You need to be signed in to add your comment.

Do you have any comments on the Residential Discussion Paper?

over 8 years ago

The Residential Discussion Paper recognises the important role of residential zoned land in providing a diverse range of housing for the residents of Randwick City. For the vast majority of residents and property owners there will be no change, although the language used to describe the zones and land uses may change.

This paper suggests:

  • Randwick City is on track to meet 20-year housing targets without major changes
  • no change to existing building height controls
  • no change to existing lot size controls
  • minor adjustments to floor space ratios to better reflect development patterns and modern choices for local home owner extensions options for rezoning a small number of sites following a land use audit and requests from property owners, to reflect existing development patterns and development consents.

  • mmj about 8 years ago
    Kensington to become the new King's Cross? Excellent. Great idea. Seriously. No.... What Kensington needs NOW, are some basic services like a bread shop, a delicatessen, a fruit shop, a supermarket. The number of new expensive apartment developments in Kensington means there are many professionals and families moving into large apartment living - the new urban lifestyle. We need basic services - and a neighbourhood - not brothels. And I like the spin that Kensington is being rezoned to better reflect its "expanding commercial role". Could we see the stats on that? Exactly how is that defined? Empty shops - always, shops on Anzac Parade boarded up with cardboard and being used for storage for Peters of Kensington. Nice. Kensington has limited parking and restricted by morning and afternoon bus zones. Commercial? Expanding...? Not. Expanding residential - Yes. Lets see the stats on the number of new residential properties that have been created in Kensington over the past 5 years and that are planned over the next five years. The population is growing and changing. It's not just jockeys any more! Families are taking advantage of Kensington's convenience - and living close to Centennial Park. And as for backpackers - don't get me started. Backpackers destroyed Coogee. When will the council learn? Creating backpackers is creating ghettos. Bird lice, excessive noise, partying. You are destroying your residential areas. How about some intelligent town planning that thinks about the future? Creating neighbourhoods where people who pay rates will want to live. Creating local "villages" where people will want to shop - and not go out of council area to Danks St or Bondi Junction to shop? We need people with vision to be involved in town planning. Not just people trying to expand "commercial" interests. Gotta love a euphemism.Think again Randwick.
  • InfrastructureBeforeTowers about 8 years ago
    RCC is not on track to meet the target, we are 5 times ahead of the number required under the previous State Govt's Metro strategy. As the FOI release (published in the SMH showed) we are only required to have 11-12% of the target 8,400 new dwellings approved by 2013. Well RCC has approved over 5,000 so far vs the 1,000 required! Why the unholy race to cram Randwick up? Is it to get as much pushed through before the residents and State Govt realise how out of control RCC senior staff are? Is it because RCC senior staff do not realise what is going on - well that could be the reason as the senior strategic planner told a public meeting late last year that they nor RCC kept track of how many new dwellings they had approved since the start of the Metro strategy time period (1.1.2005) so perhaps that is the reason. But when you see the sheer amount of errors or misinformation being put out by RCC it begs the question - what is really going on?
    • Carlo about 8 years ago
      Simple, because it can, it has all the services, and current generations have an obligation to accommodate future generations in a sustainable manner, at least in my opinion. I would like to be able to see my children live close by, but its going to be really difficult going by the prices.IN my opinion, the metro strategy sets a minimum target and time frame. if we can do, and within a shorter time frame, than why not. the more people we help, the better.
  • Carlo about 8 years ago
    IN my opinion, the residential discussion paper projects a very conservative vision. It demonstrates council is not willing to truly tackle the big issues - housing supply, affordability and climate change. The east has the best services and facilities in the whole of australia, and yet it is still dominate by low scale, detached housing. Take Anzac Parade for example - you wont find a suburban road with more buses (and hope fully light rail soon), yet almost all of it is still detached housing?! Im not suggesting 20 storey appartment buildings everywhere, but surely single houses are an extreme waste of land in light of the current issues we face.
    • InfrastructureBeforeTowers about 8 years ago
