Noone Can Imagine a CBD City with No Train Station. the Idea Is Orthodox of Offering Development with Pulling Transpotation Back

Noone can imagine a CBD city with no train station. The idea is orthodox of offering development with pulling transpotation back. Modernisation is to encourage public trasport to save engery n fuel. In fact it sud be plan on pattern of all developed cities. Offices n entertainment on top with train station underground. Thanks

Rakhra Gagandeep.

SE 6 – Judith Galvin

Please include attached Submission (Sept. 1 2015) in planning process for Newcastle

Dr Judith Galvin

Submission – Proposed Transport Corridor Options Urban Growth NSW.

Comments - Dr Judith Galvin

N.B. Highest Priority - Light rail should run along existing rail corridor, rather than down Hunter and Scott Streets.

 Restrict the height of buildings in the heritage city centre (Newcastle East End) to a maximum height of 24 metres (approximately 8-stories) as agreed to in the original LEP 2012, before the 2014 amendments were approved.  Any development in this precinct should be appropriate, i.e. sympathetic and respectful of existing heritage buildings.  Any new development should respect the natural topography of the city and the scale of existing low-rise buildings.  Any building development on the northern side of Hunter Street, King Street or Scott Street should not overshadow buildings on the southern side of the street.  Without an adequate public transport and parking plan, transport and parking difficulties that have escalated in the CBD since the truncation of the heavy rail services should be addressed.  The Revitalise Newcastle Community Engagement Program should include GPT/ Urban Growth’s Newcastle East End Project, it being a fundamental aspect of any future plan for the city.  The original LEP 2012 should guide future planning for Newcastle. This planning document was widely supported by residents and business alike, after an exhaustive, inclusive and transparent consultation process.

Relocating the Botanic Gardens, currently situated at Heatherbrae, into the city would not only create a wonderful open space for the community but also further enhance the city as a tourist destination.

Many major cities around the world have Botanic Gardens/gardens in the city centre and these are major tourist attractions as well as green oasis and 'lungs' for the city. Indeed the bigger the city the greater impact these gardens have for the positive feel of the city.

Imagine the Botanic Garden located along the vacated railway corridor that flows onto the harbour and is within walking distance to Nobbys Headland and our beautiful beaches. Coupled with cafes, restaurants and shops nearby it would provide a complete experience for both Novocastrians and visitors alike.

With an increasing number of cruise liners coming to Newcastle, imagine standing on a deck and seeing our city for the first time with its green space and the city beyond before disembarking and strolling around these spaces.

At present the Botanic Gardens are on an isolated part of the highway, only accessible by car and are prone to mosquito infestation because they are built on reclaimed swamp land. Staff and dedicated volunteers have created a wonderful space there but it could be so much better if relocated and integrated into the city to be accessed and appreciated by a greater number of people.

With the railway line soon to be cut, now is the perfect opportunity to make the Botanic Garden a more prominent feature of the city, provide a green space that is both recreational and educational and further enhance Newcastle's reputation as a desirable tourist destination.

Helen Gayner. I and we think as a family the only way Newcastle is going to be a Great Better City and Grow in the Best way for people of the Hunter is to put the rail back into the city place gated crossings in where the new crossings are and expand the rail up into the outer hunter like to Cessnock as this would allow people better transport in to Newcastle and to the beaches and help build a better city. Also will save the State millions which should be put into our Health system for a Better State of New South Wales. And allow a better travel time to Sydney which is for the Better for Everyone. But with Great sadness I personally the NSW Government don't really care about the people of the Hunter or other parts of NSW. Why else would not save millions and Keep the Trains running into what was once A great city of Newcastle and our Towns of the Hunter Valley and Our State.

Rich Genge.

My submission is about the proposed Wickam interchange. I am confused. I thought one of the major reasons for cutting the heavy rail line was to allow the traffic on Stewart Avenue to be less restricted . Especially in peak periods because during these times traffic banked up to rediculous distances around this intersection in all directions. As i look at the artists impression of the interchange it stands out to me that we will still have this problem. The light rail will delay traffic as it crosses Stewart Ave. I think the obvious solution is to have the heavy rail stop on the west side of Stewart Ave as proposed then the light rail begin on the east side. With an overhead inclosed walkway with disabled access for people to cross Stewart Ave safely and allow traffic to be unimpeded.

Stuart Giffney. The decision by the state government to install light rail along Scott Street instead of using the existing rail corridor is a decision which will have an extremely disastrous impact on the residents of Newcastle. The only people who will benefit from this money making decision are the developers and the states coffers. If the train service must be stopped and I haven't heard of a sound reason for this, then use existing infrastructure to install light rail. Why don't the state government/urban planning listen to the people of Newcastle? Haven't they taken enough out of our city ? Let us have something left that is important to us!

Wendy Goodman. We now have the opportunity to install light rail in the existing rail corridor. A plan to extend the light rail to Nobby's Beach and out to the university via Westfield Kotara should also be explored. I disagree with any high rise development plans in the existing rail corridor.

Tracey Gordon. SE 30 – Sasha Goulding

Sasha Goulding

9/161 Scott St, Newcastle, NSW, 2300

Email: [email protected]

18/09/2015

Please find attached my submission regarding the Newcastle Urban Transformation and Transport Program. I will also copy it into this email in case you have trouble opening it.

Please contact me on the above email if you require any clarification.

Sincerely Sasha Goulding

18/09/2015

Part 1 - My submission is that the following decisions should be taken:

1. Locate the new light rail within the existing rail corridor and adaptively re-use existing train stations as light rail stations.

2. Adopt the Greeenway Option subject to point 1 above.

Part 2 - Key Reasons for making this decision are:

1. Locating the light rail within the existing corridor will be logistically simple. More importantly it will cause the least traffic and economic impacts, and thus fewer impacts for local businesses, visitors and consumers, and local residents.

2. Lengthy legal challenges are almost certain with the other options. As such this option would be achieved in the least amount of time, at the lowest cost and with the least risks/greatest certainty taking into account the complexity and costs of achieving planning approvals. 3. The win fall from the upfront capital revenue injection achieved by the lease of the Port asset must be wisely used to avoid waste through poor decisions and risky ventures by a government openly committed to its budget position.

4. The light rail on Scott St instead of in the existing rail corridor will increase traffic congestion and create a barrier to pedestrian access between the CBD and the waterfront.

5. The option proposed here would benefit visitors, existing businesses and existing residents whereas the other options proposed favour prospective residents to the detriment of visitors and existing businesses and residents.

6. Visitors will travel to experience a world class Greenway option, they will not travel to see mixed use development and residential buildings. Bordeaux’s greenway and light rail stretch between its harbour and CBD is a great example of what can be achieved simply.

7. There is a very limited amount of open space in the Civic and CBD area, but there are a substantial number of heritage and historic buildings in need of renovation. Surely we should be investing in renovating our original buildings instead of using our valuable open space for development.

8. Newcastle Council and the NSW Government have been very disappointing in their failure to include an option for the new light rail to go along the existing rail corridor. They have obviously chosen to omit it deliberately, knowing that this would be the preferred option in the community they are supposed to represent.

