- Hits: 6817
Nov 2011 UPDATE
Our state MP representative, Bruce NotleySmith (Liberal) has advised that the rezoning application will come before the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) for determinatiom following refusal of the application by Council last year. This follows the planning minister, Brad Hazzard changing the rules allowing refusals of rezoning applications to go before the JRPP.
The site is already zoned residential, at the 'low density' level. The community accept this as reasonable given the lack of public transport to the site. See an interactive map published by the Sydney Morning Herald: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/for-many-public-transport-is-now-a-private-hell-20121110-294wx.html
Still, we've been promised a 'light rail link', but even this would be some distance from the Inglis site.
Dec 2011 UPDATE : A report went to Council for a rezoning request which supposedly modified what had been previously indicated. See below for the history. But still 790-760 dwellings were proposed in buildings of 8 to 8 levels high. There was an affordable housing sweetener of "up to" 5%, Council's requirement being 1%.
BUT fortunately, Councillors rejected the request to put the rezoning application on public exhibition. Previously, following the uproar about the Education & Health Specialised Centre nearby (see separate page), they had committed to a 15 metre (5 level) limit, although with exceptions for affordable housing.
Seems that Inglis decided to ignore this and the community councern and oush for their high rise proposal. What happens now is unknown, Inglis could try to push it through direct with the State Government. We hope they will recognise the low density and historic elements of the residential area to the south and west and submit a reduced scale proposal. We'll keep you posted, in the meantime, the original 'concept plan' is detailed below.
The Inglis/Newmarket Site is on Barker St across the road from the hospital. While it is currently the Inglis stables, this is set to change with developers working on plans that appear to add 800-900 new dwellings and buildings up to 25m in height to the site.
The planning documents can be found on the Randwick City Council website.
Barker st is already regularly clogged with traffic and the area is serviced by very little public transport. Adding such a large number of dwellings could have an enormous negative impact to existing residents, those who attend Randwick Girls High School (next door), the hospital, and the entire community could be effected if this results in increased ambulance response times.
Council staff addressed the Inglis/Newmarket site in the Randwick Education and Health Specialised Centre Discussion Paper (see section on this website). The options presented were to either accept the Developers application to rezone the site to 2D, or to individually rezone parts of the site. NO WHERE in that paper did council provide an option to retain the current 2A zone or to preserve the heritage status of the site.
The Randwick LEP 1998 Heritage Map clearly shows the whole site as a heritage conservation area, yet in the Randwick Education and Health Specialised Centre Discussion Paper this seems to have been ignored
How can RCC be contemplating rezoning both a Heritage Conservation Area (in red border) and designated Heritage items to Res 2D (High Density Mixed residential/commercial use)?
The Nissan Site nearby, the plans for the Inglis Site, and the adjacent section of Barker st also mentioned in the Randwick Education and Health Specialised Centre Discussion Paper as a potential 2D zone, all crammed between a Hospital, two schools and a University, does NOT appear to be in the interests of the community and DOES NOT meet the needs of current residents, or protect their environments.
Images on this page represent what could be allowed based on the zoning proposals, but are not intended as accurate representations of developers visions.
This page is not moderated by the website owner and as such any person making changes to this page accepts responsibility for any material they publish. This disclaimer should not be removed.