HOME – NEIGHBOURHOOD – COMMUNITY (2021)

What a roller-coaster of a year! At least we have reached the year’s end almost 95% vaxed, so some peace of mind for Xmas and no more lockdowns in 2022.

There was some other good news. Council finally relented in its determination to build a 6-storey apartment tower on the Toronto Foreshore and the long-awaited masterplan was finalized, albeit with the unwanted removal and rebuild of the rotunda and closure through the summer of what planners have decided should be known, English-fashion, as the ‘Town Green’.

The delayed Council elections were eventually held on Saturday 4 December and did not result in much change. Mayor Kay Fraser was returned for another term, as were three of the West Ward councillors, David Belcher, Jason Pauling and Luke Cubis. Hard-working Independent Wendy Harrison retired and was replaced by Labor’s Madeleine Bishop. Cr Harrison was always available to meet with, listen to and act for the community. We hope Cr Bishop will be as accessible and community-minded as her predecessor and look forward to meeting with her.

One thing we learned from the last term of Council is the importance of having a strong community voice and engaging respectfully with councillors and staff. The ad hoc Toronto Foreshore Protection Group has provided a voice with representatives of Toronto Sunrise Rotary, the Royal Motor Yacht Club, Coal Point Progress Association, and the Toronto Area Sustainable Neighbourhood Group(TASNG) as well as local residents. This single-issue group has now morphed into the Toronto Action Group (TAG) and will continue to represent community concerns to councillors and staff. Ongoing issues will be the zoning of and access to foreshore land and the lake; pedestrian safety, parking and cycling; care of the wetlands; and protection of the tree canopy from aggressive development.

Another lesson from the previous Council is the importance of networking with community groups in Toronto and adjacent suburbs. The pre-election Candidates’ Forum for West Ward candidates was organised by TAG in conjunction with the Rathmines and the Five Bays Sustainable Neighbourhood Groups. We look forward to working together through Council’s next term.

One of the big challenges is how residents can find out what is happening in the community. Thanks to Covid, we no longer have the weekly Lakes Mail. ‘The Herald’ doesn’t give much attention to Lake Macquarie. Council has expanded its own media ‘spin’ machine but only tells us what it wants us to know and when.

To help fill the gap, the letter-boxed ‘Chronicle’ will continue to update residents each month on local news, including ‘Development Applications near You’, but the extra distribution beyond Coal Point and Carey Bay costs money.

To support a local voice, consider joining the sponsoring neighbourhood group (TASNG), especially if you live in Kilaben Bay (where there are currently no members) or please consider a small donation. We require $550/year to cover the expanded distribution. https://www.givenow.com.au/toronto-foreshore-protection

TAG reports its activities in the monthly Chronicle and also has a (moderated) Facebook page where residents can post comments or queries on local issues https://www.facebook.com/TorontoActionGroup

The more of us who get involved, even in small ways, the stronger our neighbourhoods and community will be and the more Council will listen first instead of deciding for us.

Did you know? The Bath Street site is NOT part of Toronto’s Foreshore Park.

The Council resolutions of September 2019 specified that Council was to ‘consider’ reclassifying part or all of the Bath Street site to community land.

Council documents state that a Park is a parcel of community land that Council manages and maintains as parkland for the benefit of residents and visitors.

Because the Bath Street site (4 Bath Street and 1B Victory Row) is classified operational land, Council has now confirmed that it is not part of Toronto’s Foreshore Park, even though it is part of the Foreshore Master Plan (FMP) area.

Council officers are insisting that keeping the Bath Street site as operational is consistent with the resolution, but has given no formal reasons.

It seems that the ‘consideration’ of reclassification by Council officers has been superficial and they are trying to avoid public scrutiny.

This is not good enough. As long as the status of the land remains ‘operational’, it is possible for Council to revive a high-rise development or sell off this waterfront land.

And there are still some Victory Row lots that have yet to be reclassified, although Council has agreed to do so, so they also lie outside the boundary of the Foreshore Park.

With the delayed Council elections now to be held in December, it is time that the Mayor and West Ward Councillors tell us their position on the boundaries of the Foreshore Park. This is particularly important given that Council’s own planning documents identify that, given the rapid population growth, Toronto is in need of additional parkland.

This Council has wasted a ridiculous amount of time and resources trying to foist an unwanted high-rise development onto our precious strip of foreshore. The Master Plan offers a way forward but it won’t integrate all of the foreshore into a park whilst the Bath Street site remains operational land.

As they say, it’s a loophole big enough to drive a tank through it.

Will Council act in good faith or not?

A new name TAG and broader purpose for The Toronto Foreshore Protection Group (TFPG).

The TFPG, a coalition of local community groups that emerged to champion a community focussed outcome for the Toronto foreshore has renamed as the Toronto Action Group (TAG) to continue to advocate in a positive manner for local issues on behalf of our community. The TAG website and Facebook pages still contain all the accumulated information and will be rebranded as time and inspiration allows.

The TAG team believe there are still significant issues that need to be addressed for our community and will continue to be a positive voice for community consultation and council responsiveness.

What’s happening with the foreshore Masterplan?

The Toronto Foreshore Masterplan was discussed and accepted by Council’s Built & Natural Assets Standing Committee on Monday 10 May and was adopted at Council’s Ordinary meeting on 24 May. The plan was only slightly modified following public consultation in March with a detailed report and revised plan being available at https://www.lakemac.com.au/Our-Council/Council-meetings. The 181 submissions had made various issues of concern including:

Traffic and parking issues are essentially dismissed with Council resolving to deal with these in one or two years via other planning strategies. Whilst a paved drop-off parking area will be provided near the Bath Street ramp there will not be dedicated trailer parking. There will be less car parking with this plan than before because of the loss of informal car parking at Bath Street.