Additional considerations against options other than what is proposed include:

1. Traffic problems and logistical nightmares currently being experienced as a result of the termination of trains will be further exacerbated, and for extensive periods, if the light rail is located in Scott Street and Hunter Street. Many existing businesses in the CBD and Civic area will not survive the development period. 2. All of the proposals put in Options 2 and 3 can be achieved with the light rail being located in existing train corridor if effort and investment goes into revitalising existing buildings as has been the approach in most contemporary French cities that have light rail (like Bordeaux). Funding saved from pursuing unviable options could be reallocated to preservation and urban renewal as has been done with great success in the Hunter mall façade programs. Devolved renewal programs facilitated by funding allow the market to drive effort into the best areas.

3. There appears to be no delivery of bike or pedestrian paths, surely this is a major consideration for reducing traffic and increasing pedestrian access.

4. There appears to be no allowance for native gardens and passive recreation areas.

5. The most appropriate use of Newcastle Station would be as an open market if it is not used as a light rail station.

6. There is no proposal for renovation of our unique historic sites such as the original David Jones building. The benefits of renovation are two-fold: 1. it provides mixed use development; and 2. it addresses the significant need for the commencement of repair and sustainable use of these valuable heritage buildings.

7. I am strongly opposed in particular to the areas of proposed mixed use development in the Harbour Entertainment City option. It appears to propose a net loss of passive open space, grassed areas and gardens.

Should you require any clarification please contact me on the above email address.

Sincerely

Sasha Goulding

I support retaining the Heavy Rail system running into Newcastle Station on the current rail corridor.

I would support a heavy rail transport system that ran in a tunnel underneath the current rail corridor from the vacant Woodville Triangle to Newcastle Station.

The ideal location for an Interchange to be built is on the Woodville Junction triangle. Plenty of room for parking, access & can service trains from Sydney, Country locations & Newcastle directions.

Paul Graham. I am in favour of retaining the heavy rail line to Newcastle Station.

A faster service between Newcastle and Sydney would be a great improvement.

I am not against progress and yes I like your pretty pictures of the harbour side parklands but surely you can achieve this without disruption to a vital service.

Your train/ bus service will never be as good.

I am not a naysayer I just don't want to sell Newcastle short on a cheap fix, and am definitely against high rise so close to any foreshore.

Christina Grant.

The devious behaviour of the NSW Liberal Government in the land grab of the Newcastle Transit Corridor land is shameful to say the least.

To please their developer mates the NSW Government has tried to pull the wool over the Newcastle populace into believing they have Newcastle's residents best interests at heart.

But all the "far‐ful far‐ful pippick" the NSW Government are trying to propaganda‐ize over the general public will eventually wash out & the whole exercise of what it really was will be exposed in the wash.

If ever the best interests of Newcastle wherever going to be considered the following would have been implemented:‐

1) The rail corridor being put underground from Hamilton to Newcastle. Same as Central to Circular Quay in Sydney.

2) Light Rail from Newcastle Station going to Nobbys Beach around to Newcastle Beach via the Cowrie Hole & Newcastle Baths. Onwards then to King Edward Park, Strezlecki Look‐out then down Memorial Drive to Bar Beach.

3) The land above the new underground would then be able to be utilized in the general public's best interests & not turned into highrise developments that will eventually become the slums of tomorrow.

Robert Gray. SE 9 – Robert Green

As a resident of Newcastle for over 60 years, I am appalled by this consultation process regarding the so‐called revitalisation of Newcastle. Consultation comes at the beginning, not the end of a process. Yet all the decisions have already been made, some several years ago. e.g. cutting the rail line. Unfortunately with nothing to replace it With the rail line being cut for almost a year, we still hear politicians and developers suggesting all sorts of whacko ideas, including running the proposed light rail down Hunter Street instead of on the existing rail corridor some 20 metres away. This in direct opposition to the advice from the Government’s own body. Also where in the advanced world would a major transport link be removed with nothing to immediately replace it? Furthermore, anyone with the temerity to challenge this ludicrous situation is labelled a naysayer and anti – progress. I can assure you this is not progress or revitalisation. In fact it is straight out of “Yes Minister” but unfortunately not as amusing. Robert Green

SE 15 – Larry Greentree

Urban Growth, Please find attached submission on the 4 opportunity options for the railway corridor. Regards Larry Greentree

Revitalising Newcastle Submission

Referring to the published plans:

1 Greenway

2 Harbour West City

3 Harbour Play City

4 Harbour Entertainment City

The railway line from Wickham to Newcastle has now been out of service for some 9 months. The four opportunity plans for revitalising Newcastle can now be assessed with the railway truncation impacts known.

The main impact of the truncation is to increase the amount of cars into the city. The lack of parking is forcing people to move further into the surrounding suburbs and parkland, such as Cooks Hill, The Hill, East End , Horseshoe Beach and King Edward Park. None of the four opportunity plans address this issue.

The Opportunity Plans suggestion of light rail maybe seen as the solution to this however, this is doubtful as the take up of the shuttle bus seems to be small in comparison to the numbers of people previously using the railway line. There has been publicity of entertainment venues in the city being overlooked by patrons in favour of Hamilton due to the changing of transport mode (the shuttle bus).

The four opportunity plans suggest a four stop light rail in Hunter and Scott Street with a dog leg at Worth Place. This plan would make Worth Place dangerous to pedestrians, cars and the light rail. A complicated signal system costing a large amount would be required to mitigate the risk.

The four opportunity suggestions referred to are similar in their transport details, with Nos 3 and 4 advocating a relocation of the bus terminal. There is no detail of where this terminal would be. The Wickham interchange plans do not have a bus terminal. There needs to be an integrated transport plan for now and the future especially if light rail is to be introduced. The lack of a plan requires the transport elements as proposed to be rejected as the service level, location and needs are not evident

Opportunity One is the plan most preferred. This plan keeps the rail corridor for the future and keeps Civic Railway Station. The station is best described by the Office of Environment and Heritage as shown under: Civic Station

From the Office of Environment and Heritage

Assessment of significance

SHR Criteria a) The Civic Railway Station site is historically significant as the location of the [Historical Newcastle terminus station on the Great Northern Railway line (1857), one of the first railway lines in Australia. The former Honeysuckle station was also for many significance] years a significant connection point for the transport of goods by land and sea. Civic Railway Station is of local historical significance for its association with the development of a new civic centre of Newcastle in the 1930s represented in both name and architectural style. It also has some historic significance as the first station in NSW to be constructed in the Inter-War Railway Domestic style, and represents the NSW Railway's experimentation with new forms of architecture during the Inter- War period.

SHR Criteria c) Civic Railway Station is of moderate aesthetic significance at a local level, [Aesthetic associated with the station building and footbridge. While not particularly outstanding in terms of architectural achievement, the station building represents the first attempt significance] to adapt domestic architectural styles for railway purposes. The station buildings and footbridge are good examples of Inter-War Railway Domestic style in regional NSW, which uses simple and traditional materials of multi-coloured brickwork and tiles to create aesthetic interest, particularly from the roadside elevation. The building is competently executed and is a typical example of station construction at the time. It represents the NSW Railway's experimentation with new forms of architecture during the Inter-War period.

SHR Criteria d) The place has the potential to contribute to the local community's sense of place and [Social significance] can provide a connection to the local community's history.

