You need to be signed in to add your comment.

Do you have any comments on the Business Centres Discussion paper?

over 8 years ago

The Business Centres Discussion Paper focuses on land used for commercial or retail purposes.

This paper suggests:

  • no changes to floor space ratios or building envelope controls
  • minor adjustments to height controls for some new centres, in line with surrounding residential areas
  • zoning of nine existing neighbourhood centres to reflect small businesses in residential areas that have evolved into centres
  • minor amendments to correct the boundaries of some business zones
  • that Kensington centre could change from a neighbourhood centre zone to a local centre zone, to better reflect its expanding commercial role
  • options for Matraville centre to be zoned either a neighbourhood or local centre.

  • what about 8 years ago
    Mmm, the summary of the Business Centres discussion paper is not really correct. Proposed is increases to the floor space ratios for very small centres where just a few shops exist. The developer trick has been and will continue to be to buy one or two shops and adjacent residential properties. A development application is lodged for a new building with a token shop and then to argue for the larger floor space ratio across the whole site as more flats means more money.Then the site has a split zoning and in the next Council review, the entire site is rezoned business (has already happened - see the discussion paper). And the process repeats itself as the higher floor space ratio for Business zoning creeps out into the surrounding residential area. Surely Council realise this. Keep the smaller business areas with a floor space ratio consistent with the surrounding residential area. It's not rocket science.
  • joop about 8 years ago
    We request Randwick City Council to abandon the intended rezoning of Kensington.We are concerned that the rezoning of the area will shift the balance of residents towards more transitory residents who have no emotional attachment of the area resulting more dumped rubbish on nature strips and decrease in community spirit. Further the rezoning in the area is also likely to result in increased traffic in the area making it more dangerous for pedestrians and school children. It is noted that the area already struggles to cope with existing traffic with Saturday race days resulting in clogged traffic along Todman Avenue and Doncaster Avenue. Parking is already scarce and it is not uncommon for residents to have to park some distance from their homes especially on race days.It would be better if the council adopted plans to increase the number of long term residents or owner occupier residents who wish to improve the area.Brothels and backpacker hostels would not be welcome as it will result in more crime and erode the sense of community in the area. Drunkenness is, unfortunately, is already common in the area. This is especially the case on Racedays.The rezoning will detract from ordinary businesses in the area that service the local residents. Unfortunately the area lacks a supermarket large enough to provide residents with their ordinary needs. The local residents do not need a backpacking hostel or brothel.Little money has been spent by council on the Kensington area, unlike other areas such as Maroubra Beach and Heffron, and it would seem very unfair to burden the residents with rezoning the area KensingtonPlease do not rezone the Kensington area.
  • InfrastructureBeforeTowers about 8 years ago
    Why is the summary of the paper nothing like what is in the paper? When will RCC stop spreading misinformation and be open and honest with residents? When you look at the map that is supposed to show ALL proposed residential rezonings I found it was missing the nearly 80 hectares proposed in the RCC Education & Health Specialised Centre Discussion Paper from 2010. Why was that? The text with the map says it includes ALL proposed rezonings. What else is it in error about? If this is not misinformation then what is?
  • terri sarno about 8 years ago
    MATRAVILLE is expanding as an Industrious AREA - being close to BOTANY BAY and all of the facilities surrounding it.Sure there is some (maybe 60%) of residential homes and units - however the only part of Matraville that is really going ahead is the commercial and Industry side mainly due to its location to Botany and Easter Distributor.
  • Carlo about 8 years ago
    i would be pleased if the paper suggested to expand business centres. It seems we are constantly seeking greater convenience and this would help. the buildings should generally remain in keeping with existing development of course
    • Sebastien about 8 years ago
      Just like Carlo I would like to make the general comment that more and better neighbourhood centres will increase amenity, and sense of community in the council. Larger centres and open spaces generate a lot of car traffic on week-ends so it would be good to give people the option of shopping/entertaining themselves in their local area (I would encourage more fruit markets/delis/small supermarkets, small bars like we have seen develop on Frenchmans Road for instance). I am glad to see that the proposed rezoning supports this evolution in theory.
  • qwerty1 about 8 years ago
    Not too sure if i like the change of residential to neighbourhood B1 in Little Bay, there are already more shops added in the 2 buildings at the enterance to prince Henry. Lets wait and see if the shops in prince henry fill up first because most people like to drive to the big shopping centres. I see that the new shops on the opposite side of the road will be enpty and the owners will ask council to put units in instead.
  • Concern12 about 8 years ago