      Carlo, unfortunately the facts do not match your observations. The previous State Govt issued a press release earlier this year stating that buses were now operating at over 100% of the carrying capacity of Anzac Parade during peak hours and that journey times were increasing. Any new services on one route would have to come at the expense of another route. If RCC's vision (nightmare more like) of light rail taking out 2 of the 4 lanes on traffic on Anzac Parade either all buses would have to cease using Anzac Parade or Anzac parade would be in grid lock as only one lane of traffic each way would be blocked by buses lining up to get into the bus stops, or a single car accident would grid lock Anzac Parade. Express buses could not go along the tram lines as they could not pass trams without pulling into the single lane each way of remaining traffic. Imagine just one learner driver slowing peak hour traffic for 5 km! On density, depending who you listen to RCC is either the 2nd densest LGA in Australia after Kirribilli/North Sydney or 5th. The difference being they have heavy underground rail and we do not. Remember infrastructure takes decades but developers take months. With the new State Govt targets RCC should only approve 75 new dwelling a year from now through to 2031, not the more than 750 they have been over the last 5.5 years.
      • Carlo about 8 years ago
        in terms of quantity..the sydneys eastern suburbs has the best service...no other region in australia has as many buses. in my opinion, this is the best service in terms of quantity. This aside, buses are besides the point. buses are a 20th century solution at best - more like 19th century. As you have stated, there convenience is diminishing and light rail wouldnt achieve any great improvements. Has to be metro where they are underground and separate from cars.Just because the east has the second or first in terms of density, means little. the fact is, australia, where ever you are, has some of the lowest densities in the world for urban areas.75 dwellings a year!!! you've got to be joking. so how do you expect to accommodate future generations in an affordable way..your children (if you have any), or even your extended family. Australia, and the east in particular, used to epitimise the Australian 'fair go for all' mantra. You wont achieve that if you only have 75 dwellings a a year. Or perhaps thats exactly want you don't want to achieve.
  • Concern12 about 8 years ago
    Kensington - we dont need rezoning. It seems some people think we don't have enough apartments in Kensington. Drive along Duke Street or Bornia Street. Look at Gloucester Gardens on Todman Ave (at least this one has a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedrooms). Also look at the current new developments which is allowed under existing zoning. 2 huge ones on Anzac pde in Kensington,1 in Duke Street and 1 in Bornia. Also a huge piece of land behind Peter's of Kensington that hasnt been developed for over 4 years now...We dont need to develop more large towers - we need to manage the existing zoning better.
    • Carlo about 8 years ago
      then why are we suffering from housing affordability and housing shortage. why is the cost of housing so high. why do future land owners have to be burdened by massive mortgages and rising rents?
      • InfrastructureBeforeTowers about 8 years ago
        Our parents worked hard and saved money before they bought new items, including somewhere to live. Now most people appear to think they have the right to a 2 or 3 bedroom house with garden, off-street parking for their first purchase without having the money to even put down a 10% deposit. Equally, the changes to Foreign investors buying Australian property has seen money flooding in from overseas buying up land - residential, commercial & agricultural. In the ABS latest report they point out that there are between 400,000 and 500,000 empty houses in Australia - not rented out.There is a shortage of beach side houses with gardens - that is something to aspire to, to work hard to be able to afford not something to be everyone's right to own as there first home.
        • Carlo about 8 years ago
          current generations are also working hard. We are working longer hours than ever. The facts are wage increases are no longer proportional to the rising cost of housing - because housing supply is at record low levels. Our parents didn't have the problem of wages to.Your suggestion that 'most' people have a right to 2/3 bed house with garden etc is your opinion and debatable. In my experiences, 'most' people just want to have a roof over their heads. In my opinion, you are referring to the minority.In relation foreign investments, this is a 2 way street. Foreigners buy australian property, but australians and australian companies also by plenty of overseas land. Take Frank Lowy for example, he's just opened the biggest mall in the UK.Im not suggesting hong kong style density or development style. i recognise your reference to gardens and the like which i also aspire to. In my opinion, a compromise between the 2 can be easily achieved.
          • InfrastructureBeforeTowers about 8 years ago