SHR Criteria e) The site has moderate archaeological research potential associated with potential [Research potential] evidence of the original Honeysuckle station and former elements of the Honeysuckle Railway Workshops.

SHR Criteria f) The face brick trestles to the footbridge are unusual design elements that are not [Rarity] known to be located on any other railway station building within NSW.

SHR Criteria g) Civic Railway Station is a good representative example of the Inter-War Domestic [Representativeness] Railway style in NSW, remaining largely intact, in good condition and with station buildings displaying key architectural characteristics of the style, along with an unusual footbridge in the same style. A number of other Inter-War stations remain in the Sydney Metropolitan network.

Integrity/Intactness: The railway station group is largely intact with a high degree of integrity, however, the integrity of the interiors of the station building have been compromised by the removal of interior fit out. The installation of the modern steel balustrade to the walkway detracts from its Inter-War Functionalist style.

This image cannot currently be displayed. Assessment criteria: Items are assessed against the State Heritage Register (SHR) Criteria to determine the level of significance. Refer to the Listings below for the level of statutory protection. The removal of Civic station to provide Civic Link (sight lines) is rejected. The need for sight lines is not addressed and looking at the site the exposure of the museum is the obvious want here. The value of the Civic station (asset) in its present form, the good condition of the asset make this readily available for adaption and reuse. The architectural and heritage link of Civic Station with the Civic precinct has far more value than the proposed demolition of the station and provision of sight lines.

Submitted by:

Larry Greentree on 15 September 2015 Newcastle Rail

Dear Sir,

We would like to put forward our thoughts on the government's proposed changes to our rail system in inner Newcastle. My wife has lived in Newcastle all her life and I have since 1959,so we have a good grasp of the historical aspects of Newcastle's transport and commercial history.

1.The Rail Line. Having the line end at Newcastle Station means it is much more convenient for inner city workers as they can use Civic and Newcastle stations that are close to their workplaces. Younger people can more easily get to the inner city beaches and the entertainment areas on the Foreshore,as can families with young children.We don't think that the Sydney-based bureaucrats really know how many people from the Hunter Valley,Maitland and the Central Coast areas use the train system for work and pleasure. Tourists coming from Sydney can arrive in the heart of the our beautiful city not having to fiddle around,changing and trying to find out what they are doing.It is a big advantage for tourists and business to keep the line open. We have an ageing population who will not be driving so much.The rail is vital for longer distance travellers especially those going to and using their concession passes.At the moment all buses go to Newcastle Station and most pass Civic.Direct access to Hamilton by bus is very limited while it is a fair walk to Broadmeadow Station from the main bus route. Soon the new university campus at Civic will bring very large numbers of students and staff to the area..across the road from the Civic Station!There was a direct train route from The city to uni campus at Shortland.Th new court complex is nearly finished,with many more people coming to the Civic area.There is virtually no new public parking for either of these! The state government and local boosters say that they are looking to the future.So we should. With a coordinated transport system that will meet the citizens' needs.

2.The Interchange. Its details are unclear,still.It seems to be too small and open to the winds.Is it just a cheap option? Has any bureaucrat or government member looked at similar schemes?We have been to Box Hill interchange in south eastern Melbourne.This design incorporates a heavy rail station with a covered bus area while inside is a busy shopping area.This is set in a commercial and retail precinct.It may not be perfect but it functional and vibrant. Why not incorporate the former "Store" building across the line?It has plenty of parking too,with buses nearby. The best place for a proper interchange would be just to the west of Hamilton Station.I think the area is called "Woodville Junction".There is plenty of land,although probably polluted.This can be fixed..It is where the rail lines from the south,east and west/north meet.A light rail could then run directly into Newcastle Station via the existing line.

3.Light Rail. Not really!This would be a negligent waste of our money,for a couple of kms.Hunter Street is too narrow. The inner city area is compressed by the hillside.A couple of years ago I was in Edinburgh which was getting a tram system built.It was a mess,The first builder had gone broke.It was to be a single line from the airport and around the inner city,yet Princes Street ,the main street.is very wide.My taxi driver said that the people were very angry about the whole affair.You need to have two lines,as in Melbourne.I don't know how it finished up. It will have to cross Stewart Avenue.Objectors to the heavy rail saw this as a major reason for getting rid of it.Currentlly there are too few stops.Local shopkeepers are not too keen either.

4.Political Aspects. Many Novocastrians see the whole rail line changes as simply a scheme to put money into the pockets of real estate agents,developers and the state government by building on the former rail line which is not undermined.They believe that the decisions were made long ago and the consultation process is only a facade.They feel that is has been a conspiracy all along with locals being kept in the dark,etc. The government has a big majority and has no local seats to lose.Sydney voters have no interest in what happens here and that is where elections are won and lost.Sadly the hypocrisy of our political leaders is no surprise,yet we will still put our views forward.

John and Jan Greig

SE 8 – Ross Greig

Please find attached my suggestions/proposals for a better Newcastle. It was suggested to me by the Lord Mayor that I forward this document to Revitalising Newcastle after a luncheon meeting I attended in August. My submission is an individual, not a business proposal.

Kind Regards Ross Greig

IDEAS, PROPOSALS, WISHLISTS, FOR 21st CENTURY NEWCASTLE

The following list of projects, large and small are what I believe are both viable and achievable for a city of our size and stature as of now. Add the rest of the Hunter region, and throw in the Central Coast & the solid growth of both gives us a population of about 1 million at present. The next decade will see this number rapidly surpassed, several thousand more will reside in Newcastle’s CBD alone! Therefore, the attractions, services, “wow factor” icons, etc. I am proposing, need to be seriously considered (and hopefully deemed worthy) by those in charge of the “Good Ship Newcastle” as soon as possible. If all or some of these proposals are to be realized, it will mean “many hands on deck”. Politicians at all levels of government, architects, engineers, events organisers, tourism people and ordinary Novocastrians will need to play a part for these ideas/proposals to come to fruition. The common denominator for the above is the “A,B,C” rating. By this, I mean, ambition, belief and collaboration.

Here is the wish list:

The City Centre/CBD

Encourage more forms of shopping, ranging from street markets (day or night), up to major department stores (David Jones) perhaps rebirthed in a new, modern building. More cinema complexes, allowing the present Tower Cinema to become art house movie style. The GPT plan may help with this. More people living in a mix of high‐rise apartments, not necessarily all designed for the high‐end market.

Buildings up to 30 storeys or more in the west end of the city, preferably up to 15 storeys in the east end or any taller, must allow view corridors up to Christ Church Cathedral, being the central focal point of the older historic city precinct. More A grade office space & a 5 star rated hotel [or two] are definitely required. Obviously more parking spaces will be needed for all of these developments, so I suggest incorporating several floors of vehicle parking from ground level up then several levels of apartment/hostel style accommodation, ideal for the expected influx of university students living & studying in the CBD from next year onwards. All the above possibilities will generate the gravity of population both permanent & workday to justify the resurrection of all genres of shopping, entertainment, an enlarged,vibrant Newcastle Art Gallery, ‘’wow factor’’landmarks & more.

