A Call to action - Rozelle Village

[sunshine_coast_tiger]

Wow some people on here.
I'm pretty sure everyone wants the club. It's the stupid monolith on top of it that they don't want.
Just because they dont support the development doesn't mean they don't want the club there either.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

Club will only be rebuilt if there is an approved project big enough to be economically viable. Yes the latest proposal was too big but the one rejected previously at about 11 and 7 stories should have been approved. Just the greens lead local council having no guts to approve any development.

Still think at the end of the process the State government authority will approve a development of about 15 and 20 stories and it will be a vaible project.

 

[weststigers4life]

I didn't think the last proposal would be approved but whether it was part of the developer's plans just to get a more realistic development approval of a slightly bigger size than their first application for the site.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[Anthism]

Wests hardly have a say in all this. They're on a leash ATM with this development and form a small component of a much bigger agenda.
If people weren't against it I highly doubt they would even have a wests tigers component.
Greens aren't against development it's just a massive building amongst a very low rise area giving more competition for local business. They don't want to approve it because the chance of it doing good in the area are very low.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[Benjirific]

Wests hardly have a say in all this. They're on a leash ATM with this development and form a small component of a much bigger agenda.
If people weren't against it I highly doubt they would even have a wests tigers component.
Greens aren't against development it's just a massive building amongst a very low rise area giving more competition for local business. They don't want to approve it because the chance of it doing good in the area are very low.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

Greens aren't against development? HAHAHA That statement is so absurd it's laughable. The Greens led council has told the developers what was needed the whole way along this, and then have decided to knock it back at every turn. They've also taken a $750,000 bond they're now refusing to re-pay despite the development having nothing to do with the local government now.

Of course though, and to quote Paul Sheehan from the SMH earlier this week, "the sanctimonious are never wrong. Other people are merely misguided."

 

[Yossarian]

Rozelle is 5km from the CBD. The proposed development is on a major transport route. There is no way the area can continue to claim it is "very low rise" as a reason to stop high density developments. People need to live somewhere and this is an appropriate site for medium to high density dwellings. If people don't like it, move out of the inner city.

 

[Anthism]

Both ideas were hardly reasonable so there's no wonder they knocked them back.
There's plenty of space to build apartments in the area if they wanted to.
You don't seem to realize this building would be way out of place do you?
\
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[Benjirific]

Both ideas were hardly reasonable so there's no wonder they knocked them back.
There's plenty of space to build apartments in the area if they wanted to.
You don't seem to realize this building would be way out of place do you?
\
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

I live within 100m of the proposed development, I understand it and it's whole ramifications. The point is that it won't be out of place because for too long the area has been under-developed and under-utilised for its centrality. Developments such as this, high and medium density should be built along Victoria Road and other established transport routes, not in the middle of nowhere.

But that would involve the Greens actually doing something, and we all know that isn't going to happen.

 

[Yossarian]

Both ideas were hardly reasonable so there's no wonder they knocked them back.
There's plenty of space to build apartments in the area if they wanted to.
You don't seem to realize this building would be way out of place do you?
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

Well that's your opinion. You're making out that is a known fact. I disagree with your assessment. Way out of place? Come on - it's 5km from the CBD. How many other large global cities can afford to have large tracts of low density housing in that small an arc?

 

[Anthism]

Both ideas were hardly reasonable so there's no wonder they knocked them back.
There's plenty of space to build apartments in the area if they wanted to.
You don't seem to realize this building would be way out of place do you?
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

Well that's your opinion. You're making out that is a known fact. I disagree with your assessment. Way out of place? Come on - it's 5km from the CBD. How many other large global cities can afford to have large tracts of low density housing in that small an arc?

