and to retain Marian Park as a much-needed and greatly used community space.

Mr Robert Domm
CEO, Redfern-Waterloo Authority
PO Box 332
Redfern, NSW 2016

Dear Mr Domm

I am responding to the release of the Built Environment Plan for the Redfern – Waterloo area. I have been particularly distressed that the Plan shows little recognition that the area around Redfern, Regent and Gibbons Streets is already a residential area, with a strong and growing sense of community.

My family and I moved to the Watertower more than 20 years ago when it was first redeveloped as apartments. The Watertower is our family home, and Redfern is where we identify ourselves as belonging. The children (now adults) have grown up in Redfern, in the Watertower, and over time we have used a different mix of all the facilities of the local area – shops, medical services, schools, universities, playgrounds, parks and open spaces, public transport, cafes, restaurants, and galleries. I work nearby at the University of Technology, Sydney and can walk to and from work each day.

My mother-in-law lives nearby in public housing in Waterloo and this area is also her home. She uses an additional range of local services and facilities designed for the elderly and those with limited mobility and she also has a deep sense of the community that surrounds and supports her.

None of my family is opposed to development in the area. We have welcomed past improvements – such as the development of the ATP, the renovation and redesign of Redfern Station, and improvements to Alexandria Park, and our hopes for the area have risen with the opening of new shops, galleries and cafes, and fallen with the demise of more marginal activities that have not been supported by other needed development in the area. Personally, I am not opposed to high-rise development, but it does need to be well-considered and well-integrated with successful existing structures, ventures and activities, rather than driving out residents and their activities.

Residents in the area could provide you with a long list of developments that are needed – better access to Redfern Station for people with mobility impairments; better integration of Redfern with Chippendale / Darlington through reintroducing a bridge across the railway line; easier through routes for pedestrians moving across Regent and Gibbons Streets; street furniture that allows refuge from the wind and traffic; maintenance of our excellent medical and care services; easily accessible child care and schools; and, of course, preservation, extension and maintenance of open and green spaces. I would applaud schemes that redevelop the Block as affordable, well-maintained housing and other services for Aboriginal people, under Aboriginal management, and that maintain public housing and improve the quality of life for public housing residents. The current proposals for the built environment around Redfern, Regent and Gibbons Streets provide little hope that any of these outcomes can be achieved. The argument that the proposed development of multi-storeyed office blocks will provide employment for local people is spurious. Because we are so close to the city, and have easy and cheap access to public transport, we already have access to employment in many office blocks (often under-utilised) in the southern end of the city. Unemployment in the Redfern area will not be alleviated by building multi-storey buildings.

I am particularly concerned about the proposals to allow development of up to 18 storeys on Marian Park – the area of land bounded by Rosehill and Gibbons Streets, and partly abutting Redfern Station. Even though this area is not presently formally registered as a public reserve, custom and practice have seen it used as such for several decades. In an area that already has a very low ratio of green space to residents, the proposal to resume open, green space for high-rise development is unconscionable. I cannot believe that the person(s) who drew up the plan actually visited the area and saw the damage that would be wrought. I submit that Marian Park should be rezoned as ‘Reservation Open Space’, that the easement currently on the property is removed, and that Marian Park is registered as ‘Public Reserve’ in perpetuity in care of the local Council.

I am also concerned about proposals to allow development of up to 7 storeys on the block at the front of the Watertower. This block, currently used as a carpark, has been inaccessible to residents of the area for some time, but for many years it was a short cut for people moving between Lawson Street and Cornwallis Street and provided a pleasant, tree-bordered walk. Again, this space could easily revert to open, green public space with greater facilities for residents of the area and access to Redfern Station. The currently proposed development of this space, as well as the proposals for Marian Park, will have the severely detrimental impact of overshadowing the Watertower – resulting in many residents on the east and north of the building receiving no sunlight at any time. The proposed developments will also block or impede sightlines around the Watertower that currently link this historic building with other significant sites in the built environment – Redfern Station and the recycled industrial buildings of the Technology Park.

I have travelled internationally for work and have seen many examples of city developments that enable investment, growth and employment while retaining a city scale that integrates people’s everyday activities within the city. I’ve also seen examples of developments that have not worked – where business development has driven out residents and soulless cliffs of buildings have resulted.

What my family and I want is a Redfern that is habitable; where people have easy and familiar access to their community and its services and facilities, and where green, open spaces are easily accessible and well-maintained. Residents, rather than day-workers, help to build pride in community, and the preservation and enhancement of services and pleasant spaces for residents in the area is important for long-term sustainable development.