There is no certainty whether a cafe will be part of the intended mix of uses for the proposed Bath Street single-storey building since it is stated several times that ‘The commercial venue proposed at Bath Street is not use-specific and can provide a number of end-uses depending on demand. Market testing will be undertaken during the detailed design.’

The rotunda (recently improved and widely used) near Tinto’s cafe will be demolished and a new type of rotunda built where an entry pavilion is planned.

Council has no intention to reclassify the Bath Street site from ‘operational’ to ‘community’ land. Council’s September 2019 resolution stated that it ‘Commences the process of investigating the reclassification of all or part of the Bath Street and Victory Row site to community land….’. To date

Council has not advised the community why it considers this land will not be reclassified, other than some commentary by staff related to ease of commercial leases.

The two remaining Victory Row properties will be demolished. No 5 Victory Row (2 storey house, dating to 1906), has the potential to be heritage listed and could be adapted for community uses.

The community might wonder whether Council is actually serious about public exhibition and comment when it so obviously ignores anything that does not accord with its predetermined position. Why go to such time and expense on the masterplan and then worsen traffic and parking congestion so that it will be more difficult for people to get to the Foreshore and Town.

Image: Toronto Foreshore Masterplan

‘ISN’T IT A PITY’ – Mel Steiner

In the words of George Harrison, ‘isn’t it a pity’ that Lake Macquarie City Council cannot develop - what could and should be a great Toronto Foreshore Park, into something that will attract the community and visitors and therefore – to use their words, ‘activate the foreshore’.

Instead, the current draft plan reduces the amount of parking, eliminates a boat ramp, and includes plans for a council owned revenue earning café / restaurant with its own parking – 8 or so spaces and not nearly enough, which means their customers will also be competing for parking spaces in the area. The one remaining publicly accessible ramp will become unusable because there is no boat trailer parking and combined with reduced car parking and almost negligible public transport, the result will be a deactivated foreshore.

Importantly, it will also have a negative impact on existing Toronto businesses that are already ‘activating’ the foreshore by providing facilities that encourage sizeable numbers of the community and visitors to make use of this fabulous foreshore location. Council should be working with local businesses, not against them.

BATH STREET – “BUMPS AND CIRCUITS”

Council considered a report from staff at its meeting held 28th September, 2020, regarding the Bath Street site. The report recommended that Council now proceed with design, and obtaining Development Consent, for the previously mooted “boutique café” (with potential for some hire facilities) but still retain the site as commercial Operational Land. Obviously, most people thought that this café was a much better outcome than the original proposal of a commercial building of up to six storeys high. 

The details on the actual size and extent of the café building with a large deck, were very generalised and vague, with the Mayor at one point in the meeting referring to it as a restaurant. Councillor Wendy Harrison moved to both define the size of the development and to reclassify the site as Community Land, that would become part of the adjoining Foreshore Park.

Council adopted that part of Cr Harrison’s motion defining the size and extent of the development, but not the other part to reclassify this Council owned property to Community Land. The only argument presented for this position was the claim that commercial Operational Land classification provides staff with more business opportunities and easier leasing arrangements. This was disappointing given that the legislation really only provides for very minimal controls to protect basic community interests or standards, when leases are granted for private businesses to operate on Community Park Land.

Council’s own planning documents show that Toronto needs more park land to meet the needs of a rapidly growing population and the increasing number and size of apartment blocks in the nearby area. The decision not to incorporate the Bath Street site into the Foreshore Park therefore seems very short-sighted.

Earlier this year Council purchased a privately owned property at Swansea that adjoins a foreshore park so that the park could be expanded. At Toronto, Council already owns the land and there is a demonstrated need for parkland. The community is entitled to ask why there is such differential treatment between the two suburbs?

“Operational” intrigue overides community needs at Bath Street?

Council considered a report at its meeting held Monday 28th September, on the outcome of the token and limited “community consultation” for the proposal to construct a boutique café on the Bath Street site. The report provided the outcomes of the survey along with a recommendation that Council formally proceed with the café proposal.

The café is certainly a far better proposal than the previously mooted six storey apartment building. It appears to be welcomed by the community and the Toronto Foreshore Protection Group (TFPG), with 77% of the 420 survey respondents being either supportive or very supportive of the proposal.

Concerns still exist, however, with this proposal, that things aren’t as good as it may initially appear for the desperately needed community parkland. Some 64 survey respondents picked this up and unprompted by the survey, raised the need to reclassify the land as Community. Following closure of the online survey, four TFPG representatives accepted an invitation from Council officers to attend a meeting.

This meeting was advised of the intention to keep the proposed site as Operational Land, which from a Council perspective, makes it primarily a commercial operation. This also means that at a later date the café could be sold and/or extended both in size and height. The reason given for this unusual approach was supposedly that it gives Council greater freedom in business negotiations, including longer term leases. The report also claims under “Economic Impacts” that it will allow the provision of businesses “not allowable on Community Land.”

Such an approach to management of this important site is questioned, as while the Local Government Act does have some limited controls on businesses conducted on parks to provide for community protection, they are not unduly onerous. The Act steps out the processes that permits long term leases, enabling Council to grant leases for up to 21 years (even 30 years can be granted subject to the consent of the Minister). Proposed leases on Community Land are often advertised in the classified section of newspapers and are common practice throughout the State including Lake Macquarie. Why not at Toronto?

