The following is a transcript of the Councillors presentations
before the vote.

Please note- This transcript has been written as verbatim as was possible from the recording. Any inaccuracies are due to human error and are not intended.

Transcript City of Sydney Councilor Meeting 21 September 2009,

Re Supermarket Development, 21-23 Erskineville Road, Newtown (Erskineville)

Lord Mayor (Clover Moore), Deputy Lord (Councillor Black) This one is

the, at Erskineville at 21-23 Erskineville Road, Newtown. [……………….. ]

This is an ongoing issue as Councillors will know. We discussed this fully in length last week and we’ve had a lot of submission material both prior to last week and since last week as well. And it all hinges around a previous proposal, subject to the Land and Environment Court decision, as the

Councillors are aware. The judgment of the Commissioner determined that the proposal was inappropriate, that we had refused it, and that the size of the supermarket would detract from a village hub in Erskineville, and it would require a majority of patrons to come from outside the catchment area of 500 meters. And this would cause significant and unacceptable parking and traffic impact on the area. That’s what the Land and Environment Court said and that was our problem as well. The commissioner however did say that a smaller supermarket or grocery store could be acceptable and he said “there is no reason why there should not be a supermarket in Erskineville urban village center, indeed an appropriate sized supermarket would anchor the centre and improve its viability and sustainability.” Now the applicant took that away and has significantly amended the original development with a new proposal, the total [floorspace*] of a grocery store of 896 square meters in total, that includes back of house, with a trading area of only 745 square meters. It

represents a 60% reduction in the original size on the initial proposal. It’s also intended to adapt and reuse the warehouse rather than significantly amend it as was propose before by adding on two further stories.

I think we’ve all had a discussion, and we’ve all had the debate from the community, and we’ve all acknowledged their contribution, but at the end of the day the Council needs to make a decision on whether we’re going to move forward on this. And I spoke last week about I guess grocery store

evolution, as I might call it, The Australian [Business] magazine this week talked about the growing band of elite grocers is now feeding Australia’s Masterchef inspired addiction to high quality ingredients and top customer service. It goes on to say “when a four year old ask their parents if they can help ‘plate-up’ dinner, you know its time the gourmet evolution in food has begun.” And it goes on to talk about how across Australia, gourmet grocery stores are supplying the needs of Australian food consumers. And it says, “the growing…” as I say, “the growing consumer awareness is that the effects of food production on the environment has also played a significant role in pushing shoppers towards organic and locally sourced produce. People are a lot more concerned about global warming and their carbon footprint, how foods are farmed and the impact that that has on the

environment. And it’s perhaps surprising that the economic downturn has also helped as consumers seek to save money by replicating restaurant dishes in their kitchens, which has really come out of the TV gourmet food programs.” And I think what we have before us tonight is an addition to the

Erskineville village which will only be a positive one, and I’m very pleased to move the recommendation for it.

- (Lord Mayor) so that’s been moved and seconded, who’s seconding

Councillor Black?

1. -I’m happy to do that.
   

2. -
   

3. -Councillor Mallard.
   

4. -
   

- (5.01 - Mallard) I’ve seconded it that indicates my position already. I just want to outline my reason why I’m supporting this and I’ll go through that in a logical way and hopefully those who are here will

understand that. But first of all I think this is a very tough decision, we get, most of our decisions are tough, but this is a particularly tough decision. I know Erskineville fairly well, I’ve lived there in the late 90s in John Street for a while, and of course I was elected to the South Sydney Council in 2000, Councillor Black [can attest to the accounts?] of those days, and we used to meet up in Erskineville town hall up until about 03, 04, 03 I think it was, so I feel I know the area fairly well, I have a lot of friends there of course. [Name?] and I went over there on Saturday morning to visit shopkeepers and people on the street, and have breakfast there and have a look at it all and try and get the

context of it, even though, I know it so, I know it quite well.
We spoke to people on the street about it, [identified myself?] as a Councillor talking to people on the street, and I went to speak to the shop owners and the local publican and spoke to them about it. And I’ve to say there was unanimous opposition from shopkeepers and there was largely

opposition from people I spoke to on the street, not wanting another supermarket. And I guess the concerns can be summed up, and this is not new news to the councillors, is that the residents and shop keepers are concerned of how it might impact negatively on the vitality, and the survival and the viability of that very unique, and very, and Erskineville should be very proud of that shopping strip in Erskineville, and very unique. And they were concerned, and shopkeepers expressed to me

that the land economics would change and it is changing as well already, of course, opposite Erskineville Town Hall there’s a dreadful empty bunch of shops there which I understand a developer is going to develop, but we haven’t seen anything yet, it’s quite derelict – the old