Yours sincerely

Lyn Shoemark

Dear Mr Domm,

I was not aware we have been relegated to living in a dictatorial society? How disappointing to find a small handful of ‘elected’ officials, (who employed a number of ‘non elected’ folk) have declared themselves the purveyors of planned ugliness.

Perhaps there is a solution – I am not certain where the officials, planners, live. Perhaps they were imbibing, or on drugs, when they constructed the notion a skyscraper residential tower should replace the Marian Street Park, or, who have equally ridiculous plans for the Cope Street greenery – however, may I recommend they move the plans they are so keen to implement, and do so, to their area of residence? Far more logical as they seem so anxious to proceed with the construction.

Having lived in Redfern for many years, initially in the Watertower and now in Lacey on Regent Street, I am horrified at the total change of direction for the green areas as now dictated by the Redfern Waterloo Authority. Progress is essential – was there not a height limit for residential and commercial buildings in this area? Surely progress should be applied taking into consideration the well being of the residents of this area – current and future. Are you not aware Redfern has less green and open space than almost any other city suburb? I fully support an underground road with more trees on the streets, however, in no way would that compensate for stealing our green space.

A key factor in my decision to purchase my residential property in Redfern and commercial premises in Waterloo was the manner in which South Sydney Council considered all planning – I do recall residents had input and were listened to. Those were the days!

My view will be greatly obstructed - I love looking across to the Watertower and the trees - the only unsightly outlook is provided by the TNT towers - now it is your intention to totally spoil it.

The Council actually listened to the residents when making planning decisions. Unfortunately, although elected by the residents, they now have little say – perhaps we should explore the legality of the ‘takeover’ move by the Redfern Waterloo Authority?

I also recall when the Watertower was undergoing its transformation to units, the architect and developer were obliged to pay a considerable sum to the Council for the purpose of “greening” the car park opposite the Watertower (it was a public car park at that time, prior to being hijacked by the State Government and leased out) and to plant trees and shrubs.

I also recall admiring the creation of the Marian Street Park (prior to its creation there was an ugly collapsing fence separating it from Gibbons Street) - where have those thoughtful planners gone?

At one time I had a commercial building renovated to house my business, then in George Street Redfern, and with Council permission. I was obliged to pay a sum to the Council to provide funds to allow the Council to develop sufficient parking spaces, for my workers. With the hijacking of the area by the Redfern/Waterloo authority it would appear all residents/workers have been given little or no consideration.

The infrastructure for this area in no way could support such an increase in population – or traffic. Obviously you have not spent 20 minutes in peak hour trying to exit Cornwallis Street. Of course the fumes from the stationary vehicles with their motors running can lead to eye and lung problems – however, it would appear that too is immaterial. Of course there is a possibility some may catch trains and some trains could even run on time, that is, if folk are prepared to stand during peak hour.

The State Government was elected to take care of State matters, not to dictatorially take control of the Redfern Waterloo area.

Why cannot we be allowed to retain the little green we have? Perhaps you could take advantage of your overseas trips and travel to Savannah in Georgia – one city that has capitalised on their green area rather than destroying it. We should be expanding green spaces, not stealing them.

Redfern has a wonderful mixture of people as residents - business people, retirees, students, pensioners, our own Aboriginals, folk from many different parts of the world. We are a community with a voice, please listen!

How could you so ruthlessly and arbitrarily decide to steal our community’s minute green areas?

Lynn McDonough

I am writing to you to discuss the regentrification of Redfern and the effects that it will have on Marian Park.

As a Redfern resident I am very pleased that the area is going to be given a new lease of live by the proposed plans. I am not, however, happy that these plans involve the destruction of some of Redfern’s much needed park life.

Any city in the world needs it parks. As a communal meeting place, as a source of beauty and a habitat for birds and animals. Marian Park provides this and much more to the Redfern area. Situated near to Redfern Station it provides some much needed beauty to an area, which is going to become very built up. To plan the removal of this grassy area and around 117 trees and replace them with an 18 storey business building is going against everything that the regentrification of Redfern is aiming to do. How can you bring beauty and community to an area by destroying on of the few areas in the suburb that already provides this.

The area around the park includes The Water Tower, Ariane and the Technology Park. All these buildings have been built and designed to fit in with their natural surroundings. Anyone who alights at Redfern Station is greeted with a picturesque area of businesses and residential abodes and a glorious park. A newly built 18 storey building will destroy the ambiance of the area and may well have the opposite effect and drive people away from the area. Who wants to live or work in an area under an imposing 18 storey block?

I very much hope you reconsider your plans for Marian Park. It remains a beautiful vista amongst the hustle and bustle of Redfern. It would be a crime to take away an area that provides so much joy to so many people.

Yours sincerely

David Michael Brown