A Call to action - Rozelle Village

[system]

Nimby is not an insult, it is a commonly used acronym.

The only people who generally view it as an insult are those who believe they are beyond reproach and none of their actions can be questioned

 

[Kul]

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.

CASA definitely has a 330 limit across the entire Sydney basin, but that PANS-OPS thing must be runway related (16L and 16R). No doubt it's correct otherwise they wouldn't have raised it, so the developers should abide by the regulations accordingly.

You wouldn't think they would be that silly to ignore that though, would they?
fun times 😕

 

[Gary_Bakerloo]

CASA definitely has a 330 limit across the entire Sydney basin, but that PANS-OPS thing must be runway related (16L and 16R). No doubt it's correct otherwise they wouldn't have raised it, so the developers should abide by the regulations accordingly.

You wouldn't think they would be that silly to ignore that though, would they? fun times 😕

Are you asking me or is that a rhetorical question? As I mentioned above, I have no idea.

 

[Gary_Bakerloo]

Nimby is not an insult, it is a commonly used acronym.

The only people who generally view it as an insult are those who believe they are beyond reproach and none of their actions can be questioned

Yes, a commonly used acronym that is used pejoratively.

If I was constructing an argument, I wouldn't use it, but anyway, not all of us think the same…

 

[TigersAreTerrific]

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.

Referring to them as the Rozelle gentry was an insult. Accusing them of being unable to share was insulting.
Calling them NIMBYs is an opinion.

If the SMH thought I had crossed a line, they wouldn't publish it. SMH seemed to think it was credible.

 

[sunshine_coast_tiger]

I have noticed a lot of new people to the forum commenting on the issue. Welcome to the site.

I think the project will benefit what in my view is an ugly part of Rozelle. I know personally some of the directors of Balmain Leagues and I truly believe they want what is best for the area and the return of the Balmain Leagues Club. One person on the board would live much closer to the club re development site than 99% of the people objecting to the project.

Compared to many parts of Sydney the Rozelle area is very well serviced by public transport (yes the bus may be full at times) but you can always add more busses or even revive the metro project. The site is only 5km from the Sydney CBD.

The current Masterplan for the site (my understanding of it) allows for height limits of up to 12 storeys on the site yet the joint planning commision rejected a project that had 11 storeys. I for one are very glad that Leichhardt Council appart from making a submission will have no say in the approval of the project (again I would like to know how much money they are wasting on the submission).

I grew up in Balmain (lived there for 25 years) went to the local high school and primary school but as many others I grew up we have had to leave the area as it is unaffordable for many people.

The area has change a lot since I first moved in and whilst some of it has been good a lot has detracted from the area. For example people buying properties near well established live music pubs and then protesting about the noise in the Land and Environment Court. For mine a small percentage of people that have moved into the area have spolit some of the areas charm.

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.go…ob&job_id=4499

The above website allows for submission for the public on the project. I wrote a submission with the following points:

the new developement will provide an increase in much needed housing to the area. I stated that even although I grew up in Balmain it is no longer affordable for me and many people I grew up with. The addition of any new housing can start to help afforadability in the area.

I pointed out that the Balmain Leagues Club had alwayd provided for many groups in the community (not just rugby league) and should be encouraged back into the community with a viable project.

The new site is well serviced by Public Transport and these areas should become more density areas as a lot of the infrastructure is in place.

Balmain/Rozelle has been lacking a decent sized supermarket for as long as I can remember and the provision of one in the new development will be great for a large number of people

I work in a property related field (no I am not an agent and have no interest or contact with anyone involved in the proposed project) and the plans make environmental sense in decreasing the density on the site by providing taller narrower buildings. The plans for the site is vastly better visually than the current improvements.

The surrounding Rozelle shops on Darling Street would be revitalised by a project that draws in additional people to the area. Look at Norton Plaza and how Norton Street shops have thrived after this project was built. The current Rozelle shopping area on the leagues club side of Darling Street could do with upgrading.

I pointed out whilst the will be a lot of objection to the project that even although they make a lot of noise don't necesserily represent the thoughts of everyone in the area.
\
\
In short I encourage you all to make a submission supporting the club, it will only take about 10 minutes. If you want Balmain Leagues to return to it's home please take some time and make a submission there will be thousands of submissions against the project.

 

[TigersAreTerrific]

Hi Sunshine Tiger

That is a great post. Any chance of compressing the benefits to the area, as someone who can't afford to
live in the place they grew up, and fire it off to the herald.

It is a chance to influence public opinion, and your points should be made to Farrelly. The topic should
burn for a while, the article was massive.

 

[Leich-a-tiger]

Another story in the SMH today:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/a-tall-storey-development-so-high-it-puts-planes-at-risk-20120611-2065x.html

THE proposed residential towers on top of the controversial Balmain Leagues Club are so high they pose a danger to passing aircraft, the state government has been warned.

Residents have long protested that the $300 million Rozelle Village project, which includes two residential towers of up to 32 storeys, is a gross overdevelopment of the site.

Now it appears the federal government's air safety watchdog is in agreement.
Advertisement: Story continues below

An Airservices letter sent to the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure warns that at a maximum height of 144.9 metres, the current Rozelle Village development would invade Sydney Airport's prescribed airspace.