Briefly, more painted murals, banners and flags in and around the city, improved lighting both in and around our streets and of well loved buildings, better signage on the Merewether Street side of the Newcastle Museum, which has no signage at present stating the fact that it is a museum. Also a Wall of Fame which would include the names and portraits/photos of famous Novocastrians, born, raised or “adopted” here, who have excelled in the fields of art, acting, ballet, comedy, dance, music, politics and public life. (Separate list).

The Red Explorer Bus

Many cities around the world, large and small have these buses. I envisage at least 2 for Newcastle to start with. Imagine a sunny day sat on an opened top double decker, camera at ready. Starting at Honeysuckle, opposite the Maritime Museum, we cruise along to the next stop, Queen’s Wharf Tower. Then along to Custom’s House (stop at plaza area) then on to Nobby”s, taking photos as we go. Then on passed the Soldier’s Bathes, Ocean Bathes then stop beside Newcastle Beach. Then up Christ Church Cathedral, stop, more photos. A short drive to the Obelisk (quick stop) then through King Edward Park, then along to Bar Beach (stop at car park), great coastal pictures here! We then travel via the Junction, then along to Darby Street, pick your fav. Eatery as we go, then stop at Civic park (pics. Of City Hall, Admin. Building and Captain Cook Fountain). Back aboard and down to the Newcastle Rail Interchange at Wickham (if this eventuates) stopping for people to alight, then via Honeysuckle Drive to Newcastle Museum.

The above tourist bus journey, taking in harbor‐side action, river‐side serenity, iconic Nobby’s, ocean‐side vigor and salt sea air, city centre and grand architecture, terraced parkland, coastal vistas second to none, the sites, sounds and smells of a busy eat street and the majesty of our City Hall and the ambiance and bold design of the fountain. This should be more than enough to entice the Explorer Bus Company to invest in Newcastle!

Banners, Flags, Restoration of View Corridors

Some of the following ideas may appear to some as controversial, especially when it involves tree removal. Most of us understand the need for a clean & healthy environment & trees are a necessary part of that equation. Newcastle, like many other cities, worldwide has much improved its own urban environment through tree planting & although it is an ongoing process, in some parts of our city the plantings have been overzealous & I suggest, the wrong type of tree in the wrong location. In several inner city locations I would like to see a rethink on current tree preservation policy. In all cases of tree removal, it would be replanted in another (more appropriate) location, wherever possible. I am also not alone in the belief that far more consultation with the wider community regarding where & what type of tree species is proposed for a given location would be very much appreciated.

Here are a few examples where I believe tree removal/replanting elsewhere, would allow arguably a more appropriate venture to take it’s place. Along the eastern foreshore, adjacent to the former Harbour tug berths, I propose 24 aluminium flagpoles, approximately 20 metres tall, having as many flags of the nations of ships who have been past or present visitors to our port. This colourful, heraldic display, the next eye catcher after passing Nobby’s headland would provide a vastly more fitting maritime WELCOME to our city [imagine these flagpoles floodlit at night!], than the row of pines there at present. The double row of similar sized pine trees directly in front of Customs House clock tower would also be better suited in another location, replaced with a row of smaller species of tree allowing all of this beautiful heritage building to be seen in all it’s glory. The row of large pine trees that now almost totally block any decent view of the former Police Headquarters & Public Works building along the northern side of Hunter Street, ending at Watt Street should also be replaced. I suggest a row of 4 poles, approximately 10 metres tall, with colourful banners placed on each pole, instead of the pines. The banners would depict the past history of these heritage listed 2 storey ‘gems’ of mid 19th century vintage. As well, the 2 pine trees planted directly in front of the 2 ornate copper domes atop our treasured former G.P.O. should also be removed. This would open up this entire intact north side of Hunter Street, between Bolton Street & Watt Street. As there are very few intact heritage streetscapes left in the cities & towns of Australia, it is all the more reason to regard our own with the utmost importance & respect it deserves. Let’s not hide our history, be proud to show it to all.

There are a few other spots around our city that require tree removal/replanting. The Obelisk, erected in the 1850’s, to replace a demolished windmill, on this same hill, at the request of sailors, who were regular visitors to our port. It was used as a marker, to warn seamen that they were very near to the then hazardous entrance to Newcastle harbour. The whole point of the Obelisk’s past & present existence, historically, is that it can be seen from afar (hence it’s hilltop presence) but especially needed to be totally visible on it’s eastern or seaside. At present, due to a large palm tree planted in recent times on the Obelisk’s eastern side, it has almost totally eclipsed the view of the Obelisk, from this direction, day or night. May I suggest this palm tree be removed from it’s present location & replanted further down the Obelisk hill, thereby regaining an historically important view corridor. The former Dairy Farmers Milk Co‐op. building, corner of Hunter & Railway Streets, Newcastle West, is now a car showroom. When this building was converted into it’s present use, many years ago, the city council, back then, required the new owners to retain the centrally positioned clock tower, which also included a quirky milk bottle shaped front window facing Hunter Street. To their credit, the councilors of that time deemed this section of the building worthy of retention in it’s original form, obviously so it could be seen & enjoyed by all who pass by. This interesting little landmark is still there, but at present not visible to anyone, due to the 2 large trees that virtually block out most of the clock tower. Can these 2 large trees be either pruned back or removed & replaced with a smaller species. There are some other areas as you leave the city centre, where view corridors to landmark buildings need attention. One is when travelling west along King to Parry Street, nearing Stewart Avenue intersection. A great view of the dome atop the 5 storey former historic Wood Street Brewery building is gone due to the height of a row trees along south side of Parry Street, west of Stewart Avenue. Can these trees be lowered/pruned, or replaced with smaller trees, that will allow this view corridor to be regained & retained. Ditto the view along Hunter Street west towards the Sacred Heart Cathedral. A large gum tree at the eastern end of the Cathedral grounds being removed (replaced with smaller tree) would help regain the view corridor once available along that part of our city.

The Foreshore and Harbour

Newcastle’s present day waterfront is a far cry from what it was 200 years ago. 100 years ago it was nearing the end of the era of large sailing ships that filled our port, hailing from the 4 corners of the world. Even 50 years back, Newcastle harbour was a bustling but dirty environment. The mix of land based riverside heavy industries, an East End power station, steam trains, still in use along with diesels plus water based tugs, punts & steamships belching their smokey innards meant the best places for waterside leisure activity, was the Lake, the Bay, or the beaches. Not so now. These days, our harbour still deals with big ships, huge ones, on occasions, loading coal, or containers, wheat or whatever. Even sailing ships have returned, in the form of yachts, not the ‘4 masters’ of yesteryear. Today, our Foreshore has much to offer; top class hotel accommodation, a good variety of restaurants, cafes & bars, two excellent museums, close to each other. The Maritime Centre/Museum could be absolutely world class with the addition of a much‐ needed docking area on its riverside northern boundary. The “William 1V” could be berthed here permanently, when not doing harbour cruises & the HMAS NEWCASTLE occasionally berthed at the aforementioned dock when visiting her namesake city. I would like to see the old mining Poppet Head structure, previously at the former museum site, rebuilt if possible, on the grassed area of the present Newcastle Museum. It would make an interesting outdoor exhibit, where is it now? This museum also needs better identification signage on its Merewether Street frontage.

