A Call to action - Rozelle Village

The Rozelle Village group must show that the Rozelle area will boom, and not die as a result of this development. They should be focusing on how the increase in population will benefit local businesses as well as those in the new retail sector that will be constructed. In my opinion it will be a wonderful Sydney landmark but I dont think they have gone about it the right way.
 
Balmain Cove and Balmain Shores
Both recent developments were in close proximity to the TIGERS site, both were of a much larger scale, both substantially increased the population (more than this development) and both were resounding successes that improved the area, not destroyed it.

The removal of the old power station and that other industrial/medical?? site opened up what was an otherwise deralict part of Rozelle, increased public access to the foreshore and injected a lot into the local economy as more people started using the Rozelle strip of Darling Street

Rozelle Village will do the same for the area to the South of Victoria Rd. It's a win-win situation.

I don't think the developers have to show anything. I mean, please point to a case in Sydney were an existing area has been negatively impacted upon by the development of a run-down block? I'm not sure if you have noticed, but the southern part of Darling St is dead! If it wasn't for the Red Lion and that italian pizza shop then the place would be a ghost town. Cross over Vic Rd and it's a completely different story. Rozelle Village will fix this.
 
I have not really followed how this development has evolved and there seems to be some well informed people on this thread. A poster earlier placed the submissions website in their post so I had a very brief look. I have two questions:

1\. I noted this submission from AirServices Australia:

https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/d6c68a39c9c89be781ae63a20ec58f26/AirServicesAust-090512.pdf

No one has discussed this submission in this thread as it seems to have focused on shadows and shopping centres. I am reading that the development would be a violation of protected airspace. How does the development go ahead if it violates protected air space?

2\. If the development goes ahead, will occupiers in the residential units have 24 hour access to the bar? Will residents be able to include beverages in their strata package?
 
@Gary Bakerloo said:
I have not really followed how this development has evolved and there seems to be some well informed people on this thread. A poster earlier placed the submissions website in their post so I had a very brief look. I have two questions:

1\. I noted this submission from AirServices Australia:

https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/d6c68a39c9c89be781ae63a20ec58f26/AirServicesAust-090512.pdf

No one has discussed this submission in this thread as it seems to have focused on shadows and shopping centres. I am reading that the development would be a violation of protected airspace. How does the development go ahead if it violates protected air space?

2\. If the development goes ahead, will occupiers in the residential units have 24 hour access to the bar? Will residents be able to include beverages in their strata package?

What a joke, they've got the whole freaking air to fly through. Go around it.
 
Hi Guys

I'm not sure that any of you guys noticed, but Elizabeth Farrelly wrote an extensive piece attacking
the Rozelle development in yesterdays Sydney Morning Herald. It took up half the OPINION section.

Here is the link
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/developers-show-their-stripes-all-over-town-20120606-1zwpu.html

The Article is below:

Ever get the sense the bad guys are winning? The Planning Minister, Brad Hazzard, promises this month a package of "very radical" Planning Act reforms. Well, Mr Hazzard, reform this.
Our planning system, like our tax system, seems increasingly geared to screw the little guys while rich douchebags suck it dry.
Consider. I work at home, in a terrace, reportedly Mr Hazzard's preferred form of housing and soon to spread across far westburbia. On this at least, Brad and I are as one.
Advertisement: Story continues below
But in a terrace, the biggest challenge is light. Even with skylights and extreme spatial ingenuity, dark pockets persist. My writing space, for reasons best left obscure, inhabits such a pocket.
A couple of years back, driven to resolve this (and inspired in part by Michael Pollan's wonderful A Place of My Own), I lodged a DA for a writing studio at the end of the garden. A tiny, see-through room on stilts, it would have surveilled our backlane drug deals, made minimum shadow and followed precedent up and down the street without precluding the off-street parking so beloved of the council. Exactly the kind of urban enrichment you might think a contemporary council would wish for.
Well, luvvies. What a palaver. Visiting planners spoke in reverential tones about urban design principles, floorspace ratios (which would have risen by about 0.25 per cent) and heritage laneways. My inner curmudgeon, never far away, came rapidly to the fore.
"Good god!" I felt like shouting. "I wrote the wretched laneways policy, and much of your urban design policy, when you were still feeding your Tamagotchi. And it's not about sterilisation!"
How wrong. The planners, unamused, gave me two choices: withdraw and save them the paperwork, or take refusal. I took refusal.
That's the fate of small, careful, stitchings onto the urban jacket. If, however, your proposal is truly outrageous and enduringly desecratory - alienating harbour frontage, blocking views, wrecking high streets, destroying villages, generating hectares of floating plastic or sucking community lifeblood - then yes siree, you have a real chance of getting up.
Now, suddenly, Sydney abounds with such schemes. The Premier, Barry O'Farrell, swears his opposition to Part 3A. Yet, of the 50 Part 3A determinations his government handed down in its first six months, only two were refused.
Three current schemes are illustrative. Not all are 3A but all are environmentally execrable, all weirdly linked to the Obeid-Tripodi traduction of our planning system and all once considered dead, or shrunk - yet have lately bounced back, bigger and uglier than ever.
They are: the Balmain Tigers redevelopment (cruelly named Rozelle Village for the community it will destroy); the Blackwattle Bay function centre; and the floating triffid that is the Rose Bay Marina, relentless in its efforts to grow another arm.
Rozelle Village started at 10 storeys, linked to the then metro-to-be. By 2010, when it was first refused, it was 13 storeys. Now, though the metro is long-dead, the proposal has been accepted as ''state significant'' under Part 3A (by outgoing minister Tony ''ICAC'' Kelly) and has almost tripled in size into two towers, 20 and 27 storeys respectively, with a massive five-storey retail podium and a 7.65 floorspace ratio. In Rozelle!
With 304 flats, the ''village'' has enough height to overshadow Darling Street all winter and enough retail (20,000 square metres) to kill the real Rozelle village as dead as Westfield has Bondi Junction. It also has 834 car spaces; almost three per dwelling. Just what Sydney's most congested peninsula needs.
The proponent is the supposedly carbon-conscious Tipping Point Institute, "a group of dedicated professionals who believe that success is not found in the pursuit of personal gain, but rather in pursuing goals that benefit society at large … "
The sale of the Tigers site to Rozelle Village (the Tipping Point Institute) was packaged by Benny Elias, board member of both the Tigers and Rozelle Village (from which he resigned before the sale). The project manager is Kym Lennox, a former RTA bureaucrat who has worked for the Obeid family.
Lennox is also project managing the function centre application for the concrete batching sites at Blackwattle Bay in Ultimo. Ben Elias's brother Joe - sole director of All Occasion Cruises (known for their raunchy strip shows) - is the named proponent, but Ben was reportedly involved in the early stages, along with Eddie Obeid's son Eddie Jr.
The lease was controversially won in 2009, when Joe Tripodi was the Minister for Waterways and Sydney Maritime had an acting chairman for a month. The Elias bid, for an 18-berth marina, was higher than its competitors, but partly because it included a non-conforming function centre.
For three years the site has been used for commercial boating as the 2002 masterplan intended. Now, the function centre has reared again, contradicting the plan by blocking views from Wentworth Park and inhibiting public access to the waterfront.
Similar issues have already resulted from the Rose Bay Marina, as built, and will be greatly intensified if the proposed extension - blogged against by Malcolm Turnbull and the Greens alike - goes ahead.
Tripodi's gutting of Maritime's ''landowner's consent'' policy that had governed harbour leases for a century (limiting jetties, for example, to 16 metres) facilitated Addenbrooke's 2006 proposal of a 128-boat marina. It was knocked back by both council and court, but in 2009 the court approved a smaller, 76-vessel version, without its third, eastern arm.
Now the eastern arm is back, boofier than ever. An 80-metre pontoon is proposed, with 46 more three-storey plastic boats, concomitantly reducing the far prettier, less intrusive swing moorings. It's that old ''no means yes'' developers' mantra.
My writing studio is now 50 storeys with mirror glass, subterranean robot parking and ground-floor strip shows. Zero carbon, natch. I'm just looking for the right person to lunch.
\
\
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/developers-show-their-stripes-all-over-town-20120606-1zwpu.html#ixzz1x9t1adcU
 
@Gary Bakerloo said:
I have not really followed how this development has evolved and there seems to be some well informed people on this thread. A poster earlier placed the submissions website in their post so I had a very brief look. I have two questions:

1\. I noted this submission from AirServices Australia:

https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/d6c68a39c9c89be781ae63a20ec58f26/AirServicesAust-090512.pdf

No one has discussed this submission in this thread as it seems to have focused on shadows and shopping centres. I am reading that the development would be a violation of protected airspace. How does the development go ahead if it violates protected air space?

2\. If the development goes ahead, will occupiers in the residential units have 24 hour access to the bar? Will residents be able to include beverages in their strata package?

I can only imagine how ridiculous the strata levies they're likely to be charged will be, they'd want to get something out of it.
 