During discussions with Council the comment was made by the Council representatives about the likely small return to Council of this current business proposal, which is starting to ring alarm bells for local residents. Most people don’t object to Council undertaking some property development to increase its revenue base. It is, however, of real concern when property and business development is allowed to predominate over Local Government’s primary responsibilities of providing facilities and services to the community. Council cannot just singularly treat this important waterfront site as a short-term money-making project. It needs to apply good planning to ensure an integrated outcome for Toronto, considering all the community’s needs with attractive urban design and function that encourages visitors and promotes economic development.

While most people would be happy with a modest café on the site there is a great need at the same time to acknowledge the recommendations of both State and Council planning guidelines, suggesting important public owned waterfront land be made community parkland. In September last year Council resolved to investigate the option of reclassification of all or part of the Bath Street site to Community Land and to date (one year later) there has been no formal response to this particular resolution.

Unfortunately, the vague building concept varies in detail from time to time regarding both the building size and actual business operations, with the Mayor referring to it during the meeting as a “restaurant.” Fortunately, Cr Wendy Harrison moved an amendment to establish a maximum size for the development and also requested the site be made Community Land. The motion was successful in firming up the maximum development size but the Community Land proposal did not have sufficient supporting numbers to be successful. There is evidence though that some Councillors are beginning to appreciate the importance of this public waterfront land being reclassified and fully integrated with the long-awaited Foreshore Master Plan for our park.

HOW GOOD IS THE GOOD NEWS ON THE FORESHORE?

The Toronto community has welcomed the recent news that Lake Macquarie City Council will place a modest café on the waterfront at Bath Street site and not a six-storey apartment tower.

On the surface the community’s two-year campaign to preserve the public foreshore for recreational use looks to have been successful, however, community unease still exists that Council is not following up with all of its previous decisions to protect this key piece of public waterfront for future generations.

The concern is that the ‘operational’ land of the proposed café and car park could still be sold off to a developer and, under the current zoning, be built upon at higher density.

Council’s resolution of September 2019 to defer further work on the large commercial development at Bath Street also included the integration of this site into the Toronto Foreshore Masterplan and initiating a process to reclassify the site as ‘community’ land.

Unfortunately, the community is still in the dark over Council’s implementation of the other aspects of last year’s resolution, still waiting almost 12 months later! 

In the past few years Council has reclassified numerous ‘Community land’ holdings around Toronto to ‘Operational land’, allowing the lots to be commercially developed or sold. It would be equitable for the Toronto region to regain some public land by reclassifying the Bath St site to ‘Community land’ for future generations .

TFPG and community leaders want Council to respond to the urgent need to provide more and not less recreational parkland for our rapidly growing population. The COVID crisis has brought even more awareness of the need for open-air public recreation.

TFPG is advocating for the Bath Street and adjacent ‘operational’ land to be reclassified and rezoned as ‘community’ land in perpetuity. Community classification does not preclude a long-term lease of compliant businesses such as café, information centre or equipment hire.

TFPG are encouraging the community to respond to the Council's online survey and include a comment about the importance of permanent protection of all the public foreshore as ‘Community land’.

Council’s very brief online survey https://shape.lakemac.com.au/future-toronto is providing an opportunity for the community to say what features they would like to see included on the Bath Street parkland. The survey is open till Monday 24 August.

Make your comment count.

How would you like your Foreshore/Pool?

“How hard is it for a local council to give the public what it wants?” asked Samantha Hutchinson in her CBD column in the Sydney Morning Herald of 4 June 2020. “Near impossible” was the answer.

No she wasn’t referring to Lake Macquarie City Council but to Georges River Council in southern Sydney which is working through a planning process to upgrade a local pool.

Georges River Council began by shutting down the Kogarah War Memorial Pool before the new pool had even been designed. Then in May 2020 councillors decided to build the new pool at nearby Todd Park.

Yet a planning report obtained by Ms Hutchinson revealed that “almost three-quarters of residents who made submissions asked for it to stay in its original location”.

Nevertheless, the new pool will have a water slide. Residents were asked for their thoughts on a water slide: “How many said yes? Less than 1%”.

Now Georges River is a long way from Lake Macquarie so it may be hard to see the relevance to Toronto.

But, in the ongoing saga of Council’s proposed high-rise building for the Toronto Foreshore, the community has long argued for the Bath Street site to be integrated with the foreshore parkland with improved recreational amenities.

So Council’s recent response to the question of “Why was the community not asked to provide input into which scenarios were chosen for the ‘Sustainability Review” is perplexing:

“SGS Economics are a specialist consultancy firm that were engaged as a sub-consultant… SGS methodology sought to remove as much subjectivity from the process as possible and provide Councillors with an independent analysis of the site with respect to the potential uses. The ideology behind the different potential uses is not to identify specifically what the future use will be, but rather to compare a number of different scales of use, hence why their analysis ranges from a “Do Nothing” approach right through to a “Precinct Plan”.

The scenarios being examined by the consultant are: 

1) do nothing 

2) open space, park 

3) park with cafe 

4) compliant development for community purposes 

5) 4-6 storey residential development with commercial space 

6) as for (5) but with serviced apartments, and 

7) as for (5) and (6) but with a Precinct Plan.

Even after Council had in September 2019 walked away from endorsing a proposed Precinct Plan and unanimously voted to defer further work on the proposed mixed use apartment building, we now have a consultant being paid to examine a Precinct Plan and high-rise residential and serviced apartment buildings as part of a series of ‘scalable options’!

