To: Director Urban Renewal, NSW Planning and Environment

Re: Draft Urban Renewal Strategy for the Sydenham to Bankstown Corridor.

I am writing to oppose the draft Urban Renewal Strategy for the Sydenham to Bankstown Corridor and to express my concerns regarding the process, the plans and the impact it will have on our community. My submission relates primarily to the precinct plans for Hurlstone Park and Canterbury. I live in 30 Acton Street Hurlstone Park. Below are the areas of my concern.

Firstly I would like to say that I am not opposed to development, I accept that Sydney needs to make plans for a future growth in population, but it is grossly unfair that such a dramatic increase has been proposed with such little consultation, blanket rezoning that colours our neighbourhood carving it up to shapes on a map that do not take into account the areas and communities that are being effected. This is completely unsympathetic and out of character with the neighbourhood of Hurlstone Park. The blanket rezoning appeals only to developers who do not live in our suburbs or have any care or true understanding about how the residents wish to be part of the growth. By using language that says up to 5 in one statement and then up to 5 or 6, and then in other place 5 to 7 plus shows the casual and deceptive way that the rezoning aims to allow for higher density. Language like typically 2-4 or 9 + is also deceptive, as these do not indicate clear limitations. Also the colour charts which are barely readable between yellow and darker yellow also appear deceptive, as they do not clearly indicate these plans. This does not entrust confidence in the plans. I would also like to express anger and dissatisfaction at the way we found out, not by any consultation or notification from Government but from neighbours and local representatives who alerted us to the plans. This is not acceptable government, and does little to gain any support or belief that community is being considered in future planning. These plans effect the way we live as a society, it effects the way communities work and the future for children. An urban renewal strategy should be prepared that identifies development opportunities in a sympathetic and sustainable plan rather than one that anticipates and indeed appears to encourage the destruction of quality homes as is suggested in Hurlstone park. Many locals have already been approached by developers causing anxiety and unease between neighbours. We were lucky enough to purchase our first home in Hurlstone Park 6 years ago. The suburb was appealing as it is a small suburb, with an intact heritage that had not suffered the same bad planning and poor designs as is apparent in the neighbouring suburbs of Marrickville, Campsie and Earlwood. The draft Urban Renewal Strategy will have a massive and negative impact on the suburb due it its proximity to both Hurlstone Park and Canterbury stations. This is grossly unfair to the residents of Hurlstone Park. The change in zones will mean we are effected by the proximity to both stations and the nature of the rezoning that has been proposed will irreversibly change the suburb forever. ¼ of our suburb has been rezoned to Cantebury, currently we are zoned in this change of suburb. We do not support changing our suburb boundaries to suit rezoning. Any growth needs to respect the history of the boundaries and keep our small suburb intact.

The plans are also unclear in clearly indicating the scale of the development to the suburb as Hurlstone Park exists on 2 of the Maps. In the Hurlstone Park precinct Snapshot it does not indicate the high scale rezoning that is evident on the Cantebury precinct. The medium rise rezoning that has been indicated for Melford street and the out of scale rezoning for medium high rise and High rise for the properties that sit behind Cantebury road is completely out of scale. Hursltone Park and Cantebury unlike Bankstown or Burwood nearby are not larger town centres or a CBD. This scale is an overdevelopment in

that area. Melford Street is a character street with heritage quality homes that sit within the low level housing of the suburb. The aim for Hurlstone Park in the plan is to retain the heritage and character of Hurlstone Park. The section of Melford street that is currently rezoned for Low Rise Housing with the block directly behind it jumping to medium High rise. Besides the fact that this rezoning is not small scale and goes completely against the planning that the Hurlstone Park precinct says it aims to do when it says it will Maintain the character of the surrounding lower density neighbourhoods. It also has no scale adjustment to the urban density. The rezoning needs to be changed to reflect the entire suburb, and not be over 2 precincts. This contradiction between documents and splitting the suburb with extreme rezoning in multiple areas with development scales that are at odds to each other is deceptive and it entrusts a lack of confidence in the planning that is being proposed. A local resident has documented the quality of these character homes along Melford Street, which are of clear historical quality and give the suburb it’s character. The documentation exists on the link below.

http://heritagehurlstonepark.org/

I do support the urban growth but at a more sustainable and sympathetic scale to the area. I have indicated this on the graph below and attached later in this document.

The dwelling take up forecast report on the planning website indicates that the proposal would increase the dwellings in Hurlstone Park by 9, the report cites that Hurlstone Park has limitations in it’s scale and geography for large scale growth. The Artist impression of Crinan street shops with the set back upper level storeys show a maximum of 4 storeys, this does not reflect the rezoning plans that would allow this to be up to 5 or 6 and goes directly against the recommendations in the report. Around the station as has been precedence in Dulwich Hill it should be maximum of 4 with a set back on the upper storeys so that the bulk is not out of scale to the area. The scale of Hurlstone Park is not the same as Canterbury and Dulwich Hill and the rezoning should respect this scale. Hurlstone Park should be limited to a maximum of Medium rise which is indicated as 5-7 with set backs. I do support the plans to create a better urban village in Hurlstone Park. The current Zoning allows owners to rent out shop fronts as private dwellings, with curtains drawn. This does not allow for a local culture to exist. A change is Zoning should enforce these owners to only allow them for retail or business use.

