This section is a library of documents, including links to documents produced by the Committee for North Sydney, planning documents produced by the North Sydney Council, and other relevant documents .
Core documents: bad planning Vs visionary planning
Submissions to NSW Parliament
Cammeraygal
Government plans and policies
Fudging the facts on air quality
The NSW Chief Scientist commissioned a review of the impact of the Beaches Link on air quality. Carefully and guardedly written by independent and highly qualified scientists, it is a devastating critique of the Government’s honesty and rationale: just read the final paragraph.
Plain English version of the final paragraph: The Warringah Freeway is amongst the most polluted areas in Sydney. It is claimed that the project reduces air pollution. “This is only true if the predicted traffic reductions actually occur.” “It is reasonable to expect a high degree of additional demand induced by the project.” “The EIS does not explicitly indicate the sensitivity of the air quality impacts of the project on that induced demand, nor the magnitude of the potential error in predictions of traffic.”
Meaning: The traffic forecasts are dodgy and there’s no evidence that air pollution will diminish. The EIS cannot be believed. Read the report, and note the final paragraph: Independent air quality review of the Beaches Link EIS
Fudging the facts on water quality
Enormous concrete structures are intended to be placed in huge trenches dug in the harbour bed and across Flat Rock Creek Gully. An old contaminated tip site is intended to be dug up for a tunnel dive site.
How do we understand the implications if the formal government documents are not honest? It is shocking and unacceptable that Dr Bill Ryall has found that the WHT EIS is not scientifically credible. Read Dr Ryall’s full submission to the Beaches Link EIS here.
Fudging estimates of traffic congestion
The Planning Department (DPIE) commissioned an ‘independent review’ to critique what TfNSW wrote in the Beaches Link concerning ‘traffic and transport issues’. The Balgowlah Residents Group applied under GIPA to obtain the document.
For their ‘independent reviewer’ they chose the Bitzios transport planning consultancy. On the Bitzios website the firm’s ‘rapid growth’ is explained by a focus on solutions, on clients’ desires and on value for money. It is a remarkably frank statement that appears to mean:
“We work quickly and inexpensively to solve our clients’ problems by understanding what they want.”
You may now independently review the independent review and TfNSW’s responses: read it here. Or take our word for it:
- Of the 66 relevant sections in the EIS, Bitzios commented on 42. Superficially it looks comprehensive.
- Of course it is not comprehensive. Many of the 3000 EIS submissions found critical flaws, gaps and omissions in transport planning. Bitzios addresses only what is written in the EIS.
- Bitzios asks questions, suggests clarifications, points to minor ambiguities, recommends extra modelling and calls for more data.
- End result: TfNSW explains away every comment, often saying ‘It will be in the report on submissions’ or ‘We’ll do that at the time.’
- In short, this is an example of lack of transparency, hidden policy making, bad planning, followed by token oversight.
Other core documents: bad planning Vs visionary planning
DOWNLOAD our latest flyer HERE.
The Committee’s call to arms to Save Berry Street from its misuse as a freeway on-ramp and to restore its sole and proper function as a sunny, leafy, pedestrian-friendly city street.
The Committee’s assessment of the heritage significance of the former MLC Building at 105 Miller Street, North Sydney.
The Committee’s integrated strategy for the North Sydney city centre,
Five Big Ideas, July 2020 (and subsequent revisions).
The Committee’s submission on TfNSW’s grandiose landmark bike ramps (part of their ‘Sydney Harbour Bridge Cycleway Access Program’). We called for (and explained) an open, community design process to find an agreed solution. What’s the rush? It has been a long time coming, so let’s get it right.
Wollstonecraft Precinct Committee’s submission on Sydney Metro’s Crows Nest metro station development July 2018
Committee’s submission on the Concept State Significant DA for the Victoria Cross Metro over station development July 2018
Committee’s preliminary report on the Lendlease site May 2019
Committee’s analysis of current city centre plans (‘Is this the future city centre?’)
Summary of ‘Is this the future of the city centre?’
What, exactly, is Sydney Metro?
Article by Jeremy Dawkins in SMH February 2019
UNSW article by Jeremy Dawkins on value capture March 2019
… and the items filed under the Issues tab: see list to the right ==>
Submissions to NSW Parliament
The Public Works Committee of the Legislative Council is conducting an Inquiry into the Impact of the Western Harbour Tunnel and Beaches Link. Submissions closed on 18 June 2021.
Submission of Committee for North Sydney
Submission of Wollstonecraft Precinct
Submission of Waverton Precinct
Submission of Edward Precinct
Submission of Bay Precinct
This is a succinct submission that should be of interest to the Public Works Committee. Here’s a taste, lightly edited, relating to the ‘consultation methods and effectiveness’ term of reference:
The consultation documentation is full of misleading language and diagrams. Important information, including the business case and design options, is not provided. The consultation documentation uses misleading language and diagrams, for example ‘freeway upgrade” instead of “motorway expansion”, traffic models called “do nothing & do something” rather than “without project & with project”. It’s an impact assessment that fails to present the impacts; for example, the motorway facility sheds are only shown in distant views and camouflaged green.
Submission of E J Nye and Associates
Ted Nye takes apart the EIS and gives strategic alternatives. He also shows through television news stories (Appendix C, p 22) why (i) accident-prone complexity and (ii) lack of alternative routes can both have dire consequences.
Submission by Dr Sid French (No 404)
Submission by Terry le Roux (No 151)
Submission of Peter Egan (No 230 )
Submission of Genia McCaffery (No 146)
Submission by Dr Bill Ryall (No 448)
Submission of Hon David Kirby QC (No 155)
Submission of the NSW Auditor General (No 439)
Cammeraygal
The North Sydney Council has published an excellent summary of what is known about the North Sydney area as it was in 1788, about the people whose land it was (and ‘always will be’), and about the First Nations story since.
The monograph is Aboriginal North Sydney, by Dr Ian Hoskins, North Sydney Council Historian. It was first published in 2006, and updated in 2019. We make it available here.
The Committee for North Sydney recognises the land as that of Cammeray and his people (the meaning of Cammeraygal) and pays respect to Cammeray’s descendants and all First Nations people of the region.
Government plans and policies
North Sydney Council: Submission on the Beaches Link EIS March 2021
North Sydney Council: Report and submission on the Western Harbour Tunnel & Warringah Freeway Upgrade EIS, March 2020
North Sydney Council: Public domain strategy (Placebook brochure) 2019
North Sydney Council: Ward Street master plan 2019
North Sydney Council: Community Strategic Plan 2019
North Sydney Council: Placemaking policy 2019
North Sydney Council: Arts and cultural strategic plan 2019
North Sydney Council: Smart city strategy 2019
North Sydney Council: Visitor Economy Strategy 2019
North Sydney Council: Brief for Northern CBD Planning Study
North Sydney LEP 2013 (Amendment No 24) June 2019
North Sydney Council: North Sydney CBD Transport Masterplan 2018 [‘Draft’]
Greater Sydney Commission: North District Plan March 2018
North Sydney Council and Anson City Developers 1: Planning Agreement: Explanatory note
North Sydney Council: St Leonards Crows Nest Planning Study (precincts 2 and 3) 2015