The community has provided many suggestions for the future use of the Bath Street site, but we are not being consulted because that would be ‘subjective’. Meanwhile Council staff and the consultants are happily playing ducks and drakes with several options that the community has already rejected.

In August 2019 Mayor Fraser assured a packed public gallery that she had “listened to the community” and that any decision “will not be without proper consultation with the community and lengthy discussion about what the community wants“. Perhaps Council staff need to be reminded of this?

Westlakes ratepayers know how it feels to be shut out of decision-making that directly affects them.

At least the Georges River community was allowed to comment, even if the comments were then ignored.

The Westlakes community still has not been given any say on the future use of the Bath Street site !

Perhaps it’s time we spoke with Ms Hutchinson and the Sydney Morning Herald. They may better be able to find out what has happened to the Foreshore Master Plan and who is so determined to resurrect the high-rise apartment tower.

COUNCIL ‘SNAIL PACE’ ON TORONTO FORESHORE PARK DISAPPOINTING

TFPG Update June 2020

The community is disappointed at Council’s snail pace on resolving the acknowledged need for more parkland in Toronto. Council’s resolution of 23 September 2019, which included deferment of work on planning for a 6-storey commercial development on the Bath Street foreshore site, was subject to a number of other actions. It is this detail and interpretation that is causing the angst with the community and, we understand, with some Councillors.

Amongst these actions, or part thereof, was to review the best future use of the Bath Street site against Council’s Sustainability Policy. We understand that consultants have been engaged. Council’s published timeline shows that this review will be finalised between July and October this year with the outcome of this review likely to be used to determine the future use of the land. This is despite there being no consultation (seeking information or advice) with the community on the future use of this important public land.

Whilst sustainability reviews are good public policy in themselves, these can be very subjective. Great care is required in the numerical weighting assigned to the different components and, more importantly, choosing which particular options are to be modelled. Unless this decision making is open, including community input, then outcomes can be easily biased. We are not aware of an open and transparent process with this review design so whilst not wanting to appear cynical, do not hold high hopes of a true outcome when it arrives between July and October.

The Council decision to adopt a closed-door approach to community input into the future use of this public land at Bath Street is perplexing, particularly as it is at odds with the Local Government Act which requires Council to act in the interests of the “local community” and Council’s own City Vision which supports “shared decision making”. Apparently, Toronto must be excluded from this, unlike other areas in Lake Macquarie. We note, for example, that the development and rebuilding of the badly fire damaged Awaba House includes a Community Reference Group. Newcastle City Council recently decided to upgrade the Newcastle Ocean Baths without community input, resulting in community outrage. Council fortunately changed their procedures and through working with the community instead, developed better processes and outcomes. A Council and community working together saves time, money and ensures good outcomes for future generations.

During this entire Bath Street fiasco, Council also appears to have ignored the economic value of an attractive park and the economic stimulus that such a facility can provide to a town and community. There have been many investigations and reports prepared worldwide on the economic benefits of attractive parks and particularly waterfront parks. Peter Harnik in his article “Measuring the Economic Value of a City Park System” certainly recognises the significant role in stimulating tourism but it also acknowledges increased property, health and community cohesion values, as well as the economic value of reducing costs of treating stormwater runoff and improving air quality. Other authors identify that waterfront parks when combined with good urban design enhance the “local identity” of a place which acts as a drawcard for visitors. Locally one only has to look across the lake to Warners Bay where the economic impacts of a waterfront park are very obvious.

Imagine the tourism potential for Toronto and surrounds from an attractive Bath Street park with some recreational based community facilities. This could form part of an entire improved foreshore park, with a link to an upgraded Greenway path for cyclists and pedestrians through to Fassifern.

To quote the acclaimed architect Elizabeth Farrelly - an “unalterable truth: our parks are absolutely our shared lifelines and, as our lives become more constrained, our parks become all that more essential.” With the rapid population growth and apartment blocks being built in our area, Council’s own planning documents identify that the population growth rate around Toronto is projected to be 20% and will require “an additional 2.12 hectares of community land by 2030 for open space and recreation facilities.” Our area urgently needs this public Bath Street land to be included as an attractive park.

Unfortunately, it appears that Council is not interested in consulting and finding out community wishes so please take the initiative yourself and tell Council and your Councillors what you would like to see on this public land.

Keep up to date at http://tfpg.org.au/ 

The foreshore and Bath street: local democracy, LMCC-style

On 23 April the Westlakes community ‘celebrated’ the second anniversary of the stalemate on Toronto’s foreshore.

On 23 April 2018, without any public consultation, Council decided to go ahead with a 4-6 storey ‘mixed use development’ (= apartment tower) on the Toronto foreshore at Bath Street, next to the Yacht Club. All other options were immediately set aside and Council locked in.

Then on 23 September last year, after sustained community opposition, including a 5,000+-signature petition (which Council treated contemptuously), a well-attended public meeting, much letter writing, a tortuous freedom-of-information request and sustained lobbying, the Mayor and Council finally relented and agreed to defer the Bath Street development and incorporate the site into the Foreshore Masterplan.

Seven months later we are still waiting for tangible signs of progress from LMCC.

On March 11 this year Howard Dick and Nico Marcar met with the Mayor and Laura Kendall, Director of Organisational Services, on behalf of the Toronto Foreshore Protection Group.

They were astounded to learn that the option of a commercial development, which Council had deferred in September last year, was still a live option for a Sustainability Review now under way.