TAB and the old cake shop. But the other areas, you know, the post office, cafes there were thriving, and the one across the road in the Council properties was quite busy, so and the one down near the

Erskineville hotel was doing good business, so its quite a vibrant shopping strip.

People were concerned that what will happen is that the supermarket that’s existing there will go, will not be able to compete, and that other shops then will go and we’ll get holes in the, teeth

missing from the smile, and then we’ll get all kinds of odd shops going in there and it might damage that. So, I took that on board and then we walked up to the site. And we all knew the site, but then walking up there is a dramatic change in urban environment when you go from basically Erskineville Town Hall and you walk up that hill there the footpath narrows right off. And now I accept the recommendation that we don’t have bicycle racks outside the development as it is so narrows

too narrow, cars are zooming by, there’s no parking, and it’s very, quite hostile.

On the Erskineville Newtown side, is of course another factory and the train line, and on the Erskineville side, of course a road and then the great big petrol station. And then, then after all the carry on we’ve had in this Council about The Imperial, during the daytime it’s an ugly building, and if they’re doing up then they’re doing it so it looks good during the day, it looks terrible – and I don’t think a stiletto is all it needed - but it looked shocking. Opposite, of course, Green Bans Park,

that was the only pleasant aspect of that strip, so we went over there.

I counted people going, there were a lot of people walking up to Erskineville and up to Newtown, and I spoke to some people on the way up there as well. So, I think it’s far enough away from the existing shopping centre and in a sort of different context to not be a major competitor, competitor to the existing shopping centre, I mean …

1. -[laughter]
   

2. -
   

- (Mallard) Do you want to hear me in silence, or do you want to interject? If you want to interject, get elected to Councillor.

1. -[Lord Mayor] Councillor Mallard…
   

2. -
   

- So – and I’m trying to give you a reasoned discussion about it, not the hateful emails we’ve been receiving this last week either.

- (Lord Mayor) We did have, and if people in the, who have come to listen today do disrupt the discussion, I will have to close the meeting or ask you to go and observe outside, I think it’s really important that we sort this out. We really appreciate that this is an important issue to you, and I’m always very insistent that everyone is held in respectful silence, so if you could please help me uphold that I’d be really appreciative. Councillor Mallard.

- (Mallard) Lord Mayor, I apologise for addressing the gallery. The development application we’ve got before is 800 square meters which is 40% of the previous one which we unanimously refused because I accepted our view, and I do believe that view and the court upheld it, was that it would damage Erskineville village …

1. -(Harris)
   

2. -
   

3. -And, sorry?
   

4. -
   

5. -(Harris)
   

6. -
   

- (Lord Mayor) Councillor Harris, you’ll have your turn too and I really do want ...

- (Mallard 10.05) – Sorry, good point but I supported the refusal; certainly I was supporting that refusal, that’s not an issue. And indeed the traffic impacts were genuine concerns. But this 800 square meter DA, 40% of the previous one replaces what I view is a far less sympathetic DA

which is the first DA, which you remember we saw up on the board there. Which I’m really quite alarmed that we actually supported it, I guess we had to do a lot of work to get where we were few years ago.

But that building that’s currently approved, the three storey commercial building, looks like it belongs in Crows Nest, and not in Erskineville, and it doesn’t I think retain any of the fabric of the existing building. The saw-tooth roof, the art deco curve, they’re the elements of that former Mardi Gras head quarters, and what looks like an old shoe factory from the sign on that old building, are merit parts of the Erskineville streetscape, so this development application, I’ve accepted, and I know there’s …

1. -(Lord Mayor) Councillor Mallard you’ve had five minutes.
   

2. -
   

3. -One more minute – I was interrupted of course.
   

