Waterloo SSP: Updates from REDWatch

Some updates from our friends at REDWatch:

Dear REDWatch Members & Supporters & Agencies, 

The long awaited declaration of the Waterloo State Significant Precinct (SSP) happened in a Media Release dated 18 May which was made public on Friday 19 May 2017. The declaration means that master planning for the redevelopment of the Waterloo public housing estate can now start. Land and Housing Corporation (LAHC) which owns the estate expect capacity building to continue over the next month or so and for consultation workshops to start towards the end of June/beginning of July. The current relocation date for the first tenants to be moved from the estate has not been pushed back past mid-2018 even though the planning process is expected to take up to 18 months to complete from its commencement. 

Below is what we know from the declaration and the initial release of information by LAHC. 

The SSP declaration covers the entire area of the consolidated Waterloo public including the private property within the boundary of the consolidated estate. NSW Planning and Environment on the State Significant Precincts page for Waterloo spells out the implications for private property holders as “should rezoning take place, future development proposals would be assessed against new and amended planning controls”. The declaration also covers what will happen over the land being compulsorily required for the new underground Waterloo Metro Railway station. This area is now referred to as the Metro Quarter. Concerns have been expressed about the density that might be put above Metro station to help pay for Sydney Metro and the recommendations for what happens on this site will also be part of the SSP assessment. 

You can see the area covered in the 20-hectare precinct in the declaration’s map parts of Waterloo (PDF map, 3.6MB). If you compare this map with the map of the estate and the Metro site resumption on the Central to Eveleigh Waterloo page (reproduced here) you can see the private property areas along Wellington Street and Cope Street between Wellington and John Streets which are not coloured in the UrbanGrowth map. 

UrbanGrowth NSW will participate in master planning across the SSP site. In the Metro Quarter, UrbanGrowth will develop a comprehensive master plan. On the LAHC land it will assist LAHC with technical work involved in developing the master plan for its site. NSW Planning and Environment says that the metro station design and the master plan for the Waterloo estate will be integrated. The statement says FACS will organise a series of master planning workshops for the community, but it is not currently clear who will handle engagement for the private landowners whose properties presumably will not be master planned. The statement on the Communities Plus website makes no reference to the private land within the estate which FACS is master planning and nothing at all has been posted yet by UrbanGrowth since the SSP declaration. NSW Planning and Environment says it will write to property owners within the precinct to formally notify them of the rezoning investigation and explain the SSP process for Waterloo. 

The precinct will now be investigated for rezoning through the State Significant Precincts process. The specific studies to be undertaken over the next 12-18 months are expected to be made public in coming days. Undertakings were given by LAHC that the community will have access to the scope of the studies and will have the opportunity to ask for key issues of concern which are not already included to be added. 

Once the master plan process is completed FACS and UrbanGrowth NSW will submit a State Significant Precinct Study to support the rezoning proposals to NSW Planning and Environment. NSW Planning and Environment and the City of Sydney Council will jointly assess proposals within the State Significant Precinct Study. 

While the City of Sydney Council has been, and will continue to be, involved in within the SSP tent, City of Sydney Council has previously recognised around Central to Eveleigh that it also needs to work with residents so that it can make an informed input into the planning process. 

REDWatch has invited representatives from City of Sydney Council to the REDWatch meeting on Thursday 1st June to present on Density done Well - what does it mean for a redevelopment like Waterloo? 

A forum for Agencies dealing with the Waterloo community will take place at Projects 107, 107 Redfern St on Thursday 25th May, between 12pm and 3.30pm by Inner Sydney Voice (previously Inner Sydney Regional Council for Social Development). This forum will include input from LAHC on the master planning and is aimed to help agencies respond to their clients concerns heading into master planning. Agency representatives are encouraged to attend a the “Waterloo Redevelopment – Where Do We Start?’ forum. Please RSVP to Thomas at cb@innersydneyvoice.org.au to secure a spot and for catering purposes.

You can find information about various aspects of the Waterloo redevelopment and useful resources on the following websites:

· NSW Planning and Environment: www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Plans-for-your-area/State-significant-precincts/Waterloo and Ministerial Media Release Waterloo nominated as next state significant precinct 

· Family and Community Service / Land and Housing Corporation’s Communities Plus: www.communitiesplus.com.au/major-sites/waterloo 

· Sydney Metro Station component: www.sydneymetro.info/station/waterloo-station - There is no site currently for the development above the station. 

· UrbanGrowth NSW Central to Eveleigh: www.centraltoeveleigh.com.au/area/waterloo-estate/ - There is no site currently on the UrbanGrowth site for the Metro Station Site master plan. Please note: UrbanGrowth NSW (http://www.urbangrowth.nsw.gov.au/) and UrbanGrowth Development Corporation (www.ugdc.nsw.gov.au/growth-centres/redfern-waterloo) are in the process of being restructured. Central to Eveleigh, of which Waterloo is part, will be part of UrbanGrowth Development Corporation answering directly to the Premier rather than the Minister of Planning. 

· Previous Proposals - The previous proposal by the RWA / SMDA for the redevelopment of Redfern and Waterloo public housing can be found on the UGDC site under Draft Built Environment Plan Stage 2 (BEP 2). Land and Housing Corporation did not release the details of its Draft Master Plan from 2011-12, nor was the review by the Government Architect released. What is known from these studies can be found on the REDWatch website through Links to Waterloo Redevelopment History. 