Apart from all the above, & the obvious need for a convention/exhibition centre, already mooted for this precinct, I’m suggesting a large, permanently based Ferris Wheel, at least 40 metres in diameter, be built at the western end of the Honeysuckle Precinct, on the newly opened area, adjacent to the carpark. Also, a classic European style carousel, set near to the ferris wheel. These 2 attractions, side by side, would appeal to children & adults of all ages. Many cities throughout the world have one or both these attractions, including Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney & Brisbane, in Australia. If we as Novocastrians are serious about getting involved in the ever growing tourism market, a convention centre, the large ferris wheel & Euro‐style carousel are just the start of what we should be planning & building.

A few more ideas regarding our foreshore & waterfront at night. Queens Wharf Tower to have it’s present static white internal lighting replaced with colour changing LED lighting, providing this doesn’t interfere with harbour navigation lights. Also LED colour ‐changing lighting on the exterior of the older Carrington grain silo bins. This could look spectacular, seen from Honeysuckle Precinct. A world class waterfront, indeed! Finally, the reinstating of a midnight fireworks display in Newcastle, on New Years Eve. I suggest the fireworks be set off from the former State Dockyard site, strategically situated in mid harbour, & easy for all to view, whether at Stockton, Newcastle East, Queens Wharf or Honeysuckle. A 10 minute fireworks display, “bookended” by the firing of the guns at Fort Scratchley. Unique to Newcastle! Early night pre‐fireworks entertainment could be local blues, rock or jazz bands, spread along the foreshore, from Honeysuckle to Queens Wharf to Customs House Plaza. If a 9pm fireworks is financially feasible, then include it. If not, then a midnight display should take priority. Christmas is for kids, NYE is for the BIG KIDS. Hopefully, all these ideas can be seen as one born & bred Novocastrian’s efforts to make our city a greater place than it already is for everyone.

Dear Urban Growth I would like to urge you to consider using the existing rail corridor to provide public transport ‐ with light rail as has been proposed . There are existing plans for improving bike access and safety with integrated cycle ways up and down Hunter Street which have the potential to make this a vibrant accessible main street. We have seen how enthusiastically Newcastle residents have made use of safe and accessible cycleways where they have been provided. Hunter St would see a marked increase in not only cycling commuters but families and others seeking to drink coffee, shop and be out in the world on their bikes. Use of the existing corridor for light rail can also serve Hunter St without impinging on parking and bike access. Lets get this done sooner rather than later ‐ without the huge clean up bill and delay for our community by using existing infrastructure. As a daily public transport user and cyclist I strongly support the existing urban renewal strategy plan for Hunter St.

Katrin Gustafson

WICKHAM INTERCHANGE

LIGHT RAIL

FUTURE PROOF LIGHT RAIL

Joseph Lycett's painting 'Corroboree Newcastle' almost frames the identical view when arriving at the new interchange.

! CURIOUS PRACTICE PO BOX 113 Wickham Interchange Carrington, 2294 Site Analysis Client: Urban Growth Aerial Photo Address: Stewart Avenue Warren Haasnoot M: 0412 086 882 17/09/2015 Wickham NSW 2293 01 E: [email protected] #Pln-01 issue: A Lot: - DP: - CURIOUS PRACTICE W: www.curiouspractice.com EXISTING - The existing heavy rail cuts the city off from the harbour both physically and visually

- There are a number of traffic lights and heavy traffic along Stewart Avenue and the train gates cause delays and traffic build up for motorists

REMOVE HEAVY RAIL - Cut the heavy rail to create connection from the City to Harbour edge and reduce the number of trafﬁc lights along Stewart Avenue

- Introduce Light Rail System, slow trafﬁc into East end, promote pedestrian and cycle paths to re-activate Hunter Street

- Potential future connection of Light Rail System to Hamilton (Beaumont Street) from Hunter Street?

ACTIVATE EDGES - Activate the ground floor along new edges to encourage perpendicular flow to Honeysuckle and Harbour edge. Promote pedestrian friendly spaces and bring life back to shops, cafes and offices.

- Introduce landscaping (Park) as view corridor from interchange to Nobby's Headland. Integrating Cottage Creek and ﬁrst section of historical rail "monument"

! CURIOUS PRACTICE PO BOX 113 Wickham Interchange Carrington, 2294 Site Analysis Client: Urban Growth Master Plan Address: Stewart Avenue Warren Haasnoot M: 0412 086 882 17/09/2015 Wickham NSW 2293 02 E: [email protected] #Pln-02 issue: A Lot: - DP: - CURIOUS PRACTICE W: www.curiouspractice.com PEDESTRIAN / CYCLIST - Where available pedestrians and cyclist will avoid having to commute next to or with heavy trafﬁc. Their limited engagement with the trafﬁc will reduce the frequency of interruption to the motorists but also to their own journey.

- The ﬂow of pedestrian and cyclist trafﬁc will generally be coming and going from Honeysuckle and public transport. There is currently a low density of population of residents in the immediate area, however the DCP encourages growth and density.

PRIVATE VEHICLES/TAXIS - North bound trafﬁc has easy access and a number of options to exit Stewart Avenue and drop off at the station.

- South bound traffic must exit at the roundabout (Hannell Street & Cowper Street) and then use Railway Street OR use the traffic lights (Hannell St & Throsby Street). Throsby Street is not a suitable road for increased traffic. If a motorist misses these exists, which are before the station, it is very difficult to turn around unless you are familiar with the area.

- Exiting the station, North bound trafﬁc has a number of options to return back into the trafﬁc onto Hannell Street

- Exiting the station, South bound traffic must first go North along Hannell Street and use the roundabout. OR use the traffic lights on Throsby Street which is not suitable for increased traffic.

BUSES - Wickham has poor egress and connections for large buses and - The land and road adjacent to the old Wickham Station coaches wanting to pickup or wait immediately from the train station. could be used to provide adequate waiting and turning for The streets are tight, some one way and a median strip separates large buses and coaches. opposing trafﬁc along Hannell Street, making it difﬁcult for South bound buses. - There is no undercover walkway to connect to the buses

- A connection should be made between the train station and the existing bus stops out the front of The Store on Hunter Street.

out ? in

LIGHT RAIL - If the Light Rail begins on Hunter Street, it is seamlessly integrated into - If the Light Rail uses the existing railway it is visually the flow of traffic, instead of creating another possible crossing removed from the public and less likely to be used. perpendicular to Stewart Avenue. - An weather protected walkway bridge should be - An undercover awning could be created easily next to The Store constructed over Stewart Avenue to connect people to (Melbourne Laneways). This could reactivate The Store and create a Light Rail. people will still need to walk in bad weather. lively atmosphere close to the Interchange and away from the heavy traffic along Stewart Avenue. - It forces pedestrians to walk along Stewart Avenue that is not pedestrian friendly - If the Light Rail begins on Hunter Street, it can easily be connected to Beaumont Street in Hamilton or the Stadium in the future. - There isn't the potential to connect to other parts of the city in the future. - This will free up the existing railway corridor for any other purpose?