4. -
   

- I move that Councillor Mallard has one more minute – all in favour say

‘aye’.

1. -(All) Aye.
   

2. -
   

- I just want to say that I think that this is not a, this is a good outcome, I don’t see this as the best of a bad outcome, I actually think this is not a bad outcome at all. An area on the street that is an urban blight, with difficult planning issues, petrol station, a hotel that’s only open at night, and it’s not attractive, very narrow footpath, traffic, train noise – restoration of an art deco building and the retention of its elements and a small supermarket, not a shopping complex, which some people think it is.

I acknowledge Mike Perrott’s email to me, as I said before, a very imaginative, 2050, 2080 type thinking, we’ve got to deal with what’s before us. A community center and a swimming center, like you say, would be great for it, but we have to deal with what’s before us, so I just want to acknowledge that Mike put some work into that, that we have constraints about what is in front of us. So I just in conclusion want to say that, as I said before, I think the distance from the shops on the

existing strip is adequate, the strong [? from the district ?] is genuine, the location is run down, the area, look at the first approval, I think totally out of character to the area, this is scaled back from the previous DA, and it’s only 40 percent of the size and 15 parking spots, not equals 30, it retains and recycles I think an important art deco industrial building, with a saw-tooth roof in Erskineville, I know it’s not heritage listed, but I think it’s important, and I think above all else, and Councillor Black [moved?], we should consider the Land Environment Court decision. Because I would not like to see this go to court. I think there is risk, I acknowledge there’s risk attached to supporting this, but

in the balance of the fact is leading me to believe I should support this development application.

- (Lord Mayor 12.48) Thank you Councillor Mallard. Councillor

Burgmann.

- (Councilor Burgmann ) Thank you Lord Mayor. I oppose the proposal, and will vote that way. As I said previously, in my one year on Councillor, I’ve never had so many emails, and obviously really from very distressed people.

Much was made at committee that there were 7 speakers for and 7 against, but when I talked to the crowd outside and they were under the misapprehension that they were limited to the number of speakers they could have, so there were actually very many more than the 7 opponents who were there on that night. I think it’s clear that the community doesn’t want it as you said when you did your

impartial street walk you found that out, and I really can’t understand how this Council can vote for it when we opposed the Aldi supermarket at the Alexandria canal site. And we opposed it on the grounds that it was 3 km from another supermarket which hadn’t even been built yet!

But this one, this supermarket is 500 meters from three supermarkets of a similar size. So it just seems that we’re not being consistent in the reasons that we give, why we oppose one supermarket but support another.
The main objection from the community is to do with traffic. Not only will there be the delivery trucks which will be pretty unpleasant, but it’s all very well for the developer to say “oh this is going to be a drop-in supermarket - this is going to be the sort of supermarket where you’re walking past and drop in to pick up some groceries on your way home.” That’s all very well, but we know that if you build a supermarket it attracts cars, and there is going to be parking something like 50 cars there, so in actual fact…

1. -No it’s 15.
   
   

- There is going to be parking and it will attract cars and that just makes an area that’s already really congested, even worse. Already car parking spaces have been removed from Gowrie Street and Angel Lane and you know my experience is that even more will be disappeared. The community doesn’t want it and that’s why I’m voting against it.

1. -(Lord Mayer) Councillor Doutney.
   
   

- (Councillor Doutney - 15.38) I realise that this is a very difficult DA, and as an outsider it may make sense. It may seem like a good idea and I acknowledge that it is probably a good re-use of a heritage building, but I have to wonder why we would support a wealthy developer and a major supermarket chain entering a small village neighbourhood over the wishes of a large number of residents.
I know that the proponent and his supporters claim that the majority of residents do not oppose the development, but I’d have to say, that all the evidence that I’ve seen is to the contrary. Along with Councillor McInerney and Tornai attended the public meeting in Erskineville Town Hall, and was