"The proposed development will, if erected, intrude into PANS-OPS [Procedures for Air Navigation Services - Aircraft Operations] airspace for Sydney Airport and cannot be approved under section 9 of the Airports (Protection of Airspace) regulations," the report concludes.

The verdict does not faze the developers, however, who have managed to virtually triple the scale of the proposed redevelopment since it was knocked back in 2010.

The managing director of the project, Ian Wright, said investors would now seek to have the airspace limit over the area raised to accommodate the existing design.

"Our advice is that this PANS-OPS level can be amended and Airservices have told us to undertake a feasibility study, in consultation with the airport and the airlines [which use the route]," he said. "It's a lengthy process but we're committed to that process."

A spokeswoman for the Department of Planning and Infrastructure has confirmed that steps to raise the airspace over Rozelle were being investigated.

In a second blow to the developers' plans, however, an analysis conducted by Roads and Maritime Services has

found that the proposed Rozelle Village high rise would exacerbate traffic delays on one of Sydney's most congested streets, Victoria Road. As a result, the Roads and Maritime Services' report has concluded it cannot grant approval for the development in its current state.

Categorised as ''state significant'' under the former Labor government's Part 3A scheme, the fate of the development will be decided by the Planning Assessment Commission.

In the past 18 months, the developers have increased the number of apartments in the proposal from 145 to 304 and the number of parking spaces from 467 to 834\. The total residential and commercial floor space is 55,000 square metres. A protest rally by residents is planned for this weekend.

Mr Wright argued that the development was crucial to bringing the Wests Tigers rugby league team home and the opposition was only from a handful of local residents.

"We have had thousands upon thousands of letters in support, in fact over 6000 letters," he said.

But a spokesman for the residents' action group, David Anderson, said the "bring the Tigers home" campaign was misleading, as the club's new home would comprise less than 5 per cent of the total complex.

Mr Anderson said many of the letters in support of the development were the result of star appearances at local matches by the former Tigers player Ben Elias, who was a director of Rozelle Village Development until last November.

 

[Tiger_Watto]

Um… Cant they just amend the flight thingo and fly around this development???

The Leagues Club is far more important!!!

 

[Yossarian]

Makes you wonder if they got that story from this forum! It was certainly the first place I saw this issue mentioned. Modern aircraft are such technologically advanced machines - they'll cope with a tower or two in Rozelle!! Might even get a tipped wing salute on the way through!

How ironic though if the development meant less aircraft noise for the "just say no" brigade!

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Makes you wonder if they got that story from this forum! It was certainly the first place I saw this issue mentioned. Modern aircraft are such technologically advanced machines - they'll cope with a tower or two in Rozelle!! Might even get a tipped wing salute on the way through!

How ironic though if the development meant less aircraft noise for the "just say no" brigade!

LOL no tower, but redirected flight paths over Rozelle.

 

[Yossarian]

Makes you wonder if they got that story from this forum! It was certainly the first place I saw this issue mentioned. Modern aircraft are such technologically advanced machines - they'll cope with a tower or two in Rozelle!! Might even get a tipped wing salute on the way through!

How ironic though if the development meant less aircraft noise for the "just say no" brigade!

LOL no tower, but redirected flight paths over Rozelle.

Yeah get them to choose between less aircraft noise or no development. I can almost see people's heads exploding as the two great gripes of their lives finally come head-to-head!!

 

[Kul]

This is a report from Sydney Airport showing flight movements over the area

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/Sydney_2011_1st_Quarter.pdf

Planes fly between 1000ft and 3000ft above roughly where Leichhardt Oval is. That is +300m-1000m.
The development has roof at RL145m, 155m clear of the bottom of this range.

 

[Yossarian]

This is a report from Sydney Airport showing flight movements over the area

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/Sydney_2011_1st_Quarter.pdf

Planes fly between 1000ft and 3000ft above roughly where Leichhardt Oval is. That is +300m-1000m.
The development has roof at RL145m, 155m clear of the bottom of this range.

Yeah I think you're in trouble if you're at 145m at Rozelle….

 

[galahs]

You have to have a safety margin, and in bad weather and fog, 150m isn't much.

 

[Yossarian]

You have to have a safety margin, and in bad weather and fog, 150m isn't much.

Modern planes aren't flown by sight. The ILS and instruments would steer them well clear of something like this. Sydney Tower is pretty tall and nobody has hit it yet.

 

[Kul]

I'm hearing from a planning mate of mine from "a high place" that this might actually be completely okay.
early days, more to come…

 

[innsaneink]

Imagine a jumbo one and a half footy fields above your roof?

LOL…...aaaaahhh she'll be right mate LMAO

I used to work at St Peters a few K's from the airport, they might have been five times that heaight there, but its deafening and scary at first,...theyr so close it like you can touch them

 

[dermo]

Listening to the Treasurer on the radio this morning, it seems the government are pretty keen to spend money on infrastructure which could be good for this development

 

[Yossarian]

I also thought it was nice in today's SMH that opponents of the development are concerned for the wellbeing of potential residents in the towers due to aircraft noise… Talk about being disingenuous!!