· Inner Sydney Voice’s Winter 2016 issue – Redeveloping Public Housing (PDF) contains information on the Government framework for the redevelopment. It also contains articles on what can be learnt from previous estate redevelopments and the issues that need to be addressed. You can also see the articles online at http://www.innersydneyvoice.org.au/pub/category/past-editions/winter-2016/. 

· For information on what is already underway in the lead up to the Waterloo Masterplan see South Sydney Herald’s Who’s who in Waterloo – April 7, 2017 or “Community voices in Waterloo master planning” in Shelter NSW’s March issue of Around the House.
Material from the current redevelopment proposals is being posted on the REDWatch website at Waterloo Public Housing Redevelopment & Metro Station.

... and ...

Just after I pressed send on my earlier email I was advised that LAHC had posted details of consultants and summaries on their Communities Plus website. 

You can see them at the foot of the page at www.communitiesplus.com.au/major-sites/waterloo. Based on the study numbers the summaries seem to be put together around the Waterloo Estate studies. As mentioned in our earlier email there are differences between the studies for Waterloo Estate and Waterloo Quarter. It is not clear without further checking if the LAHC summary includes details also from the Waterloo Quarter requirements. 

Below are the links to the documents posted by LAHC with a brief description from the document: 

• Waterloo Requirements Table - This table provides a list of the Study Requirements and the studies that will be undertaken for the Waterloo precinct 

· Waterloo Summary of Studies - This document provides a summary of each of the studies that will be undertaken to meet the Study set by the Minister for Planning 

· Waterloo Study Requirements Summary – This is a summary of the Study Requirements. 

· Waterloo Consultants Table – This table provides a list of the studies that will be under taken to meet the Requirements and the technical consultants that will carry out the studies according to the Study Requirements. 

· Feedback Form - FACS is asking for feedback on the summary of studies. If you think there is something missing this is your opportunity to say so.

The City of Sydney have advised that at the REDWatch meeting they will deal with the density done well issue in the context of the study requirements. So the REDWatch meeting on Thursday at 6pm at The Factory should be helpful in formulating your response to LAHC on the adequacy of the studies.

Waterloo screening at 107 Projects

At the end of last year the Premier announced plans for the redevelopment of the Waterloo Public Housing Estates as part of Communities Plus.  The Waterloo community, especially public housing residents, responded quickly to ensure their voices will be heard throughout the planning process. This has included, though not at all limited to, setting up a platform for documenting and sharing residents’ concerns about the future of Waterloo via the website We Live Here.

Next week 107 Projects will be hosting a screening event of Tom Zubrycki’s documentary Waterloo from 1981.  Waterloo provides an important account of residents’ campaign to save the area from slum clearance and redevelopment by public housing authorities through the 1970s.

The event will also screen an early trailer for a documentary currently being filmed - We Live Here 2017 – that aims to tell the story of people who live in public housing at Waterloo now and the place they call home.

Details for the event:
WHEN: 6.30pm - 8 Nov 2016
WHERE: 107 PROJECTS
COST: DONATION

As the organisers of the event explain: “With the impending threat of destruction by the state government, narratives around sense of place and cultural heritage have never been more relevant.”

The Bays Precinct: housing update

Our February 2016 analysis of NSW Government developer UrbanGrowth's plans for Sydney's Bays Precinct, and the dearth of Social and Affordable Housing options therein, noted the following regarding the Sydney Fish Market site:

"An article in The Australian dated 21 January 2016 provides that UrbanGrowth has requested submissions from commercial property agents for the sale and redevelopment of fish market site. The site is being renewed with reference to a private memorandum of understanding between its owners and UrbanGrowth. It states that the request for redevelopment is "aimed at turning the block into a world-class food market, with the winning party to also build apartments on the site." It is not provided that these apartments will include any Affordable and/or Social housing component."

Above: The current Sydney Fish Market

Singaporean property development giant Oxley Holdings has announced an intention to develop the Fish Market site. In a statement to the Singapore Stock Exchange dated May 14 2016, CEO Ching Chiat Kwong provided that "The Board of Directors of Oxley Holdings Limited wishes to announce that the group plans to enter the Australian market and is currently looking at Sydney's Bays Precinct as the location for a flagship commercial and residential project to add to its project portfolio. The Fish Market site at Pyrmont is one of several sites considered by the group as a potential redevelopment site. In line with its business strategy, the Group will collaborate with a local partner and has identified Brookfield Multiplex as a potential partner. Further information will be announced when there are material developments." 

Reporting on the announcement, The Australian newspaper noted, "The [Fish Market] site is tipped to attract a bevy of other developers, with Lend Lease, Grocon and Malaysia's UEM Sunrise Berhad among potential runners."

The announcement was not covered by UrbanGrowth's own 'Bays Precinct newsroom'. 

Our response

Though the Oxley Holdings announcement is far from definitive, it appears to signal that the wheels of Government action are very much turning on the redevelopment of the large package of land comprising the Fish Market and neighbouring waterfront. Given The Australian's previous reporting, and the top-tier status of the developers set to compete for the contract, it is also reasonable to conclude that the residential component of the project will deliver a substantial quantity of new dwellings. 