To try and understand why LMCC was still spending money on consultants to review an option on which Council had already deferred ‘all work’, Howard and Nico wrote to Ms Kendall (cc. The Mayor and CEO) on April 8 and received a prompt reply (April 9).

Most of Ms Kendall’s reply, understandably, defends the position of Council staff in implementing Council’s September 2019 six-point resolution.

Two particular points, however, may well deserve community scrutiny.

First, “It would not be appropriate for me, or any other Council officer, to exclude specific options from the sustainability review based on political unpopularity.”

Second, “It is a complex resolution, with six parts that need to be implemented in a logical sequence. To do otherwise would likely create further uncertainty in the community in the medium and long term, and involve inefficient use of public resources.”

*Readers may best judge for themselves how to interpret these sentiments but on the face of it they suggest that LMCC has little commitment to democracy in local government.

To recap, in April 2018 Council took a very important decision affecting the community without any community consultation. In August 2019, Council responded to community opinion and the Mayor apologised. Now the commercial development option has been resurrected, contrary to Council’s decision, and notwithstanding that it is ‘politically unpopular’. And resurrection of this toxic ‘option’ is justified on grounds that responding to the Toronto community’s demand for recreational open space might create ‘uncertainty’!

Meanwhile, the community still awaits the draft Foreshore Masterplan, which seems to have been subordinated to a Sustainability Review. ‘Complex’ begins to seem like an excuse.

Strange times indeed.

Because local government elections have been postponed until September 2021, the current Council will be in place for the next 17 months. Plenty of time to assess who is running the show in Lake Macquarie and in whose interests.

Didn’t someone once say that the price of Liberty is eternal vigilance?

* The correspondence can be read in full on the TFPG website http://tfpg.org.au/

TFPG Update March 2020

COUNCIL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

Wednesday 25 March, 4:30-6:30pm

Toronto Multi-Purpose Centre

Chat to Council Staff and get an update on the Toronto Foreshore project

REGISTER for a session here

Toronto Foreshore Protection Group representatives met recently with Mayor Fraser and three Council staff. Based on our current understanding it appears that commencement of foreshore upgrades as per the Toronto Foreshore Master Plan (TFMP) would not commence until mid to late 2023. So, why is this likely to be the case? There are several reasons for this but they all stem from liberal interpretations of the six September 2019 Council-adopted recommendations. Seemingly unwarranted delays in progress is the outcome. The recommendations pertained to both the Bath Street site and the rest of the foreshore. Even though recommendation D called for the physical area of TFMP to include the Bath Street site, Council is still dealing in fact with the both ‘projects’ separately.

The major reasons claimed for the delays are:

1. Recommendation A (ii): Council has interpreted this as a review of Council’s entire LGA property portfolio, not just those in Toronto, which is what the community had thought. Be that as it may, the two-staged process that Council is employing to do this means a significant time delay in reporting back (at least mid 2020). Why should this be the case you might ask?

2. Recommendation B: Council has indicated that the process to reclassify [non-Bath Street site]from ‘operational’ foreshore land to ‘community will take at least 18 months (late 2021) but more probably not until 2022/23. Why you might ask, when Council only has to advertise for 28 days an intent to change the classification of public land before passing the resolution to change.

3. Recommendation F: Council has interpreted this as the need for a detailed consultancy project which will consider the merits of a suite of options (including ‘do nothing’, ‘parkland’, ‘mixed use development consistent with the LEP’ and ‘6 storey mixed use development’) against the four ‘pillars’ (economic, social, sustainability and governance) of Council’s Sustainability Policy for the Bath Street site. This process will take until at least mid 2020 to complete. Council has stated that such a process is necessary to assess ‘future use and design elements’ as desired by councillors via this recommendation. But why is Council even considering the do nothing and mixed use commercial options when these have already been ruled out by the community and clearly stated, for example in the Phase 3 engagement report, petitions, meetings and media articles?

4. As a consequence of the above, further work on developing the TFMP (recommendation E) is also on hold as Council considers this to be contingent on F.

Therefore, the community is once again poorer for having to wait for several more years before any improvements occur in spite of the approx. $9M of contributions having been available now for a number of years!

Council elections are due in September 2020. It would be disturbing if the delays in process were simply delaying tactics so that a new Council could reassess the situation. Surely this was not the intent of the September 2019 recommendations?

What the FAQ is Council up to?

The most Frequently Asked Question(FAQ) within the community is What’s Happening at Bath St? However council’s FAQs on subject on their Creating a Place for People in Toronto webpage  do not even mention council’s change of heart decision on Sept 23rd, compounding concerns about the authenticity of the decision. 

The Toronto Foreshore Protection Group (TFPG) has resumed regular meetings to continue to advocate for prompt resolution of the council determination of 23/9/19, almost 5 months ago, in which works on the multi-storey development proposal on Bath Street were deferred and processes set in motion to reclassify Operational land to Community land, to include the Bath St site in the Foreshore Masterplan and further engage with the community.

Council released a community update in January which identifies some actions being completed, work pertaining to the DA has been deferred, the Bath St site is now included in the Foreshore Master planning process however further actions to secure the site as part of the Foreshore park are dependent on “the results of the sustainability review so they can inform the master planning process”.

Council FAQ’s still states “The concept proposal for the Bath Street site is for a medium-density development including a mix of residential, tourist and commercial space…Council has approved the development of a concept design for the Bath Street site. The community will have further opportunity to provide feedback on this proposal once the project reaches the Development Application stage. The project will be determined independently of Council by the Regional Planning Panel…Council’s Long Term Financial Plan proposes $22M in 2022-2023 for the projected construction cost of a proposed mixed-use development at 4 Bath Street and 1B Victory Row, Toronto.”