surprised by the packed hall and the large number of people from the area who I recognised as local residents, and they weren’t shop holders, they were residents.
As Councillors, we can only gauge community feeling from either public meetings or submissions, and overwhelmingly the feedback from those residents of Erskineville has been one of opposition. I do not believe the residents are driven by a handful of shopkeepers, although I’m sure they support the local shops, I think this is a dubious accusation from the developer, and from my experience the shopkeepers have been fairly muted on the subject. At some point we have to decide who and what we support, whether we believe in the “City of Villages,” and the rights of residents to chose how their village will develop, or whether we support the rights of developers to persist again and again in trying to develop a village neighbourhood for their own financial interests. I do believe there will be serious traffic impacts on local residents. There will be a stream of delivery vehicles that will use those quiet, narrow streets around the Hive building. To say otherwise is disingenuous and does not take into account the fact that any increase in traffic will be an imposition on those residents. I cannot support this DA and I would ask our Councillors to consider the uniqueness of Erskineville village and the very vocal opposition of its residents.

1. -[17.55 applause]
   
   

- (Councillor McInerney ) Can I first, as a matter of process - I wonder if the chairman had intended to move the recommendation which is in [Relevant 2], I think Mr Chairman that that included a change in the recommendation?

- (Councillor Black) Thank you Councillor McInerney, yes Lord Mayor there is a slight modification to [Relevant 2] which I did overlook.

- (Lord Mayor) So the mover of the motion has accepted the counter motion.

- Just some explanation for those of you who wonder what we’re talking about, there’s a Relevant 2, which changes the recommendation in regard to traffic works and other matters, parking etcetera. Lord Mayor, I …

1. -(Lord Mayor) Do you want to summarise that?
   
   

- Yes – essentially should the application be approved it is recommended that condition 15 be reworded to read as follows: “the removal of 15A and the replacement by part A – to avoid peak hour queuing across the intersection of … Gowrie Street and Erskineville Road, the applicant must approach the RTA and investigate a means to enforce no queuing across the intersection. This is to be at no expense to the Council and evidence of the options investigated must be submitted to Council’s satisfaction prior to construction certificate.

Part B - a separate submission must be made to the Sydney Traffic Committee, by the city infrastructure traffic operations unit, seeking the city’s approval for any changes to kerb side parking arrangements, with the exception of spaces lost as a result of vehicle cross-overs. The submission must include two plans, one showing the existing kerb side parking, restriction signs and stems, the second showing proposed kerb side parking, restriction signs and stems. Both plans must include

changes to all signs and stems from the kerb line of the nearest intersection, all costs and changes to the signposts will be at no expense to the Councillor.” Lord Mayor, that’s just clearing up some of

the matters that were raised at committee.
Lord Mayor I, first off, Councillor Doutney did refer to the fact that I was involved in the early

assemblage of information, and in fact I chaired that very meeting that was attended by Councillors Tornai and Councillor Doutney. I have made it a particular point to try and find the truth, or at least as much of the truth as we can know of the truth in this application. I have, in a sense, Lord Mayor, I not only attended and chaired that meeting, but I’ve taken note of everything that’s come in, and I’ve particularly taken note of the office’s assessment of this application to the extent Lord Mayor that I was still unresolved, and in fact I put forward a series of questions. Those of you who were at the committee will recall the questions that I asked, and again Lord Mayor those questions are

incorporated, Lord Mayor do we ….

- (Lord Mayor 21.00) Do we have copies of this, so where are they? Could we just give these …

- (unknown) I think it’s very important, I’m sorry about this. This is the kind of way a normal procedure of the Council in committee raises a number of questions, and those questions are then subsequently answered by what we refer to in house as a Relevant 2, it’s the green sheet which I’m holding up now. Sorry about this

1. -[Staff look for Relevant 2s] We’ve run out Lord Mayor.
   
   

- Lord Mayor, the question, perhaps I’ll go through the questions, I’m sorry this is going to take a little longer.

1. -(Councillor Black) We’ll give you more time.
   
   

- One of the questions I asked was that, ‘what was a desktop review?’ I was concerned, it sounded a fairly superficial review, and this was the review done by the consultant who consulted to the economic study. And the answer back from the economic group SGS, is that a site visit is actually undertaken, although the review was referred to as a desktop review. So the consultant in fact, it was that I was concerned that they may not have done that, so I’m satisfied on that question.
The second point covered in this Relevant 2 – a further analysis of the impact on other supermarkets was not within the original brief. And this is again from SGS, the consultants of the economic validity of this application, and they go on about they would need to model the

surrounding supermarkets and shops, and the expenditure at each of those supermarkets in the trade area, and in fact they did not do this.