Yet Social and Affordable Housing remains, as far as we can tell, entirely off the table. We can therefore only repeat our previous concern that such an approach to redevelopment will constitute a unique opportunity lost - for the huge number awaiting Social and Affordable Housing in inner Sydney, and for the area's social mix. 

We'd also refer to the recent musings of the State MP for most of the Bays Precinct site, Jamie Parker, on the direction of the project. Mr. Parker stressed the need to provide, "sustainable, integrated, democratic, vibrant infill development that provides continuous public access to the harbour front, includes social and - importantly - affordable housing, recreation and community facilities." He is concerned that a prioritisation of commercial and private residential developments, and a shortfall in community consultation, will see the Bays Precinct end up as "Barangaroo on steroids".

SBS 'The Feed' on the proposed redevelopment of Waterloo

Ivanhoe Estate Tenant Group - Ryde Council's Volunteer Group of the Year, 2016.

Cross posted from the Brown Couch: former Ivanhoe Estate resident Marie Sillars talks about the strength of a community, the shock of relocation, and how to ensure all is not lost to "renewal".

***

My time with the Ivanhoe Estate Tenant Group Inc. started some 6 years ago and I am a Founder Member of the Group. We established a Community Centre (pictured) and started organising BBQs, meetings and getting involved in our community.

Four years ago we heard (on TV News) that Ivanhoe was to be demolished as it had gone past "its use by date" and very quickly we started to gather information, attend meetings, take part in Community Reference Group meetings and even became involved with a Parliamentary Committee on public housing. At the same time the group were running craft classes (we have knitted and crocheted scores of blankets, beanies, scarves etc. which will be donated to a homeless shelter & local hospital) computers for the elderly, breakfasts at the Centre, established a community garden (tenants were invited to take any herbs or veggies that they needed) and generally made ourselves busy with the day to day matters that a community needs. We had Oz Harvest for 2 years where we distributed up to 150 kilos of food on a Saturday afternoon and we had the greatest fun. Most of the Oz Harvest Committee were over the age of 60 and it was a great way to make sure that the elderly tenants had enough fruit, vegetables and groceries to keep them going until the next Saturday. Rain, hail and shine we worked our way through the food with an incredible energy for people of our age.

We knew the time was coming when the final decision would be made but somehow just kept working away trying not to think about the inevitable time when the FACS people would deliver the letters and we would then we would have to decide how we would deal with this. Late last year the letters were delivered and even though we knew it was coming the whole place went into shock and we were called to a meeting at the Community Centre where we were introduced to the officers who would become our Relocation Officers. It was an awful day and it had quite a negative effect upon the tenants, especially the elderly folk. We decided on that day that the Committee would go ahead "business as usual" and try hard to get through what was to become a difficult period. As Christmas at Ivanhoe came and went we all knew that this would probably be our last Christmas together as a group, and the atmosphere around the Centre changed. People were sad and a bit down and together with the Salvation Army on the Estate we tried very hard to keep people's spirits up and tried to make a positive side of the relocations.

As time went on and we were still attending meetings the interviews with our respective Relocation Officers were conducted and we were then told to wait as the Officers searched for places for us. As this has been happening tenants started to move away and so I contacted some people outside of the Estate to help establish a "Footprints" Committee to gather information, pictures and stories about the Estate so that when the new places are built, people there will know that there was a thriving, exciting community existing before. Ryde Council, Salvation Army, Macquarie University, FACS, and many of our wonderful supporters have come on board with this idea to create media, films, interviews and many other ways to show how a great Community CAN work and that Public Housing Tenants can work in a positive and intelligent way to come together and be proud of what they have achieved.

Two weeks ago I myself had to move and I am not very far away from the Ivanhoe Estate so I am able to keep craft classes happening on Mondays for those who are still there. The Committee who had worked so hard at Oz Harvest had started to move away also and we will all keep in touch in the future. As this Community fades away we are keen to let people know that through the Footprints Programme the Ivanhoe Committee will not be forgotten.

Last week (5th May 2016) some of the Committee attended a Volunteer of the Year Evening with Ryde Council and I was so very honoured to be nominated as Volunteer of the Year. I did not win but the Ivanhoe Estate Tenant Group DID win Volunteer Group of the Year 2016 and I have to say it was one of the proudest moments of my life. Even through our times of sadness it just shows that a community such as the Ivanhoe Estate can shine through, smile and move on to other communities. As they say "Onwards and Upwards" but in the end it has been a great achievement and one I will never forget!

Marie Sillars May 2016

Estate renewal study for Airds-Bradbury

NSW Health has published a study examining the impact of the renewal of Public Housing on the "health, particularly chronic disease, quality of life and wellbeing" of affected tenants. The 'health impact assessment' examines the short and long-term consequences of relocation for tenants affected by the demolition and redevelopment of Public Housing estates in Airds and Bradbury, near Campbelltown. 

The redevelopment project will deliver a 'mixed tenure' community of approximately 2000 dwellings, of which 30% will be Social Housing and 70% private market housing. Demolition, reconstruction, and tenant relocations are progressing slowly, and are expected to continue past 2020. According to the study, 3507 people lived in the estates when works commenced in 2011. Tenants have the opportunity to move back into Airds-Bradbury as new Social Housing becomes available, though many have opted to relocate elsewhere in the Campbelltown area. 