! CURIOUS PRACTICE PO BOX 113 Wickham Interchange Carrington, 2294 Site Analysis Client: Urban Growth Traﬃc Address: Stewart Avenue Warren Haasnoot M: 0412 086 882 17/09/2015 Wickham NSW 2293 03 E: [email protected] #Pln-03 issue: A Lot: - DP: - CURIOUS PRACTICE W: www.curiouspractice.com THE FOLLOWING PAGES TAKE A SIMILAR BRIEF FROM THE 1 4 CURRENT PROPOSED DESIGN, CONSIDER THE CONNECTIONS TO OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORT AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AS THE KEY STRATEGY TO THE BUILDINGS DESIGN.

2 5

3 6

PUBLIC BUILDINGS DONT NEED TO BE EXPENSIVE, THEY SHOULD JUST BE WELL CONSIDERED.

OTHER CITIES AROUND THE WORLD ARE UNDERSTANDING THE ECONOMIC STRATEGY OF GOOD DESIGN AND CREATING IDENTITY

Joseph Lycett's painting 'Corroboree Newcastle' almost frames the identical view when arriving at the new interchange.

! CURIOUS PRACTICE PO BOX 113 Wickham Interchange Carrington, 2294 Site Analysis Client: Urban Growth Interchange Address: Stewart Avenue Warren Haasnoot M: 0412 086 882 17/09/2015 Wickham NSW 2293 09 E: [email protected] #Pln-09 issue: A Lot: - DP: - CURIOUS PRACTICE W: www.curiouspractice.com Don't run the rail down Hunter street. The rail corridor should only be used for transport, parks, small scale operations like coffee shops and markets etc. Under no circumstance should the business council and developers get their greedy hands on it!

Christopher Hannah. I totally disapproved removal of the heavy rail service into Newcastle. 2nd best option would be a light rail service on the existing tracks all the way to Newcastle Station also retaining Wickham and Civic Stations and re opening the level crossing at Railway Street. and greening the whole corridor. Bicycle Lanes? Yes

3rd best.Termination of all rail services at Wickham; transferring to buses. Then developing all the remaining corridor with open space and residential \ commercial....Im pretty sure that will go over like a lead balloon! The proposed light rail service along the rail corridor and diversion at Worth Place is totally impracticable, extreme costly and of no benefit. Please do not install this option. My preferred option would be reinstating the heavy rail service!

Barry Harsh. SE 7 – John Hayes

Rob Stokes MP Minister for Planning and Urban Growth

Dear Minister Stokes, and Urban Growth - Newcastle team,

Revitalising Newcastle

1. We are opposed to the truncation of the rail line at Wickham, and request it be reinstated on the existing rail corridor to Newcastle Station.

2. We consider the spending of more than $200M on light rail for just a very few Kms ( is it 2 kms ? ) to be a gross overspend of public money, that will provide an inferior Public Transport System to that which was in service with the Newcastle Train, before truncation.

3. A major argument for the truncation put by some, was to relieve motor traffic congestion at the Stewart Ave gates, when they were lowered to allow trains to pass.

4. No reliable information has been provided as to how many light rail crossings of Stewart Ave will take place, if light rail is ever installed.

Recent illustrations show only one light rail line, but that surely can't be the case; and it is therefore MISLEADING.

So there will be disruption to motor traffic when light rail crosses Stewart Ave. Please tell us how much disruption.

5. John attended the Urban Growth Newcastle Town Hall Breakfast last Wed ( 26th Aug).

Planning Minister Stokes could have been forgiven to leave the breakfast thinking there was unanimous, and whole hearted support, for the Urban Growth Plans.

The fact is, questions that I ( about 8 ), and others sitting at my table ( 10+ ) submitted to the side table, were never put to the Minister or other members of the panel; and the filtering of the questions by Urban Growth Staff meant NOT ONE HARD QUESTION WAS PUT TO THE PANEL.

THUS THIS WHOLE TWO HOURS WAS NOT GENUINE CONSULTATION.

6. We strongly doubt you have evidence of cities pulling out currently used major heavy rail lines. If so, please supply it.

In fact we know of many cities which did so, which are now reinstalling rail lines!!

7. Overseas fact finding tour to America was misconceived.

It would have been better to go to old cities in the UK and Europe, to see how old cities there have reinvented themselves.

8. There are plenty of opportunities to allow Rail traffic and Pedestrian traffic to cross - at ground level, safely. One system is to fit trains with electric magnetic brakes & Milton Cain has the full details.

9. If Stewart Ave cars and trains slowing each other down is a real problem; then a train underpass, or car overpass, can resolve this at much less cost than the current proposals.

For all these reasons we submit the Current Urban Growth Plans are flawed and the Rail service should be reinstated in full, and the number of Sydney / Newcastle services be expanded.

Cheers from Newcastle

John & Rosie Hayes I am deeply concerned that the NSW Govt appears to be "steaming ahead" with plans to pull up our railway line & run light rail down Hunter street, despite evidence that it is a more expensive & less efficient option than retaining the rail corridor. I am also concerned that high rise buildings are still proposed for the CBD precinct, possibly even on the rail corridor, which will spoil our unique skyline & the natural assets our city has to offer residents & visitors. Please respect our right to decide our future locally & democratically.

Sue Hellyer. SE 39 – Kathy Helme

1. Keep the rail corridor as a transport corridor. Preserve it as rail and improve it to give greater access to and from the harbour, or failing that run the light rail along the corridor. If there are buildings placed on the corridor it will be lost for transport use and there will not be space for adequate transport for the east end. Running the proposed light rail down Hunter St is illogical as there is a perfectly good transport corridor already running through Newcastle, to use the rail corridor would cause less disruption to traffic. Public transport is essential to the city, to people outside the city, and to students needing transport between the old and new campus of Newcastle University. Rail is the most useful transport option for the elderly, blind, disabled, parents with prams, and people wanting to bring recreational items such as surfboards and bicycles.

2. Respect the reasonable height limits agreed upon with community consultation and do not allow buildings over 8 storeys in height to be built out on the Newcastle peninsula. The topography is unsuited for it, there is insufficient transport and it will destroy the heritage character of that unique part of Newcastle.

3. Protect and preserve the publicly owned land in Newcastle, it is limited and precious. Do not sell it off.

I wish to register my preference for a light rail system to be continued from Wickham Station along the existing rail corridor to Newcastle and no development into commercial, residential or open space be considered. This service should be free to all as an efficient public transport system is essential in a growing city. I do not see the value in re routing any light rail into Hunter St as it will impede traffic flow. The views of the residents of the city should be paramount, not those of developers and Sydney‐based beaureacrats with no feel or experience of the city.

John Herron. I have looked at the four "opportunities" and although I would prefer the light rail to go all the way down the corridor and not just from Stewart Ave to Worth Pl, I know this is not going to happen. Therefore, my vote would be for "opportunity" No 2. I also submit that three light rail stops between the start and finish is not nearly enough when there are presently about eight bus stops. If running the light rail down Hunter Street from Worth Place is going to help businesses why isn't it going from Stewart Ave to help the businesses in that 800m.

Jacqui Hoff.

I am supportive of efforts to revitalise Newcastle.

However, such a revitalisation program does not need to and should NOT involve closing down the section of the heavy railway line that runs to Newcastle station. I note that the present temporary closure may be disallowed by the Supreme Court, which has not ruled on the matter as yet.

