|
|
|
Renewing Homebush Bay Redevelopment Date: 14 November 2002; 5.30pm to 7.45pm 1 Chairman's Introduction The Chairman noted that there had been a great deal of community consultation involved with the various remediation development applications. It was important that developers understand community expectations. To date a high level of detail and communication has led to the community having a good understanding of the remediation process. The Chairman noted the agenda and all agreed. 1.1 Development Team - Greg Zeischang, Multiplex Developments § Explained that Trafalgar Corporation and Thiess Services bid together for the remediation and development of the Union Carbide (Lednez) site § In May 2002 they began looking for a joint venture partner for the development and by the end of July 2002 Multiplex had joined. § Multiplex will be both the developer and the constructor of the site § They also provide asset management services - which provides them an impetus to "do it right the first time" § Introduced the brand name "Multiplex Living" which is their major focus and provides a way to differentiate Multiplex from other developers through providing "design excellence".
§ They provide both architectural and interior design services § Have worked on numerous sites posing similar issues as Rhodes, including the Melbourne Docklands development and the redevelopment of the old St Margaret's hospital site in Surry Hills with substantial experience in multi apartment residential § SJB do not want to create gated communities and aim to integrate existing and new communities as much as possible § SJB won an ideas design competition held by Multiplex Living, which will see SJB develop the masterplan for the site and the DA for the first stage of the development. 1.3 CLG perspective - Carol Kendall and Jenny Nicholls § Would like a single meeting once a month whereby all interested parties are invited and can present their information at one long session. Would save much community time. § The community is very please to be kept up to date, but the amount of time involved attending every meeting is becoming a struggle. § Multiplex is developing Precinct B, with State Wide Developments also developing a small parcel within this precinct § The types of zones, residential, open space, commercial etc are clearly defined in the DCP§ Identifies primary, secondary and tertiary streets and layout § Sets the location of an active play area and a multipurpose community centre § Standardises the landscaping and public domain furniture across all sites to ensure continuity § Allows for 4 storey structures at the foreshore, a certain percentage of 6 storey building at Walker Street and a certain percentage of 8 storey structures § Traffic access limited to two entry/exit points to the western side of the peninsula. 2.2 Initial Ideas and Suggestions Presentation § Need to create an identity for Rhodes § Street system must be permeable and safe § Need to encompass ecologically sustainable development into the design through the use of solar power, grey water, on-site water management and ventilation design § Diversity and texture in the housing choice is a driver for SJB § Optimise views both within housing and in public areas § The final number of unit/terraces has not been finalised. It may be between 1100 to 1500 under DCP guidelines. § Walker Street and Shoreline Ave would be the primary streets 3. Community Issues § Provision for out door clothes drying areas - so residents are not forced to use electric clothes dryers § Integration of ESD principles into the design (solar, grey water etc) § Garbage truck access considerations§ Off street cycle ways and pathways - the whole western peninsula network and connectivity to Homebush Bay § Sound absorption issues along the railway tracks - concern that height of buildings along Walker Street may reflect train noise back into residents on eastern side § How the existing Rhodes residential areas will be integrated into the new development § Improved ventilation vs. issues of increasing noise issues (more ventilation = higher audibility) § Issues of views and privacy - overlooking into on anothers' windows § Safety provisions on the sea-wall - this is a long structure and if people fall in how do they get out? § The impact of passive and active recreation on Powells Creek (to be followed up through Planning NSW Living Centres Program) § The provisions for car parking (parking allocations are defined in the DCP) on this site § Active recreation issues for teenagers - how to engage the 700 or so young people on site? What facilities are being considered, what needs review since the Community Development Plan, can we involve young people in this discussion. § Impact on existing residents along Blaxland Road - noise, visual. Will structures be stepped in height? § SJB's ideas for the public domain area along the foreshore § Possibility of a sailing club to be incorporated (and associated structures)? § The masterplan design of the 'multifunction community building' - what facilities, what sports in mind, how will it be integrated with the adjacent oval, is it in the best location? § What provisions will be included in this masterplan to account for improvements in technology over the next 5 years? 4. Other Issues § A model of the whole peninsula showing how each of these masterplans' relate to one another and the whole site would be very useful. Committee asked that the chairman take a request to Planning NSW Scott Wilson to have such a model developed. § Community reiterated their wish that they be able to hold a monthly meeting to which all parties attended at agreed times. 5. Next Meeting |
|
If you have any information of relevance to this project
or wish to advise of any corrections that need to
be made, please advise the webmaster.
rhodes@drive.to If you become aware of later figures being available please provide copies of the relevant report so that it may be analysed and the pages updated. |