Have your Say: Former Balmain Tigers Site Development

Development Proposal - Former Balmain Tigers Site

Our community deserves to live in well-planned suburbs with extensive affordable housing options, green spaces, and reliable infrastructure including world-class public transport.

While we urgently need more affordable housing options in the Inner West and across Sydney, the current proposal to increase density on the old Balmain Tigers site raises a number of concerns that need to be addressed before it is approved.

The proposal would see the development increase in height by approximately 12 metres, adding an extra 4 storeys compared to the previously approved development proposal. This is a significant increase in height and density for our community. We have put together a detailed submission guide to allow you to contact the Minister and share your feedback on the proposal. This submission includes points on the following:

Affordable Housing: Currently, the new affordable dwellings would only be provided for 15 years. We need to ensure that any new affordable dwellings are provided in perpetuity so we have affordable options now and into the future. We also need to ensure a diverse range of units are available, including larger ones to provide homes for low-income families.
Overshadowing: The proposal would significantly impact solar access for residents and businesses on Darling Street, Cambridge Street, Waterloo Street and Hancock Street. These impacts need to be addressed and minimised before a design is finalised.
Traffic impacts: The area surrounding the development includes narrow streets already prone to heavy congestion. Increasing the number of residential units with parking spaces will have a considerable impact on traffic in an already congested area. We need to further explore how traffic impacts will be minimised, including investing in improvements to make Victoria Road more pedestrian friendly.
Lack of community benefit: The proposal will result in a significant increase in density but the developer has not offered any matching uplift in public amenity. This needs to be addressed before any proposal is approved.

JOIN US IN WRITING TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING

We are calling on the Minister to share this submission with the planning department and address these concerns before any increase in height and density on the former Balmain Tigers site is approved.

We've created an easy-to-use template email that you can customise. It'll take only a few minutes to let the Minister know that we need these issues addressed to ensure we have affordable housing with good planning outcomes for our community.

HAVE YOUR SAY. EMAIL THE MINISTER.

Dear Minister Scully,
Please accept the below as a submission on the proposal for increased density at Rozelle Village under State Significant Development proposal SSD-68298726. I ask that you consider this submission and please share it directly with the planning department.
While I recognise the urgent need for investment in affordable housing, particularly in Sydney, the Rozelle Village proposal raises a number of issues which I ask you to address before approving this project.
 <ol>
 <li> Affordable Housing Provisions </li>
 </ol>
The affordable housing information currently lacks detail and raises concerns as to the adequacy of what is to be included. First, could you please ensure that the affordable housing units proposed as part of the proposed uplift are provided in perpetuity to ensure a long-lasting supply of affordable housing stock for our community.
Currently, these units could be returned to full market rate after a period of only 15 years. We need affordable housing options now and into the future, we cannot allow these dwellings to return to the private market after such a short period of time.
The proposed increase in density to allow for increased affordable housing will have a significant impact on the local community. I will turn to these matters in detail shortly, but for the impact to be worthwhile, we need to ensure the affordable housing stock is a permanent feature. It is not reasonable to expect our community to accept significant impacts from density increases for such a short-term benefit.
Furthermore, the proposal fails to identify the make-up of the affordable dwellings. Right now, there’s a severe shortage of affordable dwellings that can house low-income families. Can you please ensure there is a mix of affordable dwellings including larger 2-3 bedroom options so low-income families are also provided for? It is not sufficient to only provide smaller units for singles and couples, we need a diverse range of affordable dwellings.
 <ol start="2">
 <li> Overshadowing </li>
 </ol>
The new proposal under the affordable housing SEPP will see a significant increase in height and density, going from 12-13 stories up to 14-16. This is an increase of approximately 12 metres on what was previously approved. This is a significant uplift in an area that would already struggle to cope with the approved development. This increase in height and density will have a significant impact on the existing community.
For example, under the new proposal, Cambridge Street on the western side will now be in mid-winter shadow until 10am. There will also be impacted morning solar access for the western side of Waterloo Street between 10am and noon, while Darling Street and Hancock Street will be put into afternoon shade during mid-winter. I ask the planning department to work with the developers to address the impact on solar access for residents by considering a re-design that decreases the bulk of the building to lower the impact on solar access.
 <ol start="3">
 <li> Traffic impacts</li>
 </ol>
There are significant concerns around the impact of increased traffic in what is already a busy suburban area. The proposal includes an increase in parking from 324-398 – primarily for residential use. The surrounding streets where access to the building would be are very narrow and can easily become congested. The likely increase in vehicle movements as a result of the uplift proposed by the developer is concerning. There are also serious questions about the reliability of the traffic modelling done, given this same modelling failed to predict the impact of the Rozelle Interchange.
While the planned Bays West Metro is suggested as being a solution to traffic, it is currently outside the radius considered to be ‘walkable’ under most planning metrics. Furthermore, Victoria Road and the surrounding areas are not pedestrian friendly, and it is unlikely that people would be comfortable walking such a distance on relatively unsafe routes for pedestrians.
If the planning department wants to incentivise people to walk and use public transport, much more would need to be done to make Victoria Road more pedestrian friendly. Otherwise, this increased development will only further drive congestion and traffic problems.
 <ol start="4">
 <li> Lack of community benefit</li>
 </ol>
Under the current proposal, there appears to be no further benefits to the local community beyond the proposed affordable housing units to be provided for just 15 years. The Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) has not been updated to include any additional investment in public amenity. The public plaza has a strong retail element and is not a genuine community space.
We ask the department to please work with the developer on updating the VPA to include additional benefits for the community, to ensure local amenity is improved. This needs to be a priority if the area is to accept an increase in density.
In conclusion, while I strongly support the aim of providing more affordable housing in the Inner West, the current proposal is not sufficient, and improvements need to be made. In particular, the department needs to ensure the affordable housing includes a diverse mix of dwellings and that it’s provided in perpetuity. We also ask the department to address the identified impacts in terms of traffic, overshadowing, and lack of public amenity before proceeding any further with changes to the density on this site. Unless these concerns are adequately addressed, I object to this proposal.
  
Yours sincerely,

Have Your Say

Development Proposal - Former Balmain Tigers Site

HAVE YOUR SAY. EMAIL THE MINISTER.