Above: land clearing works at Airds

The study describes the old estates as "poor quality", and posits that poor housing - particularly limited access to recreation spaces, healthy food, and social and health care services - is a driver of poor health. It also suggests that health issues experienced by Airds-Bradbury tenants are compounded by the area's status as "one of the most socially and economically disadvantaged areas in NSW". Given works commenced relatively recently, the study only makes short-term findings. 

In relation to the relocation and rehousing process, the study concludes broadly that the process has had "positive and negative health impacts, often dependent on the individual, the circumstances of their relocation and their perceived sense of control". Residents who were actively involved throughout the relocation process, and who received personalised support, reported a more positive impact.

Findings related to tenants leaving the 'poor' built environment of the old estates for higher quality housing were similarly mixed. Some reported "reduced stress, increased physical accessibility and an improved sense of privacy and safety", and positive impact related to the provision of housing according to their individual needs. Similarly, many reported increased feelings of safety and security. However, single people and childless couples reported negative psychological health impacts when required to move to smaller properties. 

The impact of relocation on tenants' community networks was identified as problematic. Many reported negative impacts, related to either displacement or isolation for those relocated within the depopulated estate. This is particularly concerning as such networks are something that, according to the report, "socioeconomically disadvantaged groups tend to rely quite strongly on...for their physical and mental health".

The study ultimately finds that housing providers and health organisations should attend to four major considerations in the administration of estate redevelopments:

"1. [New] housing and neighbourhood generally are planned and built to high design standards;

2. Disruptions and inconveniences to individuals and the community during the actual redevelopment are reduced to the minimum;

3. There are appropriate services and procedures in place to support residents during each stage of the planning, renewal and relocation process; and

4. The needs and preferences of individual residents are taken into account."

Though the scale of the Airds-Bradbury redevelopment is itself considerable, the study is of potentially broader relevance. Both the suite of Communities Plus projects and the renewal project at Cowper Street, Glebe, involve the demolition of Public Housing for 'mixed communities' at the 30-70 ratio. 

We welcome feedback from all tenants affected by estate renewal works, including those at Airds and Bradbury. This may be provided anonymously to contact [@] tenantsunion.org.au.

Parliamentary Inquiry into repairs and maintenance of public housing

Submissions to the Inquiry highlight tensions between repairs & maintenance and disposal, renewal & redevelopment of the public housing portfolio.

Family and Community Services submission available at this link.

NSW Federation of Housing Associations submission available at this link.

Tenants' Union submission available at this link.

Redfern Legal Centre submission available at this link.

Full list of submissions available at this link.

The Tenants Union will give evidence at the Inquiry's public hearing on May 9th 2016.

No new Social, Affordable housing for North Eveleigh

NSW Government developer UrbanGrowth has announced plans for new housing in the 'Central to Eveleigh precinct' of inner Sydney. The project concerns the redevelopment of disused and vacant State land around the railway tracks to the southwest of Central Station - though it also takes in the larger Waterloo station redevelopment, and anticipates future works in Redfern. 

UrbanGrowth has announced that the renewal of the 'North Eveleigh' sub-precinct will primarily deliver "buildings between three and 20 storeys providing 600-700 new apartments with a total floor area of around 57,000 square metres providing homes for between 1,150 and 1,350 people"  - in addition to amenities such as a small park. 

But the project will deliver no Social or Affordable Housing.

Above: The 'Platform Apartments' development in North Eveleigh

The North Eveleigh sub-precinct is a 3.3 hectare site situated to the southwest of Redfern Station, between the Carriageworks site and Iverys Lane Newtown. Though comprised mostly of disused RailCorp land, it includes the 'Platform Apartments' development - consisting of 88 Affordable Housing units owned and managed by community housing provider City West housing. That development predates the Central to Eveleigh program, though a Sydney Morning Herald article provides that the NSW Government contributed the land and the cost of civil works. 

An UrbanGrowth spokesman told the Herald that, including The Platform, the North Eveleigh site will include 11-13% Affordable Housing once works are complete. A spokesman told ABC News that other Central to Eveleigh sub-precincts may deliver Social and Affordable Housing. 

Stakeholder responses

City West Housing CEO Janelle Goulding told the Herald the provider is "surprised to hear" the North Eveleight sub-precinct development will not deliver Affordable Housing. Ms. Goulding also said, "At the end of the day affordable housing is so needed it shouldn't even be a discussion point".

Jenny Leong MP's electoral district of Newtown includes the North Eveleigh site, and much of the wider Central to Eveleigh precinct. On March 26, Ms. Leong posted an update to her Facebook page concerning the announcement. It reads, in part: "...affordable housing is critical to success of urban renewal...Shameful stuff and such a lost opportunity for the NSW Government to follow the lead of other global cities by establishing provisions for ensuring affordable housing is at the heart of urban renewal". Ms. Leong was also co-signatory to a November 2015 submission to UrbanGrowth that calls for 30% Affordable Housing at the North Eveleigh site. Other signatories included local interest groups REDWatch, Friends of Erskineville, Alexandria Residents Action Group, and North Eveleigh Working Group. 