Ours should aim to be an inclusive society and while there may be numerically plenty of submissions from car drivers, happy in their impatience to not have to stop at the level crossing at Wickham, we need to protect the less fortunate and less able. Closing the rail line and having it finish as it does presently at Hamilton disadvantages the disabled, the elderly, the young and the poor. Why should they have to have a longer journey and carry their luggage onto and off a shuttle bus, just so that drivers can speed on and property developers can get more land from which to profit?

As I often catch the train from Victoria Street to Hamilton and thence to Sydney, I see those disadvantaged souls trudging from train to shuttle bus and am appalled at what has been done and the permanent closure that has ben sought by government.

Yours sincerely

Bruce Holmes

To commute to university and some work sites I combine bicycle and train. It works superbly if you use a rack & pannier, especialy in Sydney. To make this mode of transport work beter we need to replace the useless luggage racks above the wheelchair spots on the newer trains with several boke hooks and here we need to electrify the track to hexham. It is then easy to ride to worksites in tomago and the university. Also a station next to the Newcastle TAFE campus seems obvious, and reinstate train services to Cessnock. People here are often scared of using the train. This boils down to what sort of society you envisage here in the future. An inclusive one where miscreant train abusers are brought to heel or one where we end up cowering in gated communities and drive everywhere. I'm sure you are lobbied strongly for the second option. It's up to you. Busses are ridiculous. I would drive the car, ride or walk a km or two rather than stoop to using busses.

Graeme Holmes. Restore heavy rail back to Newcastle station. Why not build high rises OVER the rail line if you have to. The university and court precinct need the heavy rail. Light rail will not be able to cope, and please build a park‐and‐ride high rise car park on The Store site.

Peter Howitt‐Steven. I have lived in Newcastle my whole 59 years and come from old Newcastle families. I worked in the city for 39 years.

The best thing about living in Newcastle is that it is NOT Sydney, or a suburb of Sydney. Newcastle is a separate city with its own look, feel, lifestyle and history. I, and all my family and friends, want to keep it that way. We want to hand on a pleasant, low rise place to live and work for future generations. Individuals can move to Sydney or other cities if that what they want.

In a nutshell –

I believe new buildings in the city area should be of a size and scale that blends in with the streetscape as planned by Henry Dangar in Victorian times.

The rail corridor should stay a rail corridor. The heavy rail ought to be replaced with light rail, but it should run more or less where the tracks are at present, not down Hunter Street. A gift for future generations – I’m pretty sure that will come up with far better ideas than the current developer friendly proposals.

I am appalled and dismayed at the way the Government has proceeded with the whole matter to date. Local views, including acknowledged experts in architecture, ignored; our elected council and local member snubbed.

There are umpteen sites west of the Harbour to put up high rise buildings. The developers and property industry can have those for their money making schemes.

Peter Hughes Build a world class theme park reflecting coal industry and water incorperating nobbys lighthouse fort scrachely and the foreshore cut heavy rail at civic and build train coach and cruise ship terminal run monorail from civic through theme park around water front to parkway ave down to darby st along the eateries and back to civic. Millions of travellers world wide will come to see it. Many cruise ships will use the port if 1st class facilities are built bringing tourist dollars to Newcastle.

Leonard Hume. My view is to reinstate the heavy rail as per the Labor Party vision.

Reasons for this is if it's not broken why do we need to rip it up at TAX PAYERS expense. There has been no proper cost analysis on the light rail and it is likely to be cost prohibitive and we the citizens of the Hunter will end up with nothing as usual. If the State Government spent a little time on improving the service by adding stations for new estates in the upper Hunter it would become a vital part of our transport system once more. People this day and age are time poor and do not need a system that takes more time, we need it to be faster and more efficient. Once the corridor is sold off there is no going back, forward thinking would be if we must do away with the heavy rail then light rail should be in this corridor ‐ not sold off to greedy entrepreneur's to make a quick buck out of Newcastle with very little regards to its history and unique culture and to the many business that rely on passing trade delivered to them via the rail system.

If the light rail were to run down Hunter street it would create so many problems for car parking (which is totally inadequate for a city of this size now) and being able to access the shops just look at the book Destination Newcastle by Greg and Sylvia Ray Pages 19, 45, 48, 78, 91and 121. As you can see these pictures were taken in 1947 when there were limited cars on the road unfortunately we can't widen the road to allow for todays traffic, to install light rail on these streets would create total traffic chaos.

This is why they were removed in the 1950's it is very obvious that to try and reinstate a light rail system back into Newcastle would be completely useless and a BIG step backwads.

Lyndin Hume.

Revitalising Newcastle UrbanGrowth NSW

Submission September 2015

Introduction

The Hunter Business Chamber is the largest regional business chamber in Australia and was established in 1886. The Chamber represents almost 2,000 member businesses to all levels of government. The Chamber is the peak industry association in the Hunter which represents all sectors of business in the region.

The Hunter Business Chamber works as an integral part of the Chamber network in NSW and represents business at local, state and federal level to advocate for an improved operational climate for businesses in this region.

The Hunter is well recognised as the home to Australia's most resilient and diverse regional economy. The Hunter region in NSW just north of Sydney covers over 31,000 square kilometres and has over 660,000 people or 9% of the state's population.

An unparalleled cross section of industry calls the Hunter region home. Newcastle is the eighth largest city in Australia and is renowned for being the world's largest coal export port. The contribution to the region, state and nation from the port’s operation has grown exponentially over the past ten years.

The Hunter Business Chamber has long been an advocate for urban renewal, improved connectivity and an appropriate transport system for our city and broader region. The Chamber’s discussion paper, Newcastle Central, released in September 2012, advocated for much of what of what is now proposed in UrbanGrowth’s Newcastle Urban Transformation and Transport Program.

The Hunter Business Chamber welcomes the opportunity to provide a brief submission to this paper.

Key Points

Newcastle, as the second largest city of NSW and the capital of the Hunter has the potential to be a world class city. Population continues to grow and importantly the City needs to be able to accommodate and support this growth and future visitor activity. The NSW Minister for Transport and Infrastructure is recorded in Hansard on 9 September 2015 as saying Central Newcastle has the potential to be a significant economic, social and cultural centre.

The Chamber addresses the Revitalising Newcastle opportunities as two separate areas.

1. Wolfe Street to Watt Street including Newcastle Station

The Chamber supports the concept of repurposing Newcastle Railway Station so as to provide a hallmark destination of activity in the city. Combined with surrounding activated public spaces, this will provide a place where people come to meet and play, generating activity and a sense of community.

hunterbusinesschamber.com.au | 2

We agree that the site has the potential to become a significant tourism destination point attracting residents from the Hunter region as well as visitors from outside the region not just to the developments in a repurposed Station building but also to other retail, hospitality, cultural and leisure attractions. Commercial activity which currently exists or will grow over time as the redevelopment of the City progresses will also serve to increase economic and visitor activity.

It is important that the plans developed by UrbanGrowth in consultation with Newcastle City Council, Hunter Development Corporation and the community involves nothing less than the refurbishment and repurposing of Newcastle Station rather than just maintaining this site in its current state or only partially refurbishing it. The Station building and environs could potentially house high end markets and pop up activities and should take the current adjacent green space into consideration for how the destination will work and the facility it will provide.