Sounds more like she's got the Brad Pitts because her own DA got knocked back. If her laneways were such a dive why would she want a better view of them? It's funny she talks about the "little guy" losing out - most people who have DAs knocked back don't get to write a whingefest in a metro newspaper in response.

Also sounds she has a bit of a vandetta against one B Elias who se seems to blame for everything wrong in her life.
 
I took it upon myself to point out a few home truths to the good people of Rozelle in todays SMH Opinion section on behalf of Tigers fans who see the blatant hypocrisy of the likes of Farelly

Like the rest of us, Rozelle must share

If you don't share what you have, then some
entity will ultimately take it away from you.
This is an alternative point of view to Elizabeth
Farrelly's interpretation of the Rozelle development
(''Developers show their stripes all over town'', June 7).
Peter Hartcher made the point earlier this week in his
discussion of regional security (''It's either an open
door or risk of war'', June 5).
Why shouldn't the Rozelle
gentry take their fair share of high density accommodation?
Does Farrelly support urban sprawl, or is it really just
a case of not in my back yard . Victoria Road is the obvious
place for Rozelle to do their bit as it is already an eyesore.
It falls to state government to share the load that nimbies
like Farrelly block at the self-interested level of local government.
The Greens' blocking of the Rozelle development is analogous
to their blocking of Rudd's emissions trading scheme.
The Greens blocked Rudd's scheme through greed for higher targets.
A change of government later and they have the prospect of a watered
down scheme at best, to be dismantled by opposition leader Tony Abbott
if he gets his way.
Similarly, the Rozelle development was blocked by greedy nimbies
proclaiming to be Greens, the government has since changed and a
much bigger development is likely.
If the likes of Farrelly had been willing to share initially, then the
state government would not have to teach the gentry to share, and
Farrelly would see fewer shadows in winter.
 
Rozelle would take their share if there was infrastructure in place to support it. Why do you think Zetland, Mascot and Green square are being touted? They have heavy rail. Rozelle does not. How do you think the people living in 2 25 storey towers and teh people living in the 30 storey tower are going to get to work? What impact will the retail floor space in teh towers affect the darling st businesses? Pull your head in. It is not suitable to the environment. No i am not talking about 'the environment' but the general area in which we live
 
@Gary Bakerloo said:
No one has discussed this submission in this thread as it seems to have focused on shadows and shopping centres. I am reading that the development would be a violation of protected airspace. How does the development go ahead if it violates protected air space?

CASA imposes a RL330m blanket limit across the city. This development goes nowhere near it.
 
Farley, lol

Well her credibility was shot when she toed the "it will overshadow Darling St Rozelle" line

once again (and I hate having to correct people on this) we are in the Southern Hemisphere and shadows cannot be cast to the north!

FFS!
 
@Kul said:
CASA imposes a RL330m blanket limit across the city. This development goes nowhere near it.

Agreed, it only reaches 144.90m and I am taking your word on the CASA blanket limit (I have no idea otherwise).

However, the next statement is, _"The proposed development will, if erected, intrude into PANS-OPS airspace for Sydney airport and cannot be approved under Section 9 of the Airports (Protection of Airspace) regulations 1996."_

How is this interpreted? It reads to me the development is in violation of these regulations.
 
@davedave said:
@Kul said:
wrong
1 - Evans street is north of the site. As we are in the southern hemisphere it is impossible for a shadow to be cast north.

Evans St is to the South East (not North), and since we're in the Southern Hemisphere (sun ends up in the North West), the shadow gets there. Straight over the 3 weeds according to Rozelle Village's enviro report.

And we hate having to correct you too, Kul :wink:
 
@TigersAreTerrific said:
I took it upon myself to point out a few home truths to the good people of Rozelle in todays SMH Opinion section on behalf of Tigers fans who see the blatant hypocrisy of the likes of Farelly

Like the rest of us, Rozelle must share

If you don't share what you have, then some entity will ultimately take it away from you. This is an alternative point of view to Elizabeth Farrelly's interpretation of the Rozelle development (''Developers show their stripes all over town'', June 7). Peter Hartcher made the point earlier this week in his discussion of regional security (''It's either an open door or risk of war'', June 5). Why shouldn't the Rozelle gentry take their fair share of high density accommodation? Does Farrelly support urban sprawl, or is it really just a case of not in my back yard . Victoria Road is the obvious place for Rozelle to do their bit as it is already an eyesore. It falls to state government to share the load that **nimbies** like Farrelly block at the self-interested level of local government. The Greens' blocking of the Rozelle development is analogous to their blocking of Rudd's emissions trading scheme. The Greens blocked Rudd's scheme through greed for higher targets. A change of government later and they have the prospect of a watered down scheme at best, to be dismantled by opposition leader Tony Abbott if he gets his way. Similarly, the Rozelle development was blocked by greedy **nimbies** proclaiming to be Greens, the government has since changed and a much bigger development is likely. If the likes of Farrelly had been willing to share initially, then the state government would not have to teach the gentry to share, and Farrelly would see fewer shadows in winter.