So I remain unsatisfied on that particular point. [23.00] But they go on, in any event, planning frameworks for the area anticipates expansion of the retail offer in this center, and this of course will compete with other nearby centres. They talk about restriction on trolleys and other matters, and perhaps Lord Mayor I should refer to the fact that as well Councillor Mallard’s indication that it has been reduced, I think in fact by 60% down to approximately 890 square meters of supermarket, well

not supermarket, Lord Mayor I should make it clear …

- (Lord Mayor) Councillor McInerney, I’ll need to seek an extension for you, all those in favour say “aye”

1. -(multiple) Aye
   
   

- (Councillor McInerney ) Well then what we are talking about here, and I think this needs to be abundantly clear, and it has not been made clear up ‘til now, let me give you some illustrations: a small supermarket, for example, I suppose a small supermarket would be the one in Macleay

Street, is approximately 2000 square meters. A larger supermarket, which is the Redfern supermarket, is around, that’s at the end of Crown Street there, would be around 4500 square meters. We’re talking about what is in fact in planning terms not even classed as a supermarket, it’s

something between a convenience store and a small supermarket, as SGS claim. Effectively I think they reverted to the fact of calling it a grocery store, so what has been touted, and certainly I don’t want to get emotive about this, but the true information is they’re talking about a large grocery store. I suppose the comparison, and this has been useful for me to work out the way in which we should go, the best comparison is the Thomas Dux Store up in, the new one, up in the old water Reservoir site on Crown Street. And those of you who go there will know that at that location there is no, there is no car parking at all, there are no trolleys. You go there by foot, and your shopping basket is

filled up and you take that out by hand. This is the sort of grocery, or large grocery store that we are now faced with. I might add as well, Lord Mayor, that - several other restrictions that, a restriction that is included in this approval, this proposed approval.
Restrictions on vehicles servicing the site in the morning that are over 7 meters in length that is they are not to be over 7 meters in length. Restriction on vehicles servicing the site over 7 meters in length turning right onto Angel Street onto Erskineville Road between 6 am and 10 am and 3pm and 7 pm. Significant lengths of ‘no stopping’ on Gowrie Street and Angel Street, etcetera. Now, the crafted approval for this grocery store - and I’ll take the liberty of calling it that: large grocery store – Lord Mayor, I think has answered all the questions I did raise in committee. I don’t think there’s anything else I need to add although I do appreciate, I think there will be, these green papers will be made available? Lord Mayor, in that case, that’s my position.

1. -(Lord Mayor 26.18) Thank you Councillor McInerney. Councillor Harris.
   
   

- (Councillor Harris) Thanks Lord Mayor. Last week when I spoke at committee for a few minutes last week, for my five minutes last week, and maybe an extra one. What I did last week was I didn’t indicate exactly how, I hadn’t made up my mind last week, but I did talk to the other Councilors and also the people who were listening, the visitors here in the Council, about my duty as a decision maker and the things that I ought to consider, and they’re contained in section 79c of the

Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979. And so, what I’ve had to do this week is ponder those items in this 79c section of the Act that I thought were relevant to this supermarket. The, just to take up a little point that John McInerney raised, it’s not a small shop at all, it’s a supermarket, and the projected, the applicant’s projected turnover is 9 million dollars.
Now, the other part of that argument, is that it’s not the other, the other thing that’s been argued by the applicant and by the traffic, the review, the peer review of the traffic study is that in fact that

won’t induce a lot of traffic from outside of the area, that was one of key concerns in the previous application. So, if it’s not going to attract a lot of people from outside the area, let’s accept that that’s true, but it is going to turn over 9 million dollars in turnover in a year, now where is that 9 million dollars going to come from? That’s the question (28.02).