On March 26, Shadow Social Housing Minister Tania Mihailuk MP posted an update to her Facebook page concerning the announcement. It reads, in full: "Another backflip from this Government. Once again developers and investors are the winners and everybody else misses out". Ms. Mihailuk also told ABC News, "Clearly what the Government has already set aside there for its targets is not enough", and, "It's about this Government taking seriously the need to set social and affordable housing targets in each of their own developments". 

Homelessness NSW described the announcement on its Facebook page as "an unbelievable decision that needs reversing". 

Our response

We share much the same concerns regarding North Eveleigh as for The Bays Precinct. The site represents a sizeable package of disused and vacant State land, in a region experiencing an acute shortage of Social and Affordable Housing. The NSW Government has also emphasised the need to increase inner Sydney's 'social mix'. 

Furthermore, North Eveleigh is situated in close proximity to the Waterloo site marked for redevelopment over the next 20 years. Approximately 2000 Public Housing tenants will be relocated over the life of that project. New Social Housing at North Eveleigh could have served as a site for temporary relocation, or a permanent new home, for some of the Waterloo tenants whose homes are marked for demolition.

The decision taken is therefore a missed opportunity in multiple respects. 

Telopea redevelopment overview

The NSW Government has announced a 'master plan' for the redevelopment of a large portion of Telopea, north of Parramatta, over the next 10-15 years. 

Public Housing is a prominent feature of Telopea. According to 2011 Census figures, Telopea contains 468 Public Housing dwellings, making up 20% of the suburb as a whole. 

An information sheet provided to Public Housing tenants by FACS Housing confirms that Public Housing tenants will be relocated for works completed under the scheme, without precisely indicating who will be moved or when. It states, "The first relocations will not take place until late-2017...", and "[Affected] tenants will have the opportunity to return to Telopea after redevelopment".

Above: the boundaries of the master plan area, taking in almost half of Telopea

Indeed it appears probable that redevelopment of Public Housing sites will be a major component of the project. Social Housing Minister Brad Hazzard's announcement says the project "will deliver an estimated $2.5 billion of new social, private and affordable housing and housing infrastructure". FACS Housing's Telopea Master Planning Team has provided that the Government will deliver estates with a mix of Social, Affordable and private market housing, in partnership with developers and the not-for-profit sector. And a Parramatta Advertiser report posits that such construction will comprise approximately 70% private dwellings and 30% Social Housing. This strongly resembles the Public Housing estate redevelopment strategy utilised in Communities Plus projects (as well as the preferred development style of the Social and Affordable Housing Fund). 

However, it also appears that redevelopment may stretch beyond NSW Land & Housing Corporation sites. The tenant information sheet provides that "all land within this [master plan] area will be considered by the master plan, regardless of who owns the land".

Little beyond the boundaries of the precinct to be affected by the master plan appears to have been finalised. The Master Planning Team have said that the plan will continue to be developed through 2016, with local stakeholders invited to participate. 

Why Telopea?

The Telopea Master Planning Team has provided a dual rationale for development and implementation of the scheme. 

First, the Parramatta Light Rail Project will include construction of a northern line between Camellia and Carlingford. Whilst stations and their locations have not been set at this time, the line is expected to run through Telopea. Construction of the line will commence in 2018-19 and conclude by 2036. 

Second, the planning team has determined that current Public Housing stock in the suburb, "does not meet the needs of many of the tenants". It cites the age of the stock, inappropriate bedroom configurations, and a lack of circulation space in reaching this conclusion.* This position is strongly reminiscent of the position regarding under-occupancy of Social Housing expressed in the Future Directions strategy for development of the State portfolio as a whole. One of three strategies proposed to reduce under occupancy therein is the construction of "more smaller, fit for purpose dwellings to match the needs of new and future tenants". The Master Planning Team also notes that the cost to NSW Land & Housing Corporation of maintaining the stock is rising as the properties age.

Current redevelopment

The team provided that the pre-existing Communities Plus project for redevelopment of public housing sites at Moffats Drive and Sturt Street, Telopea, will "be taken into account" in the ongoing development of the Government's plan for the suburb. However, the master plan project has no direct relationship to the project or to Communities Plus in general. 

Our response

The announcement that Telopea is to be redeveloped appears broadly familiar to Communities Plus, though far less detailed at this stage. The bold red line denoting the boundaries of the 'master plan' encircles half the suburb, and evokes a sense of dramatic change. But the truth is that little beyond a general intention, to be realised over a period of decades, has been revealed. 

A community group operating in the Telopea area has confirmed that local tenants are scarcely better informed on the particulars of how the project is to proceed. This should be addressed as a matter of priority, with tenants informed and engaged at every step. Such an approach would minimise the rumours and feelings of uncertainty that such projects stimulate, as well as provide valuable local perspective to those overseeing the redevelopment.

One of the precious few details confirmed is that at least some, and possibly many, Public Housing tenants will be relocated. And in this regard we note the same concerns as apply to estate redevelopments across NSW. Relocations are inherently stressful for those losing their homes. The needs and interests of affected tenants should be prioritised throughout the process, and the right to return under the same conditions should be upheld for those that wish to do so.

Moreover, if NSW Land & Housing Corporation sites are to be demolished for mixed tenure communities, this ought to facilitate an increase in the total number of both Social and Affordable housing dwellings in Telopea. At present there is no guarantee that stock will be increased or even retained at present levels.