I admire the fact you have taken the time to write to the SMH, but really, why the name calling? Sorry, but regardless of the quality of your argument, it is completely worthless as you lose credibility with name calling.
 
@Franky said:
Rozelle would take their share if there was infrastructure in place to support it. Why do you think Zetland, Mascot and Green square are being touted? They have heavy rail. Rozelle does not. How do you think the people living in 2 25 storey towers and teh people living in the 30 storey tower are going to get to work? What impact will the retail floor space in teh towers affect the darling st businesses? Pull your head in. It is not suitable to the environment. No i am not talking about 'the environment' but the general area in which we live

"Pull your head in"? If you don't like debate shove off.

There are pleny of development not serviced by heavy rail Balmain Shore, the Forum at Leichhardt, tonnes of stuff on Parramatta Road, or the entire northern beaches etc. It's 5km from the city and it is on one of the best served bus routes in the city. I imagine they'll take the bus. Or cycle…

This is not a Communist state - it is not the place of government to prop up other existing businesses by refusing approval of new commercial sites. If these shops are so magnificent enough people will continue to shop there. Fact is, the retail environment on Vic Road in that area is awful and an eyesore.
 
The approach through Lillyfield is rarely, if ever used for IMC approach vectors, these are almost exclusively run on the ocean routes into Kingsford Smith. The proposed project at Rozelle is at the outer limits of the current corridor for approach as it stands, technically the UTS tower also breaches PANS-OP airspace but is also on the extreme limit of the corridor and is hence exempted
 
@Gary Bakerloo said:
@Kul said:
CASA imposes a RL330m blanket limit across the city. This development goes nowhere near it.

Agreed, it only reaches 144.90m and I am taking your word on the CASA blanket limit (I have no idea otherwise).

However, the next statement is, _"The proposed development will, if erected, intrude into PANS-OPS airspace for Sydney airport and cannot be approved under Section 9 of the Airports (Protection of Airspace) regulations 1996."_

How is this interpreted? It reads to me the development is in violation of these regulations.

You'd think if it was as black and white as the gentleman makes out, the who development would have been ruled out on those grounds some time ago.
 
As part of the Air Service Australia submission, the imposed limit was 145m, so the developer has come in well under that. lol
 
@Gary Bakerloo said:
@TigersAreTerrific said:
I took it upon myself to point out a few home truths to the good people of Rozelle in todays SMH Opinion section on behalf of Tigers fans who see the blatant hypocrisy of the likes of Farelly

Like the rest of us, Rozelle must share

If you don't share what you have, then some entity will ultimately take it away from you. This is an alternative point of view to Elizabeth Farrelly's interpretation of the Rozelle development (''Developers show their stripes all over town'', June 7). Peter Hartcher made the point earlier this week in his discussion of regional security (''It's either an open door or risk of war'', June 5). Why shouldn't the Rozelle gentry take their fair share of high density accommodation? Does Farrelly support urban sprawl, or is it really just a case of not in my back yard . Victoria Road is the obvious place for Rozelle to do their bit as it is already an eyesore. It falls to state government to share the load that **nimbies** like Farrelly block at the self-interested level of local government. The Greens' blocking of the Rozelle development is analogous to their blocking of Rudd's emissions trading scheme. The Greens blocked Rudd's scheme through greed for higher targets. A change of government later and they have the prospect of a watered down scheme at best, to be dismantled by opposition leader Tony Abbott if he gets his way. Similarly, the Rozelle development was blocked by greedy **nimbies** proclaiming to be Greens, the government has since changed and a much bigger development is likely. If the likes of Farrelly had been willing to share initially, then the state government would not have to teach the gentry to share, and Farrelly would see fewer shadows in winter.

I admire the fact you have taken the time to write to the SMH, but really, why the name calling? Sorry, but regardless of the quality of your argument, it is completely worthless as you lose credibility with name calling.

I would have thought NIMBY was at the lower end of the name calling spectrum? IMO he's right - there is a massive NIMBY crowd in that area. It's not necessarily name calling, it's an assessment of the situation.
 
Back
Top