            Starting with your points in order, housing supply is set by buyers paying for what they can afford. Australian house prices are the world's most expensive. Even before the US imploded houses in Sydney cost more than houses the equivalent distance from New York.The newspapers wrote a lot about people's first home purchases in June following a release by several groups over new house builds (no of brms, bthrms etc) remember the McMansions. Australia builds the largest new homes of any country in the world (see Aust Bureau of Statistics, Senate Housing Inquiry for starters).You mention foreigners buying is a 2 way street. Not true. Australians cannot buy property in many Asian countries (nor for that matter pay fees to attend some Asian countries Universities). When did you hear of an Australian company buying property in China? And that is just one example yet China is now in the top 3 of Australian land purchasers in Australia (ABS really useful place).Compromise is good but putting out the true facts as residents would hope RCC would do is even better. It is hard to reach a true compromise when you do not have a fair starting point. Unfortunately RCC is proposing high rise towers, spend a few minutes looking at the resident website SaveRandwick.com especially the "Walking Tour Nightmares" - every dream outcome put forward by RCC is a high rise tower block of units - including on Heritage Conservation zoned areas.
  • davea about 8 years ago
    This paper suggests that RCC is blatently missleading its constituants, the sumary sheet is in complete disagrement with the contents. "Randwick City is on track to meet 20-year housing targets without major changes no change to existing building height controls no change to existing lot size controls minor adjustments to floor space ratios to better reflect development patterns and modern choices for local home owner extensions options for rezoning a small number of sites following a land use audit and requests from property owners, to reflect existing development patterns and development consents" Randwick is so far ahead of it's targets it will probably reach them within the next couple of years way ahead of schedule. The statments regarding height controls lot size and ratios are completely false the fact is that RCC is try to hide a major increase in all of these areas - it is in the full document but hiden near the back.I think that RCC needs to withdraw this paper and and review it's contents and then publish a factual and accurate sumation of it's contents, and be open and transparent in it's plans to create an new "high rise" skyline for us to live under.
  • 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 appears heights in the new zone for Res 2A are increased to allow 3 storey dwellings in the place of the current 2 storey restriction many would miss this point as it is only revealed by the asterisk insertion in the table(see tables on p10 & p68). Note how the new 9.5m height restriction now applies to dwellings. Worse, this website misrepresents what is contained in the papers. 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.
  • 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? If they stick to the new target discussed by the new State Govt - then Randwick needs to have approved just 6,000 (who would ever thought I would say that) by 2031 - not 20,000. According to written confirmation by RCC Planning in the 2006 census there were 46,000 dwellings in Randwick. So in the last 5 years they had approved over 10% more yet the Metro Strategy required RCC to approve at more 2% more - please explain (seems appropriate).
  • MST11 about 8 years ago
    THIS PAPER IS COMPLETELY MISLEADING AT BEST1. RCC is already over 50% of the way towards its housing target in less than 25% of time gone! Does this mean that future development proposals will be rejected to bring us back in line or are RCC aiming to exceed targets set?2. No change to existing building height controls is completely misleading. Paper proposes changes in height limits for Residential 2A dwellings, however many residents would miss this as it’s covered/referenced towards the end of the document. Rezoning proposal from 2A to 2D with a 24m height level is what I consider a significant change, is it not?3. No change to lot size controls – completely untrue! There is a clear proposal to reduce plot size whilst also increasing floor space ratios (FSR’s). FSR changes are also not ‘minor’ despite RCC stating otherwise. Some FSR’s are proposed to change by over 15% - surely this is a major adjustment rather than minor. is it not?I’m calling on the RCC to withdraw this paper, review its contents and provide an ACCURATE summary of what its true intentions are. Where is the TRANSPERENCY and OPENESS we’ve been promised?
  • stopoverdevelopment about 8 years ago
    The Residential Discussion Paper proposes to allow overdevelopment and I object to it in its entirety. In particular, I object to the proposed increases in floor space ratios, the proposed amalgamation of different zoning levels, and I object to the proposed change in height limits for res 2a zoned land.