Will its close proximity to Parramatta, expanding rail connections, and high quantity of publicly owned land, it is not difficult to see why Telopea has been targeted for renewal. But any properly realised vision of the suburb as a modern part of the burgeoning "Capital of Western Sydney" needs to account for tenants both current and future. 


* We welcome feedback from Social Housing tenants on the suitability and condition of their homes, or any other redevelopment issues. Contact us at clearinghouse@tenantsunion.org.au. Your anonymity will be respected.

The Telopea Master Planning team are also available for contact on 1800 761 434 or TelopeaMasterPlan@facs.nsw.gov.au. 

The Bays Precinct - social and affordable housing

In October 2015, the UrbanGrowth NSW released a comprehensive transformation plan for the redevelopment of what it refers to as 'The Bays Precinct'. The precinct is so named for its proximity to four harbour bays on the western fringe of the Sydney CBD. It is made of up 95 hectares of land:

i) The port facilities, silo complex, and disused power station at White Bay and Glebe Island;

ii) The industrial area, light rail line, and disused heavy rail lines along Lilyfield Road, Lilyfield;

iii) The Sydney fish market, Pyrmont;

iv) Wentworth Park, Glebe;

v) Path areas connecting these sites. 

Aerial view of 'The Bays Precinct' (White Bay in foreground)

According to the transformation plan, this represents a major redevelopment project to be undertaken over a 25-year period. The plan lists nine overarching project objectives. Objective three is "To deliver housing choices, including affordable housing options, through design, finance and construction excellence". The plan also divides planned works into "immediate" (2015-2019), "medium-term" (2019-2022), and "longer-term" (2022-) priorities. 

Delivery of affordable housing is only referenced with regard to one sector of the precinct to be redeveloped - the Lilyfield road site. It reads, in full, "Future uses could include a mix of different housing choices, including affordable housing, as well as public spaces and employment uses." The Lilyfield site is listed as a 'longer-term' priority. 

The document does not make any reference to the delivery of social housing.

An article in The Australian dated January 21 2016 provides that UrbanGrowth has requested submissions from commercial property agents for the sale and redevelopment of the fish market site.The site is being renewed with reference to a private memorandum of understanding between its owners and UrbanGrowth. It states that the request for redevelopment is "aimed at turning the block into a world-class food market, with the winning party to also build apartments on the site." It is not provided that these apartments will include any Affordable and/or Social housing component. 

The piece also provides that the Government "is taking offers for the development rights to transform the nearby White Bay Power Station into a 100,000 square metre office park". An article the the Inner West Courier dated 4 February says that the University of Sydney, University of NSW, University of Technology Sydney, and Macquarie University are hoping to develop the space into a shared campus for tech students. The request for proposals for the White Bay site closes on 25 February 2016. 

An UrbanGrowth media release dated 9 December 2015 provides that the NSW Federation of Housing Associations, the peak body for community housing in the state, is amongst the 68 organisations granted membership of the 'Bays Precinct Reference Group'. According to the statement, the group "will be an ongoing forum for communication between UrbanGrowth NSW and the community throughout the Bays Precinct Transformation Program". 

Our concerns

The critical need for new social and affordable housing stock in NSW, and especially Sydney, is well-documented. More than 60,000 people are currently awaiting housing assistance on the NSW Housing Register. For most of the state capital - including the Inner Sydney and Inner West allocation zones that include the Bays Precinct - the wait for most types of social housing dwelling is over ten years. The Baird administration has formally acknowledged this need, making the supply of new stock one of its three priorities for social housing over the next decade in its all of government Future Directions strategy. 

The Bays Precinct, meanwhile, is one of the largest and most high profile initiatives of the Government's urban renewal arm. 95 hectares is an extremely large package of land in the inner city. Moreover, a large portion of that which has been slated for redevelopment is publicly owned and currently disused or even empty. That this represents a unique opportunity to contribute to the alleviation of the social and affordable housing crisis in Sydney is self-evident. 

However, despite the project objectives proclaiming the importance of 'housing options', the available evidence suggests delivering social and affordable housing in this precinct is not a priority. The immediate priorities for renewal - the power station and fish markets - look set to include no social or affordable housing at all. Only long-term priority Lilyfield "may" include a mix of housing, when developed at an undetermined point in the future. Community Housing interests will have a voice on the project reference group, amongst more than sixty other organisations representing myriad interests.

Completing the Bays Precinct renewal without the inclusion of social and affordable housing will represent a unique opportunity lost - both for the tens of thousands enduring an interminable wait for stable and secure housing, and for our state Government who has recently placed a great deal of emphasis on increasing the city's 'social mix'.

Communities Plus update

A paper released by the NSW Government in relation to the tender process for Communities Plus has revealed new details about the scheme. The document, published on NSW e-tendering and entitled 'Expressions of Interest: First Six Sites of the Communities Plus Program', is intended for developers and community housing providers with an interest in participating in the scheme. It concerns the sites at Gosford, Warwick Farm, Glendale, Seven Hills, Telopea, and Tweed Heads. A standalone equivalent is expected to be released for the larger Macquarie Park site. 

The Communities Plus Telopea site

Build characteristics

The paper most comprehensively discusses build characteristics. It describes the project as consisting of "medium and high density" construction. At present, the Seven Hills, Telopea, and Warwick Farm blocks are zoned for high density residential, Glendale and Tweed Heads are zoned for medium density residential, whilst Gosford is designated mixed use. It is provided further that “The program is predominantly seeking one and two bedroom dwellings as social housing, with a preference for more two bedroom dwellings. A number of dual key dwellings could be attractive as they provide greater flexibility.” 