When the initial decision (23/4/18) to develop the Bath St site was made work progressed with extreme haste, the surveyors were out the next day, communication was swift and plentiful. By comparison it now appears that stalling tactics are in place and the lack of genuine community consultation does little to allay the unease. 

While Council’s FAQs  have not been updated at all, community cynicism about council’s intent remains high. Are there facts missing in the FAQs?

DA’s In Play at December 2019

It’s that time of year when major developments are submitted for community comment just as everyone is winding down for the year…and there are some big ones on display at Carey Bay. If you want to do some community giving, a final letter for the year to your local representatives whose decisions shape our community would be a substantial gift. Please consult Council's Application Tracking website for details.

Here's a list of Councillor contacts

DA/419/2018 114-120 Cary Street -124 Dwellings

Invitations have gone out to give interested people the opportunity to talk directly to the Hunter and Central Coast Regional Planning Panel on the proposed 6-story development at 114-120 Cary Street, Toronto (next to Maccas). The event is 11/12/19 at 4pm in the Council Chambers.

You must register to speak by contacting the Planning Panels Secretariat before 4pm Monday 9 December 2019 on 02 8217 2060 or enquiry@planningpanels.nsw.gov.au 

The mixed-use development includes a Residential Flat Building with 124 dwellings above 2872m2 commercial premises and two levels of basement carparking. The proponent has committed to additional off-site works including road widening of Arnott Ave, a cycleway and relocation of power lines.

DA/1692/209 Residential Care Facility & Demolition – 36 Laycock Street

Anglican Care has lodged their DA to demolish the Aged Care Facility (not the self-contained units) and rebuild on the existing footprint whilst retaining the mature corridor of trees on their southern boundary.

The design seeks to minimise the building bulk, cut and fill by breaking up the overall mass into four ‘wings’ radiating from central common facilities, and placing lower ground level parking under the northern and north western wings. Two care levels are provided over a parking level.

Some of the features are; 126 private rooms with ensuites, common areas (lounge, dining, activities rooms etc), day therapy areas (gym, salon, prayer room, treatment room etc), semi-basement car parking consisting 56 spaces, 15 at grade car parking spaces, café, entry / administration area (including new reception, offices, meeting rooms amenities etc).

DA/1865/2017 22 dwellings- 20 Laycock Street

The proposal to construct 22 units at 20 Laycock (behind the Carey Bay preschool) has

been revised and is on display till 15th December for community feedback. 

A letter has been drafted and is available for download and personalisation to assist the community to comment during this busy period.

The re-notification addresses the following issues: stormwater management so as not to burden the preschool with the site’s drainage, the retention of a tree corridor to support the movement of local wildlife and foraging habitat, targeted flora surveys to determine if threatened species were present, privacy impacts of adjacent residents and preschool, non-discriminatory accessibility, the visual impact on the community, parking and service area design, waste management plans and erosion & sediment control.

This DA is being put forward for the purposes of selling the land with an approved DA.

Although some revisions have been made from the previous application, there are several issues outstanding that conflict with community expectations at the apparent expense of financial considerations. A development such as this can be better designed so as to provide more green space, shared facilities and sustainable technologies even if the number of proposed units is reduced and their positioning modified.

Following are some of the concerns with the revised plans.

Retention of Corridor: Council officers state there is a need for a 8-10m wide corridor to provide security into the future and functionality and for foraging resources for a number of fauna species. The developer is proposing 2-5m. Only 7 trees of the 72 originally on the block are proposed to be left (many were taken out previously). Climate change elevates the importance of retaining habitat connectivity across the landscape for wildlife and avoid genetic inbreeding associated with isolated populations, the latter which also affects plants.

Privacy and topography: Council’s Landscape Assessment identifies units adjacent to the preschool being 2m above existing ground level with fencing providing no privacy and the site planning not responding to the topography of the site. Council is also recommending 1m wide landscaping along the access driveway to reduce the amenity impacts on the preschool.

Preschool safety: The developer states that the safety of children in the adjacent childcare centre is ‘of much less concern than many such situations’ such as heavy traffic in inner city commercial business districts. However, good planning should address such issues in advance and recognise their importance for the local community.

Visual Impact and community character: The developer describes the visual impact of the development as being consistent with ‘the emerging density character of the area’. However, there is only a small pocket of medium density zoning in Carey Bay. The one development, with minimal landscaping, adjacent to the shops does not constitute a trend and has not softened in the decade since completion. The area surrounding the development is low density housing on large bushland blocks, reinforcing the desirability of maintaining corridors.

Accessible units: The developer has designed ‘round-about’ style accommodation for their two accessible units located in the centre of the complex encircled by the internal access road, a poor design element for those with mobility challenges, a consequence of too many units being proposed for the site.

Energy Efficiency: The proposal only meets minimum energy efficiency requirements. More thoughtful design with perhaps little extra cost should be considered to incorporate best practice for sustainability, e.g. insulation for reduced heating and cooling and PV installation.

Bulk Scale and Size: An important outcome sought from such a medium density is also to ‘maintain and enhance the residential amenity and character of the surrounding area’. The bulk, scale and size of the current DA does not allow for this important consideration with no community space, very little green space and mostly hard surfaces.

What’s happening at Bath Street?