And what is the impact of that 9 million dollars on that village and that community? So I’d just like to address those comments, those observations in my comments about this, then I’ll indicate to you what I’ve decided to do.
First of all - people in a village, they don’t drive they walk. In a village, we’re talking about a village here, and I think Erskineville arguably is probably one of the few villages of its type in the City of Sydney. I don’t think there’s another one that I’ve experienced that is quite like Erskineville – it’s got a charming variety of local shops, people do walk, they linger, they go and have breakfast, they shop in the shops. They don’t get all their things in one shop, they go to several shops, probably have conversations with the shopkeepers in those shops and so that excursion, be it a Saturday

morning or a Friday afternoon or whatever it is, involves contact with other people in the village, it involves multiple visits, probably at different places, probably conversations with those merchants, “how’s the kids?” “how are your kids?” “nice day isn’t it”, whatever the conversation is. But, what happens in a village when that sort of activity happens on a day to day week by week basis is that strong social contacts are developed, in a village. The dollars that are spent in that exercise in the village traditionally, and this is one of the key things about promoting the notion of a village, is that the dollars spent, stay in the village. The shopkeepers usually live nearby or employ people from

the area. They spend their money in the area and that boosts the local economy. And that’s one of the reasons why the Bendigo Bank model has been really, really successful. And for those of you who don’t know, I understand that the Bendigo Bank down in Pyrmont has actually raised enough capital to begin their operations, the people in Pyrmont thought it was so important to have a bank that did that sort of thin. And one of the features of the Bendigo Bank is they encourage the local

people to do their banking with them, they encourage the local people to borrow for their car, borrow for their house, get their small retail loans from that bank, and in that particular case, and I think this is the case for all Bendigo Bank models, they like to also give community grants that foster things that are happening in that community. That’s why, that’s why Bendigo Bank is popular because it does, it becomes part of that community. Supermarkets in Australia have caused the death of main streets all over Australia. Not just great big supermarkets, all sorts of supermarkets. Supermarkets siphon business from the local shops, no doubt about it, that 9 million dollars has got to come from somewhere. Where’s it going to come from? A lot of that is going to come from the local shops. Supermarkets send revenue out of the village and if they’re large conglomerates like the major retailers in Australia - who by the way currently dominate the market to the point where about 80% of the market goes through their tills - a lot of those corporations, a lot of the shares in those

corporations are owned by foreign shareholders and the money actually leaves Australia. Not even the village, it goes out of this whole country!

1. -Councillor Harris.
   
   

2. -Yeah I’d like an extension Lord Mayor.
   
   

- So I’ll move an extension, seconded Councillor McInerney, in favour

say ‘Aye’.

1. -(All) Aye.
   
   

- (Councillor Harris 31.32) Thank you Councillors I won’t be much longer. So - and the other thing supermarkets want to do is they want to maximize the amount in the basket, they want to maximize the amount you put in that basket and they want to get you out of the store and into the street as quickly as possible. That’s their objective.
So, going back to 79c, 79cb says that I ought to “consider the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environment and the social and economic impacts in that locality.”

So I think that is something that I have to consider as a decision maker. And part d says “..any submission made in accordance with this Act [?] regulations…” Well I’ve got to say, I’ve received very few submissions from anybody, from anybody, I think 2 emails I’ve received, from anybody who has supported this supermarket. We saw 7 last week, that was characterized by the chairman, by the chair of that committee, and I think incorrectly, with respect to you Mr Chair, that that demonstrated some kind of balance, 7 for and 7 against, I think that is totally misleading, and I don’t think in fact that was the case.
So the overwhelming submissions are against this, I with Councillor McInerney encouraged the developer this time to meet with the committee, in fact Councillor McInerney and I, Councillor McInerney chaired that committee and I attended that meeting between the developer and

residents right at the outset to this DA. So we wanted a proper dialogue to happen. And then part d is the public interest. Well considering the impact, the social and economic impacts to the locality, given my comments already, and given the public interest, I can’t support this DA and I won’t be voting in favour.