Regarding the quality of residences to be delivered, the paper states that “as a minimum, the social housing will be required to meet the Silver Level of the Liveable Housing Design Guidelines as published by Liveable Housing Australia.” Liveable Housing Australia describes itself as a "not-for-profit partnership between community and consumer groups, government and the residential building industry". Its primary function is to "advocate the mainstream adoption of liveable housing design principles in all new homes..." - especially housing that "better respond[s] to the changing needs and abilities of people over their lifetime". It has not made its housing design guidelines publicly available. 

The residences constructed will also incorporate energy efficient design features; “Passive environmental design, which maximise solar access, orientation and cross flow ventilation to reduce energy heating, cooling, lighting and clothes drying costs...will be a requirement”.

Commercial arrangements

The paper also addresses anticipated commercial arrangements between LAHC, developers, and community housing providers - including the overarching commercial objectives of the project. LAHC will seek to optimise its commercial return for the land it contributes to the project, whilst adding to the overall supply of social housing and "seamlessly integrating" social, affordable, and private market housing.

The paper contemplates the manner in which the Government will dispose of and/or retain the sites earmarked for development in some detail. Although there will be no mandatory commercial structure, it outlines two "non-binding" arrangements. Under 'Contract for Sale of Land', LAHC would concurrently "offer a Contract for the Sale of Land to sell the site and a Contract for the Sale of Land to purchase the completed social housing dwellings.” Under 'Project Delivery Agreement (PDA)', "LAHC would retain ownership of the land until the project is completed and would appoint a Proponent to develop the site at the Proponent's cost. The proponent earns a return through a development fee equal to the proceeds of sale...[and] will be responsible for and accept all risk selling the private dwellings".

The affordable housing component of Communities Plus developments is also discussed. The Government anticipates that affordable residences will be owned or controlled by the developers, and managed by a registered community housing provider. Further, “it is not intended the value of land contributed by LAHC will fund the affordable housing component.” These residences will be managed according to Department of Family and Community Service guidelines as to what constitutes affordable rental housing. 

The paper also notes that parties contracted to construct and manage the sites will not be able to draw on funding from other NSW Government housing initiatives, such as the Social and Affordable Housing Fund. 

Major redevelopment of Waterloo

The NSW government has announced an extensive redevelopment of the inner city suburb of Waterloo. According to The Sydney Morning Herald, a total of 10,000 new dwellings, accommodating 30,000 new residents, will be built over a period of 20 years. The project will be centred around a new railway station - part of the 'Sydney Metro' line that will link southwest Sydney through to Bankstown with northwest Sydney through to Rouse Hill. It will form part of the wider 'Communities Plus' project. 

Matavai and Turanga towers, Waterloo

The Herald story states that new dwellings will initially be built on a State-owned, 13 hectare site, held principally by NSW Land and Housing Corporation. The final redevelopment will cover 40 hectares. According to The Daily Telegraph, the 30-storey Turanga and Matavai towers on Phillip Street, and surrounding, lower-density public housing apartments, will be demolished as part of the redevelopment. This will require the relocation of approximately 2000 public housing tenants over the life of the project.

The Government has said that one third of the 10,000 new dwellings will be social and affordable housing, with the remainder for the private market. Premier Mike Baird told the Herald that there will be no loss in the number of social housing dwellings in the suburb from current numbers. The Premier did not speak on whether the social housing dwellings built to replace current stock will also contain the same number of bedrooms. 

On the subject of relocations, the Premier said, "Every single [affected] tenant will have the right to come back". This comment was echoed by Social Housing Minister Brad Hazzard. A letter sent to public housing tenants in Waterloo from the Minister, dated 16 December 2015, states, "I want to assure you that tenants who live at Waterloo can remain in Waterloo after the redevelopment. While some tenants may need to relocate on an interim basis into other housing in the local area, many will be able to move directly into the new social housing as the site is redeveloped."

The Telegraph states that relocations from public housing blocks marked for demolition are expected to commence in 2017, with construction to begin in 2018. 

According to a Transport for NSW statement, the precise location of the centrepiece railway station has not yet been determined. The station is not due to open until 2036. 

Our concerns

On the information available, the Waterloo redevelopment appears to be of substantially similar form to the Macquarie Park UAP, the smaller 'Communities Plus' developments, and the development on Cowper Street, Glebe. All involve the demolition of tenanted public housing blocks for larger mixed residential apartments, and thus the relocation of many households. 

Relocations are inherently painful experiences for those affected. FACS claims its staff are experienced in assisting tenants through relocation processes, having learnt much from earlier renewal projects. But testimonial from places such as Millers Point, Claymore, and Bonnyrigg give a different perspective. Independent research into the impact of relocation - and what specifically helped long-term tenants adjust to new homes, neighbourhoods and communities - should be commissioned and considered before proceeding with any projects involving the renewal or disposal of currently tenanted stock. We support the Minister's claim that tenants will be able to remain in the Waterloo area and believe it is important that this is adhered to. In this regard, we believe it is important that FACS formalises clear policies and processes concerning management of relocations. This did not happen in the aforementioned relocations. 