On 25 November Councillor Harrison formally requested an update on the actions taken and planned for the Bath St site, following the decision to defer further work on the multistorey development. All we want for Christmas is an update and a timeline to alleviate cynicism.

Bath Street Breakthrough - TFPG update November 2019

Attachment 1

At the 23 September 2019 Council meeting the motion from the 26/8/19 was massaged and modified and unanimously accepted. That Council: 
A. Defers any further work on:

• a planning proposal for land outlined in Attachment 1, and
• preparation for a mixed-use development on the Council-owned land at 4 Bath Street and 1B Victory Row, Toronto until a comprehensive review of Council’s property portfolio is undertaken; 

B. Commences the process to reclassify the land identified in Attachment 2 from Operational to Community Land; 

Attachment 2

C. Commences the process of investigating the reclassification of all or part of the Bath Street and Victory Row site to community land and consult with the community on future planning for that site. 
D. Extends the boundary of the Toronto Foreshore Master Plan to include land at 4 Bath Street and 1B Victory Row, Toronto; 
E. Continues to develop the Toronto Foreshore Master Plan (noting extended scope, including further community engagement, conceptual design and detailed design for master planned work on Council’s land at Toronto Foreshore; 
F. As part of the Foreshore Master planning process with current consultant, or as required, undertake assessment of the best future use and design elements for land at 4 Bath Street and 1B Victory Row, Toronto in accordance with Lake Macquarie City Council’s Sustainability Policy; 

So for the time being we sit and heave a sigh of relief hoping that a good community outcome will be delivered. We can now enjoy the excitement of the Foreshore Masterplanning process, awaiting the refined document for public comment, possibly by the end of the year.

 

There is little doubt that over the past 18 months Council failed to understand that its plans were not in the best interest of the Toronto area community nor would it provide the best opportunity to encourage more visitors to the area. 

Council resisted calls to halt progress towards the DA for the Bath Street site over this period, in contempt of community feeling. Such a situation was even more disappointing in that Council was already aware that there had been no community consultation prior to the April 2018 decision and that its plans would likely meet with opposition. 

To add weight to the community’s concerns the consultants’ report on its community engagement on the Toronto Foreshore Masterplan has been released. There were 337 responses.



JOC consultants’s key insight on Mixed-Use Development was “The majority of face to face participants are against the proposed Mixed-Use Development at Bath Street. Many online survey respondents also included their concerns in the comments section of the survey despite there being no Mixed-Use Development question. Across all engagement activities, participants raised concerns relating to the planning, design and use of the proposed Mixed-Use Development. “ 

The feedback on the Mixed-use development was “Overall, participants do not support the Mixed-Use Development (Bath Street). The participants reference the proposed height, massing and anticipated ‘exclusive, private spaces’ of the development as being inconsistent with heritage and character of Toronto and the draft Masterplan principles and design ideas. 

The engagement report further states “The workshops and online survey captures participant’s discomfort with the exclusion of the Bath Street site from the Foreshore Masterplan. Many participants felt it should be acknowledged as it is an essential part of the foreshore that’s currently under investigation.”

 

The face to face data…captured 42 separate objections to the Mixed Used Development (in comparison, the second highest area for comment was in reference to the Railway Station and its revitalisation with 13 comments). Further, objections to Bath Street made up the majority of comments across all questions of the online survey. Participants described the Bath Street development as the ‘10% missing from the Masterplan’” 

There are still more questions being asked, like what’s the timeframe on the actions identified in the 23/9/19 motion and why is council’s development arm driving this process not the recreational planners?

Thank you to all the supporters who voiced concerns, wrote letters , contacted

councillors and engaged with the process. It takes a town talking to make a noise, and it appears we were heard.

A vision for Bath Street

Lake Macquarie MP Greg Piper commissioned a landscape architect to produce some concept designs for what bath St could look like.

Now here’s an idea -Wilton Ainsworth

Attracting visitors to the foreshore via the Bath Street site! 

What is the best use for the strategically located land at Bath Street, at the northern end of Toronto's foreshore and adjacent to the 'Greenway' former rail corridor?

Both areas have been poorly maintained, are poorly presented and are long overdue for a makeover. They could be linked by a low-rise structure at Bath Street that could accommodate a restaurant and an interpretive centre for newly developed features along and near the Greenway, and parking.

New features could include enhanced wetlands at Endeavour Bay and between Cary St. & Stony Creek, new pathways around Edmonds Bay and Blackalls Park as well as the petrified forest area, and a kayak launching area providing access to Stony Creek, Mudd Creek and Edmonds Bay.

Visitors would be attracted to the foreshore if the existing shared pathway from Fassifern Station is repaired and provided with new landscaping and screening and signage.

The prospect of reactivating some form of tourist rail transport would also be a possibility.

With the prospect of population pressures in Western Lake Macquarie being forecast by Council there will be a need for additional accessibility to the waterways around Toronto that have always been the drawcard for the area. 

TFPG Update - September 2019

TORONTO FORESHORE: ARE WE THERE YET?

A chaotic Council meeting on Monday 26 August, with 150 people in an extended public

gallery, accepted a motion to defer any further work on the ‘mixed-use development’ on the Bath Street site pending a ‘comprehensive review of Council’s property portfolio’.

Council committed to continue with the Toronto Foreshore Master Plan BUT did not vote to include the Bath Street site in the Master Plan, thereby continuing to ignore the community’s 5200-signature petition, the 450 people at the public meeting, etc., etc.

