As a local resident and a member of the Friends of Erskineville, I have serious concerns with the new Draft Amendment which seeks to replace the current controls for the precinct with a document that is seriously flawed in that it proposes to raise the density of the site from 1:1 (the western sector) and 1.25:1 to 1.75:1 (in the eastern or Goodman sector), a 75% increase to the western half of the site and a 40% increase to the eastern half of the site without any serious regard to the traffic and transport needs or urban design quality and servicing of the new residential development. I and other residents in the area are concerned that Council’s proposal to amend the current Development Control plan (DCP) and increase the residential density of this site by increasing FSR and building heights is being driven by developer pressure on the Department of Planning, rather than on a thorough understanding of the form and servicing of a livable and sustainable city of villages

The scale of the development

The amended DCP proposes to increase the height of the buildings from a maximum of five storeys to nine storeys, based upon the supposition that the 8 and 9 storey towers will be only marginally visible outside of the precinct. However, we would question this philosophy of encouraging development above 4 or (maximum) 5 stories, based upon sustainable design and livability.  It is argued by many socially aware urban designers such as Christopher Alexander et al in A Pattern Language, that high buildings have no genuine advantages, except in speculative gains for banks and developers. They are not cheaper, they do not help to create open space and they destroy the townscape, the social life and make life difficult for children. In addition, buildings above 4 or 5 levels are expensive and energy intensive to maintain, impact upon the quality of nearby open spaces and alienate adults and children from the ground where social intercourse is likely to occur.

It is quite clear that Council’s planning officers arrived at appropriate density provisions of FSR of 1.25:1 and maximum 4/5 stories through proper process and that the currently proposed increase in the FSR and height of the buildings is being driven by external opportunistic forces and not by the interests of future sustainable living.  , We call upon the City to engage the services of the highly respected Urban Designer, Jahn Gehl, to help prepare a thoroughly researched and socially sensitive design for the new village within the city. Such a design could reconsider the scale of the proposal and the availability of existing infrastructure including alternative transport, schools, hospitals, shops deliveries and waste services that would be required to support the new residential development. In addition, such a design could identify the need for new transport means, such as light rail which once serviced and linked this specific development site into both tram and rail networks. Moreover, such an urban design and transport study would inform the scheduling of the new developments to follow the provision of essential services and infrastructure.

The need for a Traffic and Transport Study

The entire Ashmore precinct, which covers 17 hectares, contains large industrial buildings surrounded by late Victorian and Federation terrace houses. Access to the specific site is severely limited, both now and in the future by the Huntley Green and Coulson Street residential developments to the south, the rail line to the west and tiny roads and laneways which access Mitchell Road and Coulson Street to the south and east.

As the local community has been informed by Council’s planning staff that the new development model, recently proposed by Council’s Urban Design Team, with an FSR of 1.75:1 or greater, allows for 3200 new apartments for an estimated population of 6200 residents, with onsite parking arrangements for 1,950 vehicles, the need for a comprehensive Traffic and Transport study to support the massive increase in the Alexandria and Erskineville population would be mandatory in any Environmental Assessment.  

It is noted that at densities of 1.75:1 or greater, Traffic Planners anticipate a higher level of vehicle ownership and a higher level of car dependency, which is likely to increase the numbers of vehicle movements added to the network.

We, therefore, call upon Council to undertake and complete a comprehensive traffic and transport modeling study to assess how a total of 6,200 new residents and their support services will move into and out of the site and the impacts this new development will have upon the movement, servicing and circulation patterns of the existing nearby community and surrounding suburbs. Such a study would require a full network analysis to examine the ability of the existing road, bus, rail, pedestrian and cycle networks to cope with the additional volumes of people and traffic and would use micro simulation modeling.  Its scope should take in the peak periods occurring on Saturdays (all day) and Thursday evenings (?)

In addition, we question Council’s submitted planning evidence that the nearby location of the rail line will cope with the additional needs of the expanded population. As Sydney Rail has already reached full capacity in peak travel times, we would request that the Traffic and Transport Study include a Mode Share analysis and take into account the low level frequency of the adjacent rail stations at both Erskineville and St Peters.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, we would request that Council does not consider any changes to the Ashmore DCP until it is informed by:

1.                  A full Traffic and Transport study which has been undertaken to assess the ability of the area to absorb the circulation requirements of this massive increase in population.

2.                  Council undertakes an urban design study for the site and its surrounds by seeking the services of the city’s Urban Design consultant, Jahn Gehl, in order to promote an alternative, sustainable and socially responsible design for the new Ashmore residential village, destined to become one of “Sustainable Sydney 2030” centres in its City of villages initiative;

3.                  Regarding the loss of an important employment generating centre, an analysis of the social, economic and environmental impacts on the capacity of the existing physical and social community infrastructure and jobs market is undertaken to support the very large number of additional residents.

I wish to object to the Ashmore development plan based on the following issues:

1. The overall scale and density of the buildings proposed for the site - over 40 blocks of apartments and town houses proposed varying in height from 2 to 9 levels. The estimate is that over the course of the period of development of the industrial estate around 6000 more people will become residents of Erskineville, effectively a doubling of the current population of the suburb. The proposed development is completely out of keeping with the density, nature and character of the rest of the suburb.

2. Public transport - despite this enormous projected increase in population there appears to be little to no recognition on behalf of the State Government or the developers of the major strain that such an influx of people would place on the transport infrastructure of the suburb.  Although served by the Bankstown-City train line, the demand for this service is now at the point that at morning rush hour many commuters find it difficult to find room on the train, often having to resort to waiting for the next service. The bus service to the city up Mitchell Road is also full at peak travel times. It is imperative that council recognizes this and takes it into careful consideration in the design of the development.

3. The development will inevitably lead to an increase in traffic in an already congested area. Even those who use public transport for weekday commuting will often own a car for use on weekends or after-hours. While the provision of only limited car parking in the development may reflect the aspiration of the council and state government to discourage the use of private motorized vehicles in general, it seems likely that increased traffic will affect the amenity of the area.

4. Closely linked to point 3 is that the off-street parking provision appears manifestly inadequate - approximately 1950 parking spaces for approximately 3200 apartments. Parking opportunities for those without their own off-street parking is at a premium in Erskineville. If the current proposal goes ahead as proposed this will inevitably become significantly worse.

5. The height of the proposed buildings: the 9 storey heights are well out of keeping with the rest of Erskineville and will create shadows on existing resident premises and proposed new residences, particularly in the late afternoon. Oddly it seems that in 2006 after an extensive consultative process City of Sydney concluded that building heights of up to 5 storeys could be supported. However the current proposal has moved to a limit of 9 storeys. One assumes that pressure from various stakeholders was brought to bear on City of Sydney to encourage the accommodation of a denser population in the re-draft. Nevertheless, this has occurred in the absence of any apparent consultation with the community, nor it would appear with any new assessments of the impact or feasibility of this substantial change.

6. Provision for open public space in the new proposal is inadequate - less than 5% of the total site area. In 1997 the plan for the open space component aspect of the development was more than 5 times what is now on the table. This is simply greedy and inadequate.

In conclusion, the great paradox of the Ashmore redevelopment proposal is that it will devalue the great amenity of Erskineville as a place to live, which is the currency on which the council and the developers will seek their return on investment.

I respectfully ask you and the City of Sydney to take stock of what is being proposed at Ashmore and consider amending the plan to one that adds to rather than detracts from the character of Erskineville.

Yours Sincerely,

Mark