The stated timeframe for the project is also extremely tight; the Government intends to commence construction in just over two years. This is concerning as it indicates that tenants may be compelled to relocate to unsuitable properties to facilitate construction.

Finally, given this development will be incorporated into the Communities Plus program, we also maintain the same concerns regarding loss of independence for social housing tenants as for other Communities Plus sites. Concepts such as 'mutual obligation', and burdensome tenancy management, further enmesh social housing tenants in the welfare system. Support services should of course be available to social housing tenants - not least in a period of relocations - but not mandated as a condition of tenure. Furthermore, the expectation that tenants eligible for social housing should promptly resolve their need for assistance and exit into an expensive and insecure private rental market is both unrealistic and cruel. 

New details about Communities Plus

New details have emerged regarding the NSW Government's residential development project, Communities Plus.

Locations

Previously, the Department of Family and Community Services had announced that seven locations would be utilised, but had only disclosed the precise location of the Macquarie Park site. The Communities Plus website now includes details of the locations of the other sites: Gosford, Liverpool, Newcastle, Seven Hills, Telopea, & Tweed Heads.

Communities Plus site in Gosford, from Google Maps

The Gosford site is a 4500m² block at 209-309 Mann Street, adjacent the Pacific Highway and close to Gosford station. Google Maps suggests it is a disused commercial property - consisting mostly of a closed down hardware store and its parking area. 

The 'Liverpool' site is actually a 1700m² block at 4-6 Bigge Street in neighbouring Warwick Farm, close to the Hume Highway. Google Maps suggests it is currently a vacant lot. It was previously the site of single-storey one bedroom and studio apartments. 

The 'Newcastle' site is actually a 2800m² block at the corner of Lake Road and Main Road, Glendale - part of the Lake Macquarie LGA. Google Maps suggests it too is a vacant lot.   

The Seven Hills site is a series of eight connected blocks, totalling 4400m², at 93-95 Best Road and 1-11 Second Avenue - a short distance from Seven Hills station. Google Maps suggests the blocks at 5, 7, 9 and 11 Best Road are vacant. Single story, freestanding houses sit on each of 93 and 95 Best Road, and 1 and 3 Second Avenue. 

The Telopea site is by far the biggest of the six; a series of three connected blocks, totalling 7200m², at 6-8 Moffats Drive and 13 Sturt Street, close to Kissing Point Road. According to Google Maps, 6 and 8 Moffats Drive both contain three-story apartment blocks; seeming to consist of 6 and 12 small apartments respectively. 13 Sturt Street contains two three-story apartment blocks, seeming to consist of 6 apartments each. 

The Tweed Heads site is a 1800m² block at 33-35 Boyd Street, close to the Queensland border. Google Maps suggests that 33 Boyd Street is a vacant lot, and 35 Boyd Street contains a single-story house. 

Project timeline

In October and November 2015, NSW Land and Housing Corporation, in conjunction with Ernst & Young, conducted industry briefings and 'market sounding' meetings with potential construction and operations partners. 

The Communities Plus website includes a basic timeline for further progression of the project into the second quarter of 2016:

"- 27 November 2015: Ivanhoe Estate at Macquarie Park Registrations of Interest (RoI) open
- 4 December: First Six Sites under the Communities Plus program Expressions of Interest (EoI) open
- 17 December 2015: Ivanhoe RoI closes
- 16 Feb 2016: Other Sites EoI close
- March 2016: Ivanhoe Industry Briefing & start of Procurement
- March/April 2016: Other Sites Request for Proposal"

Allocation requirements

The front page of the website includes this statement from Social Housing Minister Brad Hazzard MP: "Communities Plus will be at the forefront of encouraging people in social housing to be aspirational, not generational. Many of the new social housing units will be used to trial innovative programs that link housing assistance to participation in education, training and local employment opportunities to promote independence". 

The presentation that accompanied the industry briefings also includes the following quotes:

"What's Different About Communities Plus...
- Social housing tenants benefit from engagement, learning and employment
- Tenancy management that links supports to tenants who can benefit
- Return on investment includes social and economic outcomes"

"What Will This Mean For Social Housing Tenants?
- Targeted allocations
- Tenancy management with additional support
- Social housing, a platform for independence"

This represents a novel approach. Current FACS Housing policy provides that allocation of public housing is not dependent on tenant participation in education, training, employment, or other support initiatives. 

Our concerns

These projects will involve the demolition of dwellings that are currently tenanted, and many households will need to be relocated. FACS claims its staff are experienced in assisting tenants through these types of process, having learnt much from earlier renewal projects. But testimonial from places such as Millers Point, Claymore and Bonnyrigg give a different perspective - such as this article in today's "Sydney Central" local paper. Independent research into the impact of relocation - and what specifically helped long-term tenants adjust to new homes, neighbourhoods and communities - should be commissioned and considered before proceeding with any projects involving the renewal or disposal of currently tenanted stock.

And the idea that a social housing tenancy is at odds with 'independence' is starting to pervade the policy landscape - and social housing tenancies are becoming further enmeshed in our welfare systems alongside concepts like "mutual obligation". But expecting tenants who are eligible for social housing to promptly resolve their need for assistance and exit into an expensive and insecure private rental market is both cruel and unrealistic.