The motion did, however, vote to commence a process to reclassify most of the Operational land in Victory Row to Community land and also to commence a process of ‘investigating the reclassification of all or part of the Bath Street and the [adjacent] Victory Row site to community land and consult with the community on future planning for that site’.

The Mayor took the initiative to break the longstanding deadlock and apologised to the community for a flawed process.

So has the community won? Not yet.

The Mayor and the majority of councillors are to be applauded for resetting the agenda but the immediate hurdle is a rescission motion moved by Councillor Pauling that leaves everything on hold until Council’s next meeting on Monday 23 September. The decision could still be reversed or watered down.

IF Council affirms its decision of 26 August, then the proposal of Council’s Property & Business Development section to define a new Bath Street precinct with a new Local Environment Plan for high-rise development will thankfully become irrelevant.

And the review of Council’s property portfolio should identify other sites in Toronto township that are much better suited for apartment buildings.

Meanwhile the tanking of the Australian economy means that there will be surplus apartment units on the market for the next several years and even approved new projects are likely to be kept on hold.

That leaves a big question mark over the future of the Bath Street site.

The community has long had a firm view on how to resolve that question: include Bath Street in the Foreshore Master Plan! The contract is let, professionals have been engaged, the process is under way. It should be a ‘no brainer’. 5,200 petitioners are not wrong and they should no longer be ignored.

The Master Plan is the proper way to evaluate all options, including NSW MP Greg Piper’s concept design, and come up with an integrated strategy for community comment.

That process should be coordinated not by Council’s commercially oriented Property & Business Development section but its Planning section in close liaison with Community Planning & Leisure Services.

If these sensible steps are taken, the growing population of Toronto will be able to look forward to a vibrant and enhanced Foreshore that will also once more attract visitors. With $9 million in earmarked funds, this project can be carried out through the looming recession.

The September 23 Council meeting will decide which way it goes. We need to stand firm and do what we can to make our views known to the Mayor and Councillors. 

You’re needed at Council’s Monday night meeting 26/8/19 – 6:30pm

On Monday 26 August, Lake Macquarie City Councillors will be asked to endorse an extended planning precinct on the Toronto Foreshore, to assist the safe passage of the 6-storey Bath St development proposal.

Councillors are being asked to endorse an extended Foreshore precinct that includes the 6-storey tower on Bath St/Victory Row, Arnott and Bay St residences and the Royal Motor Yacht Club. Areas not previously considered as part of the Toronto Foreshore project.

The reason for the precinct proposal is that “Feedback from the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) indicates it is not likely to support a proposal to amend LEP 2014 controls only for Council’s land at 4 Bath Street and 1B Victory Row.”

Lake Macquarie City Council by over-riding its own master planning and community consultation processes are shifting the goal posts and proposing to change their own planning rules to get a favourable commercial outcome, setting a poor precedent for planning, governance and trust.

Included in this proposal is also rezoning multiple foreshore parcels of ‘operational land’, that the community always believed to be ‘community land’. This is a positive aspect of the proposal. Unfortunately it is an all or nothing option that is being put forward.

With only 2 options being presented to Councillors it opens a window of opportunity for them to reconsider the 6-storey Bath St tower by reflecting on the community’s need for more open space.

It is a chance for Councillors to acknowledge the outpouring of opposition to commercialisation of the foreshore and respect the feedback to date such as the 450-person public meeting, a 5200-signature petition and repeated representations.

If councillors choose to not proceed with the LEP precinct planning proposal Council would have to abide by its current planning instruments that have been designed to guide the growth of Toronto in an integrated and strategic manner.

The Toronto Foreshore Protection Group calls upon Councillors to act in good faith and respect its own planning processes by rejecting this premature and ill-considered proposal to amend the LEP and provide the Toronto community with the much-needed foreshore parkland for our growing population.

We are urging the community to attend Monday’s Council meeting 26/8/19 at 6:30pm

This is the agenda item being discussed
Here is a recent media release outlining some of the issues

Contact your Councillors today, 

tomorrow, the next day and the day after that !

Mayor Kay Fraser (ALP)
ph 4921 0223 kfraser@lakemac.nsw.gov.au


WEST WARD
Clr Wendy Harrison (IND)
M: 0409 775 432 wharrison@lakemac.nsw.gov.au
Clr Jason Pauling (LIB)
M: 0417 416 577 jpauling@lakemac.nsw.gov.au
Clr David Belcher (ALP)
M: 0429 914 623 dbelcher@lakemac.nsw.gov.au
Clr Luke Cubis (LMIND) Deputy mayor
M: 0429 939 475 lcubis@lakemac.nsw.gov.au


NORTH WARD
Clr Brian Adamthwaite (ALP)
M: 0417 061 433 badamthwaite@lakemac.nsw.gov.au
Clr Kevin Baker (Lib)
M: 0429 867 935 kbaker@lakemac.nsw.gov.au
Clr Barney Langford (ALP)
M: 0417 137 758 blangford@lakemac.nsw.gov.au
Clr Colin Grigg (LMIND)
M: 0429 908 747 cgrigg@lakemac.nsw.gov.au


EAST WARD
Clr Adam Shultz (ALP)
M: 0429 931 044 ashultz@lakemac.nsw.gov.au
Clr Nick Jones (LIB)
M: 0429 889 781 njones@lakemac.nsw.gov.au
Clr Christine Buckley (ALP)
M: 0428 546 549 cbuckley@lakemac.nsw.gov.au
Clr John Gilbert (LMIND)
M: 0429 945 243 jgilbert@lakemac.nsw.gov.au