If it wasn't a known fact people wouldn't be against it and the developers wouldn't disguise it as a "bring home the tigers" campaign. The fact that mostly locals are against it makes sense don't you think?
Plenty of areas even closer to the city that aren't high rise and are highly underdeveloped, why are they ok and Rozelle isn't?
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[Yossarian]

Both ideas were hardly reasonable so there's no wonder they knocked them back.
There's plenty of space to build apartments in the area if they wanted to.
You don't seem to realize this building would be way out of place do you?
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

Well that's your opinion. You're making out that is a known fact. I disagree with your assessment. Way out of place? Come on - it's 5km from the CBD. How many other large global cities can afford to have large tracts of low density housing in that small an arc?

If it wasn't a known fact people wouldn't be against it and the developers wouldn't disguise it as a "bring home the tigers" campaign. The fact that mostly locals are against it makes sense don't you think?
Plenty of areas even closer to the city that aren't high rise and are highly underdeveloped, why are they ok and Rozelle isn't?
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

For starters Rozelle is on one of the major roads going into CBD. Hard to think of other major roads that close to the CBD that don't have high rises. Parramatta Road certainly does.
Secondly when did I say these supposed other areas aren't suitable for medium/high density housing? I used to live at Leichhardt right next to the Forum. Oxford St, William St, Broadway - all have unit blocks or proposed developments.
Thirdly nobody is suggesting all of Rozelle goes this way - we're talking one development on a major road. If this was Hampton Street or somewhere like that maybe you'd have a better case. But you have to give some ground on development if you want to preserve the rest of it - people need to live somewhere and burying your head and saying it is everyone else's problem is frankly selfish.
Fourthly - Are most locals against it? Certainly there is a large NIMBY crowd who will probably end up shopping at the new supermarket anyway. The same types of got Callan Park knocked back. The same crowd who only care about their house price and talk up the environment while their attitude contributes directly to urban sprawl.
Lastly, while I'm happy the development will bring back the leagues club, I'd support it regardless. Developments like this are the price you pay for living in the innercity of a major global city.

 

[innsaneink]

LEICHHARDT council is refusing to hand back $750,000 paid by the developers of the Balmain Tigers Leagues Club, prompting threats of legal action.

The stoush coincides with the release on Wednesday of revised plans for the contentious two-tower development, which will show a reduction in height from 32 to 24 storeys. Further, about $30 million worth of what were described as eco-friendly design measures have been deemed unviable and scrapped.

Rozelle Village, the company behind the proposal, is demanding the return of $750,000 in bank guarantees paid to Leichhardt council under a voluntary planning agreement in 2010\. The payment was part of a rezoning application to the council and was supposed to pay for community grants, footpaths and other infrastructure.
Old Balmain Leagues Club site at Rozelle

The site as it is today. Photo: Simon Alekna

That application was approved but a later development application was rejected by the Joint Regional Planning Panel.
Advertisement

However, Leichhardt council has refused to return the funds.

''I think it is disgraceful that a local government can withhold, without proper cause, private money,'' said the managing director of Rozelle Village, Ian Wright. ''This is a local government, it's not a shonky businessman. We've made numerous representations to them via our lawyers seeking the return of [the money] and they refused. The only remedy we have is to take legal action.''

The Leichhardt mayor, Darcy Byrne, said legal advice sought by the council indicated it was entitled to keep the funds.

''The developer agreed to this community funding when the site was originally rezoned. They should keep their commitment now that their plan has doubled in size,'' he said, adding that newly elected councillors would make a final ruling.

The Planning Department is expected to release plans on Wednesday showing the concept has been reduced from 32 to 24 storeys, or 122 metres, which have been ''slimmed down''. It includes a two to three level ''podium'' comprising retail and food outlets, community facilities and the Balmain Leagues Club premises.

But several sustainability measures, such as trigeneration electricity, a biofiltration system and blackwater recycling have been dumped as unfeasible under the new, smaller proposal.

The Planning Assessment Commission will determine the proposal under now-defunct Part 3a laws.

Mr Wright said the new proposal took into account community feedback, saying ''we've reduced the height as much as we can while still keeping the project feasible''.