The proposal around Canterbury to have 9 + stories is Creating tower areas like Wolli Creek, Burwood ,Hurstville, Rockdale, and currently what we see in Canterbury do not comfortably sit within the landscape, no effort has been made to make them reflect any part of their local heritage and culture or enforce a gradual increase in scale by stepping back the upper storeys with a gradual change in scale to reduce the bulk on the landscape. Recent Government studies from the Australian Institute of family show a correlation with mental health and high rise density. Studies on house type have suggested that high-rise, multi-dwelling units are detrimental to psychological wellbeing, particularly that of mothers with young children and possibly the children themselves (Evans, Wells, & Moch, 2003). Future livability in this plan is also in question with such large amounts of high rise. I also have concerns on the sustainability within all these developments. Many of the areas identified in the rezoning strategy in Hurlstone Park are attractive and well built homes with gardens that provide natural habitat for the local birdlife, bees and plants that are crucial to our ecosystem. A dramatic increase in development will destroy these natural habitats that support a diverse natural flora and fauna. The new developments that have been approved in Canterbury have little green space, create large amounts of rubbish, sewerage and wastewater and will increase the pollution into the cooks river which has a long way to go to being restored as a healthy ecosystem. Increased urbanisation and highrise apartments in the catchment has already placed additional pressure on the river. Developers who are adding to this increase should be forced to pay a levy that contributes to the naturalisation project that aims to improve the river’s health and natural character while maintaining the stability of the banks and river’s capacity to carry flood waters. I see no indication in these future planning documents about sustainability. As a private home owner we are expected to offer sustainable adjustments to any development, retaining water for example so it does not all go into the storm water, will these developments be complying with a plan for a greener future for our city? What will the impact be on the quality of our environment with such a huge increase in population? I cannot support growth that only plans for more dwellings but does not enforce sustainability, take into account the effect on local communities, the deletion of natural green spaces and the increase in pollution that will come with such a dramatic change to the health of the city. Allocating Public school grounds as green space does not comply; The DET has clear guidelines on child safety that these spaces are not for public use, they are locked after school hours and for use with some community groups for language schools etc, but not for free public use. Canterbury racecourse has also been allocated as Green space in the Canterbury district, but their car park area which also has been allocated as green space has also been rezoned for high density. These areas cannot be used to justify the increase in population with the rezoning future plans as they are not for public use.

The future amalgamation of local councils is also going to put greater pressure on councils to approve this scale of development and I am also concerned that if the plans are approved as is that developers will have the ability to go direct to state government immediately resulting in high density fragmented construction with no regard to quality design. The recent approval of apartments around Dulwich Hill Station are prime examples of this kind of development that was not supported by the council and the community. Developers could not get their building approved by local council and went over the council head to get approval in the land and environment court to build an apartment that is so poorly designed with out light and ventilation. Like many of these new apartments that are built purely for profit not livability, they have bedrooms with no windows, low ceilings and inadequate storage. They have poor access to natural light and ventilation, and underperform on environmental efficiency. Internal amenity of apartments is comparatively under-regulated according to the article published in http://www.businessinsider.com.au/australias-apartment-boom-is-in-full-swing-but-future-liveability-in-cities-is-in-jeopardy-2015-5 Apartment bedrooms without windows, for instance, are illegal in New York, Hong Kong and Vancouver. The Winston Churchill Memorial Trust of Australia recently published a paper by Leanne Hodyl https://www.churchilltrust.com.au/media/fellows/Hodyl_L_2014_Social_outcomes_in_hyper-dense_high-rise_residential_environments_1.pdf on Social Outcomes in hyper dense high rise residential environments – A quote from the Managing Director of the Urban Renewal Authority in Hong Kong is quoted as saying ‘Without the support of the community, you are only developing building stock” The Paper is comparing the development of Melbourne in relation to Hong Kong, Vancouver, Tokyo and Seoul with Melbourne failing in it’s plan due to the policy surrounding the density governance that results in • Extremely high-density developments. This is facilitating rapid population growth in concentrated city areas, without consideration of whether the neighbourhood and local infrastructure can support these residents. • A missed opportunity to fund infrastructure through density bonuses. • Buildings that are very high and very close together resulting in poorly designed apartments that lack good access to light, air and an outlook and impacting on the quality of the public realm of the streets below. I have attached this document to the submission also as I feel it has many compelling areas that relate to the governance that comes with such a large density increase as is being proposed in the Hursltone Park, Canterbury vicinity. In particular the planning policies and restrictions that these cities all regulatory controls consider the inhabitants of these buildings and the larger implications for the city, create funding mechanisms for much needed open space, affordable housing and community facilities and protect the land value of adjacent development sites. In the Canterbury LGA there are also many examples of new developments exceeding the original DA height and density restrictions so the community has little faith that the proposed already inappropriate height restrictions will be adhered to. Developers should not be allowed to build such poor quality buildings that are clearly not supported by the local council and community. The recent development of the cooperage with design that is both modern and sympathetic to the historic buildings it is in close vicinity to, is a good example of a development that has created a community space with it’s set back for restaurants, the bulk in its higher scale is set back and the design of the apartments adds to the character of the suburb. This scale also sits on a busy main street with a large town centre and is in line with its scale with the historical corridor. Hurlstone Park is not the same scale and this should be reflected in the future planning.

As a parent of children in both primary and secondary schools, the school numbers are already at their capacity. We need clearer plans and commitments from the State government that any necessary services, schools, transport, hospitals and green spaces will be adequately assessed and delivered with the proposed growth of up to 100,000 additional people.

All of the background studies that have been prepared to date should be made available to the public, if we are to have any faith in the planning we need to have transparency, this state and it’s government has done little to restore confidence in considering community before individual and private profit to developers and planners.

Please keep me informed of the outcome of the consultation period. I would like to be involved in this growth, a sustainable and controlled growth that is supported by the community is the only way forward.

Yours sincerely

Jo Boag

Name: Jo Anne Boag

Address: 30 Acton Street Hurlstone Park 2193