1. -[applause]
   
   

- (Lord Mayor 33.30) Thank you Councillor Harris. Other speakers? Councillor Tornai

- Lord Mayor, I can only reiterate previous comments of Councillors about how difficult it was to actually get to the nitty gritty of this DA. And it is true that we’ve been bombarded with a lot of information, some of it at the last minute, but nonetheless I’m sure I like everybody else, sifted through that in order to be able to weigh up the facts, and to sort out fact that was perhaps being blown out of proportion.
And I know this week I’ve had several emails from people saying that they had signed a petition without actually having read this current DA, and were in some way led to believe, or perhaps deluded themselves that what they were doing was supporting a contrary position, a position contrary to the original DA, not understanding that it had been scaled back, as we’ve heard, something to the tune of 60 percent.
The thing that concerns me is that on this site there is an active DA for a two to three storey commercial development which is only the facade, the rest of the building will be demolished, and we’ve all seen that demonstrated in committee last week, that would be almost a complete rebuild and I don’t think we need to be forgetful perhaps that the developer has the right to re-activate that particular DA.
So in terms of reviewing the best position for me to take in light of what I’m hearing, I’m actually going to support the recommendation as it stands amended in front of us, given the information that’s been provided in the course of the week, that went to some length to resolve the concerns that were raised at this committee last Monday.

1. -Thank you Councillor Tornai. Any other speakers, Councillor Hoff.
   

2. -
   

- (Councillor Hoff) Thank you Lord Mayor. There’s not a lot left to say, but I did receive a number of emails from people who were in support of a small grocer, or a grocery store in the area, people who didn’t want to have to get in their car and go somewhere else to do their weekly shop, people who are living in the area, and wanted to walk with their own trolley and pick things up and bring them back home again.
One of the other things that comes to mind that hasn’t really been raised here is the fact that this, if we refuse it here tonight, it will go to the Land and Environment Court, it will cost Council a significant amount of money, and we will lose. And so in order to make a point and perhaps be

popular, we can deny these people and say, sorry, deny the developer, and say “no, we’ll please all of these people” we want to do something that makes us popular, let’s force it into the Land and Environment Court, it would be lost, and it would be lost without necessarily having those conditions that are there on the green sheet. And so I feel that I must support the recommendation, along with the relevant additions that are on the green sheet.

- (Lord Mayor) Apart from the vote, I’d just like to make a brief comment, I spoke last week about the importance of the Erskineville village and how it epitomizes our vision for the villages in our city, you know the fact that there’s the school, the station, that great little precinct in the center, and in fact I was there on Friday having a look at all the improvements they’ve done in streetscaping and parks. And I’m really very proud of the work we’ve done in Sydney Park, and I’m also very proud of the role I played in the 80s when we got all those road closures in, which literally stopped Erskineville being overrun with traffic.
So I guess what I want to say is that your interests are very much our concern, and we are very aware that there are very strong feelings about this, and as other Councillors have said, without wanting to repeat what they’ve said, very many submissions have been made, and as Councillor Mallard said, it is a tough decision, but I’m going to support what’s been moved by the chair.
I’m going to do that because I think the proposal is very different, as others have said, a 60%

reduction. We are seeing the retention of an important building that does relate to the heritage of the area and my main reason for supporting is what we’re about in terms of 2030. We talked to a packed hall with Ken Livingstone last week, where we talked about the impact of global warming and the importance of reducing our emissions and how we have to get people out of their cars and onto their, into their shoes and onto the street and onto their bikes. And the proposals that have been mentioned by residents and other Councillors are all shopping precincts that you have to drive to, and this is one, like others that has been approved by us, that fit in with our policy, it’s one you

walk to with either your green bags or your little, your own personal trolley. And this is what we want to do - we want to support development which is about pedestrianising our city, we want to support development that is about retaining important industrial heritage, we want to support development that is not going to have an impact. And I do believe that in reference to section 79c of the EP&A

act, we’re required to assess the planning controls which this current proposal, which is very different from the previous proposal, complies with, and the submissions we’ve received, and what we’re doing tonight is weighing up the balance here, and I think the balance is right in terms of getting a proposal that’s in keeping with our overall policy of improving pedestrianisation, reducing cars, reducing congestion and getting people out there walking to local facilities.
So that’s why I’m going to be supporting this proposal. So if there are no more speakers, I’ll put the proposal that has been moved by the Deputy Lord Mayor to you, and that was seconded by Councillor Mallard. All in favour say ‘aye’.

- Aye [Hoff, McInerney, Moore, Black, Tornai, Kok, Mallard].

- Against?
- No [Doutney, Harris, Burgmann].

END.