However a spokesman for the Rozelle Residents Action Group, Mark Wallis, claimed the new proposal did not meet community expectations.

''I don't think 24 storeys are any more in keeping with what exists in the area than 32,'' he said.

Cr Byrne said the council was assessing the new plans but ''it seems likely these slightly smaller skyscrapers are still going to smash local businesses and change Rozelle beyond recognition''.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/legal-feud-after-council-keeps-funds-20121106-28w3h.html#ixzz2BTAvVI6c

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

They could be one storey tall, made out of wicker and hemp and people still wouldn't be happy.

 

[happy_tiger]

The big bad wolf will be happy CB

He'd be able to be blow the building down :unamused:

Reading the % of Green voters as well in the figures from above , you bloody NSW people are all a mob of lefty hippies

 

[Yossarian]

They could be one storey tall, made out of wicker and hemp and people still wouldn't be happy.

Well that's right. I mean the "resident's" group person says a 24-story building is not in keeping with the area. Got help us if it overshadows the eye-catching mix of tacky shops and petrol stations in that stretch of Victoria Road. It's a main road close to the CBD - we're not talking the middle of Birchgrove. I wonder if he's seen Balmain Shores…

 

[magpiecol]

The whole area is a dump. Let the Greenies and Lefties, keep it.

 

[Yossarian]

So Col, how do you feel when people make ill-informed generalistic comments about Campbelltown and Macarthur?

 

[andrew 474]

i would like a house block in that dump as you call it col , but i would not want one in campbelltown or macarthur as it is not as valuble , that dump is worth plenty , near the city , etc etc etc ,

 

[weststigers4life]

LEICHHARDT council is refusing to hand back $750,000 paid by the developers of the Balmain Tigers Leagues Club, prompting threats of legal action.

The stoush coincides with the release on Wednesday of revised plans for the contentious two-tower development, which will show a reduction in height from 32 to 24 storeys. Further, about $30 million worth of what were described as eco-friendly design measures have been deemed unviable and scrapped.

Rozelle Village, the company behind the proposal, is demanding the return of $750,000 in bank guarantees paid to Leichhardt council under a voluntary planning agreement in 2010\. The payment was part of a rezoning application to the council and was supposed to pay for community grants, footpaths and other infrastructure.
Old Balmain Leagues Club site at Rozelle

The site as it is today. Photo: Simon Alekna

That application was approved but a later development application was rejected by the Joint Regional Planning Panel.
Advertisement

However, Leichhardt council has refused to return the funds.

''I think it is disgraceful that a local government can withhold, without proper cause, private money,'' said the managing director of Rozelle Village, Ian Wright. ''This is a local government, it's not a shonky businessman. We've made numerous representations to them via our lawyers seeking the return of [the money] and they refused. The only remedy we have is to take legal action.''

The Leichhardt mayor, Darcy Byrne, said legal advice sought by the council indicated it was entitled to keep the funds.

''The developer agreed to this community funding when the site was originally rezoned. They should keep their commitment now that their plan has doubled in size,'' he said, adding that newly elected councillors would make a final ruling.

The Planning Department is expected to release plans on Wednesday showing the concept has been reduced from 32 to 24 storeys, or 122 metres, which have been ''slimmed down''. It includes a two to three level ''podium'' comprising retail and food outlets, community facilities and the Balmain Leagues Club premises.

But several sustainability measures, such as trigeneration electricity, a biofiltration system and blackwater recycling have been dumped as unfeasible under the new, smaller proposal.

The Planning Assessment Commission will determine the proposal under now-defunct Part 3a laws.

Mr Wright said the new proposal took into account community feedback, saying ''we've reduced the height as much as we can while still keeping the project feasible''.

However a spokesman for the Rozelle Residents Action Group, Mark Wallis, claimed the new proposal did not meet community expectations.

''I don't think 24 storeys are any more in keeping with what exists in the area than 32,'' he said.