    I am concerned about the rezoning in Kensington from a family perspective and do not wish for it to go ahead. Already developers have approval to build large builds along ANZAC Pde. Also there is an existing trend that the current approved buildings are large towers with residential 1 or 2 bedrooms only... where do family move too? Are we trying only to attract singles? Or young people sharing a rental? I also concern that rezoning is happening so close to two major schools (Kensington Public school and Lady of our SH).I also dont believe there is a sound argument behind why Kensington on Anzac pde is the right place for a re-zoning due a slight build up of some take away shops and Peter's of Kensington ... lets face it there is no other room for shop fronts because south is UNSW and NIDA and north is running field, golf course, schools and Moore park...Leave the zoning alone.Lastly we have already have the zoning along ANZAC
  • elainefooster about 8 years ago
    I am pleased to support the local centre zone in maroubra junction ( & rezoning of anzac parade ) as this area has provided my husband and I with such a diversified use over the past few years. We are a young professional couple, and is pleased to see that this area can be well improved to support a a growing population with a balance of business and residential needs in the future
  • Supporter about 8 years ago
    I am pleased to the support the business centre expansion overall (especially the maroubra and kensington area). Having lived here as a young professional for many years, I have witnessed how important the presence of the university, hospitals, medical facilities as well as recreational facilities are to local residents as well as the entire nsw population who come here to work, get treatment and play (with proximity to beaches and other recreational areas). Going into the future, these areas need a very good infrastructure and town planning to maintain its importance to these institutions, and by expanding the businss centre is one of the ways to cope with the growing population.
  • surburban about 8 years ago
    i support maroubra junction being a local centre zone in maroubra junction ( & rezoning of anzac parade in maroubra to mixed use development to correct the boundaries of the business zone ), as it truly reflects the diversifed role of this fantastic location
  • InfrastructureBeforeTowers about 8 years ago
    This paper is misleading and unless read very carefully creates a false impression of what it contains. For example it states no change to floor space ratios - WRONG - it proposes doubling or more the FSR (see pgs 111-140), it also calls 2 small shops a business centre and then proposes rezoning 3 neighbouring dwellings to business just for good measure. Where are the authorities who are supposed to protect residents? When will our elected representatives stand up for residents rights over the developers' financial gains? There is a blatant conflict of interest contained in this and the other Discussion paper - Randwick City Council has a direct financial interest and benefit of increasing the densities, heights etc - it proposes to rezone public land (open space at the Kingsford triangle - the car park & fruit shop) while totally coincidentally someone has put in a proposal to rezone from residential the entire block of Anzac Parade, Sturt ST & Bunnerong Rd (Car wash one end, houses in the middle and restaurant + hobby shop at the end. Guess what zoning they propose in place - Tower blocks of units. Why does RCC not declare a conflict of interest in the summary to both these papers? Why are RCC not open and transparent? Why does the summary not match the contents of the discussion paper? Why are the Councillors (with one or two exceptions) not acknowledging correspondence from residents let alone replying to their letters? Is it time to call in the State Govt? Misleading at best, the DP states a number of 3,300 built through to end 2010 (RDP p59) yet figures compiled by www.SaveRandwick.com counting a small number of developments is at 4,460, the Metro Strategy only called for between 8-13% of the 2031 target to be approved by 2013 that equates to a maximum on 1,000 for RCC over 2 years from now yet RCC has approved nearly 5 times that number already. Finally the new State Govt announced that the previous policy of 70/30 infill/new suburbs for the Metro strategy would become 50/50 infill/new suburbs - applying this RCC makes a target of 6,000 new dwelling approvals by 2031 and RCC has already approved in excess of 75% of that figure in just over 6 years. This leave 1,500 for the next 20 years or 75 new dwellings a year vs the current rate in excess of 750 a year. RCC IS NOT ON TRACK RCC IS OFF THE RAILS. Developers take months - infrastructure takes decades.
  • InfrastructureBeforeTowers about 8 years ago
    At the current rate of dwelling approvals (over 750 per year average since 2005 to end 2010) then RCC will approve 15,000 more dwellings by 2031 for a grand total of approx 20,000 dwellings vs previous State Govt target of 8,400 - why is RCC so pro-developer? What is the reason they propose (within the detail of the paper but not in the supposed summary) of doubling the densities of the majority of any place in Randwick that has a shop as well as rezoning other currently dwellings to business (it does increase their value). Why does RCC not identify that they have a conflict of interest as they propose doing this to land they own on behalf of residents? What is going on?
  • stopoverdevelopment about 8 years ago
    The Business Centre Discussion Paper (DP) is biased inappropriately towards overdevelopment in Randwick City Council and the summaries are unacceptably misleading. I object to the proposed change of Kensington from a neighbourhoood centre zone to a local centre zone, and I disagree with the DP statement that it has an expanding commercial role. This area is primarily residential and the current zoning is appropriate. Local amenity is already excessively reduced by new residential towers on Anzac Pde, particularly street parking.I object to the DP as a whole due to misleading summaries prepared by Council. The consultation process for the DP should be restarted after the summary is altered to reflect accurately the detail in the DP, in particular regarding increased floor space ratios, significant increases to height controls and rezoning.The summmary surrently breaches the community consultation code of conduct.I object to Council's proposal to dramatically increase floor space ratios, and heights and alter zonings.