Cr Byrne said the council was assessing the new plans but ''it seems likely these slightly smaller skyscrapers are still going to smash local businesses and change Rozelle beyond recognition''.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/legal-feud-af … z2BTAvVI6c

It's going to be a bitter fight until the end. Even if the latest revised plans get approved, I wouldn't be surprised if the council appeals the decision. The lawyers representing both parties are laughing all the way to the bank with this saga dragging on for six years.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[Yossarian]

As I've said consistently, it is NOT the place of local council to artificially prop up local businesses by supressing competition.

 

[sunshine_coast_tiger]

LEICHHARDT council is refusing to hand back $750,000 paid by the developers of the Balmain Tigers Leagues Club, prompting threats of legal action.

The stoush coincides with the release on Wednesday of revised plans for the contentious two-tower development, which will show a reduction in height from 32 to 24 storeys. Further, about $30 million worth of what were described as eco-friendly design measures have been deemed unviable and scrapped.

Rozelle Village, the company behind the proposal, is demanding the return of $750,000 in bank guarantees paid to Leichhardt council under a voluntary planning agreement in 2010\. The payment was part of a rezoning application to the council and was supposed to pay for community grants, footpaths and other infrastructure.
Old Balmain Leagues Club site at Rozelle

The site as it is today. Photo: Simon Alekna

That application was approved but a later development application was rejected by the Joint Regional Planning Panel.
Advertisement

However, Leichhardt council has refused to return the funds.

''I think it is disgraceful that a local government can withhold, without proper cause, private money,'' said the managing director of Rozelle Village, Ian Wright. ''This is a local government, it's not a shonky businessman. We've made numerous representations to them via our lawyers seeking the return of [the money] and they refused. The only remedy we have is to take legal action.''

The Leichhardt mayor, Darcy Byrne, said legal advice sought by the council indicated it was entitled to keep the funds.

''The developer agreed to this community funding when the site was originally rezoned. They should keep their commitment now that their plan has doubled in size,'' he said, adding that newly elected councillors would make a final ruling.

The Planning Department is expected to release plans on Wednesday showing the concept has been reduced from 32 to 24 storeys, or 122 metres, which have been ''slimmed down''. It includes a two to three level ''podium'' comprising retail and food outlets, community facilities and the Balmain Leagues Club premises.

But several sustainability measures, such as trigeneration electricity, a biofiltration system and blackwater recycling have been dumped as unfeasible under the new, smaller proposal.

The Planning Assessment Commission will determine the proposal under now-defunct Part 3a laws.

Mr Wright said the new proposal took into account community feedback, saying ''we've reduced the height as much as we can while still keeping the project feasible''.

However a spokesman for the Rozelle Residents Action Group, Mark Wallis, claimed the new proposal did not meet community expectations.

''I don't think 24 storeys are any more in keeping with what exists in the area than 32,'' he said.

Cr Byrne said the council was assessing the new plans but ''it seems likely these slightly smaller skyscrapers are still going to smash local businesses and change Rozelle beyond recognition''.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/legal-feud-af … z2BTAvVI6c

It's going to be a bitter fight until the end. Even if the latest revised plans get approved, I wouldn't be surprised if the council appeals the decision. The lawyers representing both parties are laughing all the way to the bank with this saga dragging on for six years.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

Actually I think once the state government makes their decision it is final and is not subject to any further appeals (Part 3A had this power to get projects moving and not tied up in the courts). They NSW state government have all the power and I for one am very glad that Leichhadt Council( most ineffective council ever) has no control over the deceision apart from making another costly submission against the project (really is a major waste of rate payers money).

I am sure that if anything over 2 stories is approved that the Council and local residents action group will whinge and whinge.

The important thing is that if you want the project to go ahead and return Balmain Leagues Club to its rightful home and piss off all the NIMBYs(I really think they are a vocal monority who will end up shopping at the completed project) you have to make another submission supprting the projcet at the following website:

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=4499

Any submission you make supproting the project can only help as there will be many submissions against the project.