There is an opportunity here to be visionary and create a significant destination point modeled on examples such as the Pike Street Market in Seattle, the Borough Market in London or the Chelsea Market in New York, appropriately scaled for the Hunter captive market. This is a different concept to some existing and successful stall holder markets which operate in Newcastle and the Hunter and should not be rejected on that basis. This is a once in a generation opportunity which deserves a long term visionary and ambitious approach. Every community needs to encourage experimentation and we should not be afraid to do so with this opportunity.

Adaptive reuse of the Station building and environs should not duplicate already well-established facilities such as the museum and art gallery in Newcastle although, in time, there is the opportunity to attract complementary cultural facilities. Plans for redevelopment now should take the mid to long term view so that future opportunities are not ruled out because of what is developed today.

The Chamber recognises the station and the surrounding areas as fundamental to the urban renewal process and should be implemented as a priority. Government should address funding of the destination space as a civic space and fund the enabling works, removing the tracks and undertaking remediation work necessary to incentivise development.

2. Worth Place to Wolfe Street

The Chamber notes this area requires a staged program of delivery of high quality public spaces in close connection with market driven development. This space should however, accommodate temporary activation of areas until development can or does occur. Reactivation of those land spaces must integrate and allow pedestrian activity through Hunter Street and to the City.

Development should make best use of parts of the corridor that don’t lend itself to green space and could provide for potential mixed use development of retail, commercial and residential that will further activate the City and provide uplift to the local economy.

hunterbusinesschamber.com.au | 3

In its Newcastle Central discussion paper the Chamber advocated for a green link or pedestrian corridor from Stewart Avenue to Market Street. The Chamber envisaged that this area would be suitable for low impact development such as cafes and outdoor dining facilities and would encourage the refurbishment of existing buildings by creating new and modern facades opening onto this part of the corridor.

Interface with Hunter Street

Whilst works in Hunter Street are being managed by Transport for NSW, we believe it is critical that urban renewal projects integrate seamlessly with Hunter Street and the broader CBD. Key features include wide pedestrian friendly spaces that link King Street and Hunter Street to the waterfront particularly at new north-south crossings. In particular, it is critical that the light rail infrastructure integrates into the urban form and does not compromise the pedestrian friendly attributes that are essential to livable cities.

Conclusion

The Chamber’s overarching beliefs are that the planning proposal should be about economically sustainable development. Importantly, the Hunter region has the skills, experience and local knowledge to deliver this project locally and calls on the Government to ensure the project procurement reflects this capability.

The Chamber further believes that there is unequalled opportunity to provide a planning proposal that will create economic activity and support the activity that will come with work already underway in the civic precinct. Ensuring seamless North – South connections are retained will be important in maximizing the activity that can occur in connecting the City to its waterfront. Newcastle is blessed with a strong sense of its unique identity and the question is not how to dramatically change the city but how to creatively respond to it.

The Chamber welcomes the opportunity to provide comment on this Paper and would equally welcome any further engagement throughout the Planning Proposal process.

Contact For further information please contact: Anita Hugo Policy & Public Affairs Manager p: 02 4969 9600 f 02 4969 9620 e: [email protected]

PO Box 607, Hamilton NSW 2303 91 Parry Street, Newcastle West NSW 2302

hunterbusinesschamber.com.au | 4

HUNTER CONCERNED CITIZENS INC

President: D Blyth Secretary: G Foster

Urban Growth L4 251 Wharf Road Newcastle NSW 2300

Urban Transformation Division L16 227 Elizabeth Street Sydney NSW 2000

18/9/2015

SUBMISSION TO URBAN GROWTH Revitalizing Newcastle Consultation

Dear Sirs/Madams

Please see the attached submission from Hunter Concerned Citizens Inc. on the subject matter.

Yours faithfully

Gary Foster Secretary

HUNTER CONCERNED CITIZENS INC

President: D Blyth Secretary: G Foster

SUBMISSION TO URBAN GROWTH Revitalizing Newcastle Consultation

18/9/2015

Hunter Concerned Citizens Inc. [HCC] is a community groups supported by 15 sub-groups and 20 individuals from the Hunter region and Newcastle and district

In December 2013 the then minister for planning Mr Hazzard announced a significant renewal program for Newcastle which was to revitalize inner city Newcastle with particular focus on the West End This program was entitled “Newcastle Urban Renewal Strategy” [NURS]. The announcement of the NURS plan was overshadowed to some degree by the simultaneous announcement by Mr Hazzard that the rail line between Newcastle and Wickham was to be truncated. Notwithstanding the announcement, the NURS document itself in three places declares that the NURS plan would succeed not matter what transport configuration was implemented.

It has become very apparent that the latter announcement has become the critical focus in Newcastle and the Hunter region generally.

Initially the government announced that light rail would be the preferred transport option between Newcastle and Wickham and Newcastle and that this light rail would utilize the current rail corridor.

Shortly following the installation of a premier to replace Mr O’Farrell the light rail in the corridor was confirmed by the new premier. Within days this was altered to place light rail on Hunter Street.

The rail corridor was to become green space for residents and visitors to enjoy. Progressively and rapidly the corridor land became a prime target for developers. In a short period of time the use for the corridor went from green space to

 ”some minor development “ to  increased development and  various artists impressions were floated.

Focus for the NURS plan changed and the East End suddenly became the developer focus along with the rail corridor.

HCC is not objecting to the NURS document nor some other changes to the LEP/SEPP to permit some taller buildings in the CBD of Newcastle. HCC does not object to sympathetic development on the rail corridor adjacent to the light rail infrastructure.

HUNTER CONCERNED CITIZENS INC

President: D Blyth Secretary: G Foster

What HCC is doing is registering serious objection to the manner in which the current consultation scope and program is being conducted.

The Rail corridor issue cannot be swept under the carpet.

There are a series of professional studies in the possession of government which clearly demonstrate that the rail corridor is the only practical and economic route for the rail light.  Prof B McFarling has presented papers to the government on this to demonstrate issues which are not faced if the corridor is used.  Hunter Transport for Business Development has made numerous submissions citing other professional reports.  The Newcastle and Hunter Region Transport Alliance has also made numerous submissions supporting light rail on the corridor and others have also made submissions.

Currently the creation of light rail on Hunter street Newcastle is estimated to cost in excess of $90 million more than if the corridor is used.  $90+million to move a rail line an average distance of 15 metres approx.

All such above submissions support the government’s own departmental recommendations identified in the “cabinet document 71” discovery.  The government has chosen to ignore its own advice for reasons never declared.

As well as this the government refuses to provide information or evidence to support the” rail on road” policy. It is attempting to circumvent legal requirements, ignore their self-declared March election “referendum” on the issue, refuse to discuss it, and remove relevant transport patronage targets to disguise policy failure.  An example of this is that patronage and fare-box revenue figures for Newcastle Buses have been headed downwards for many years, and the current year figures show that they still are.  It’s hard not to conclude that the reason the Baird government’s new plan hasn’t retained the Newcastle transport target from the previous plan is that they’ve realized that their decision to cut the Newcastle rail line makes it unachievable.  Better to remove the target itself than face the embarrassment of inevitable failure.

Many who support the” rail on road” proposal and many who support the developer lobby claim opposition to rail removal from the corridor comes from a vocal minority. The recent March election promoted by the government to be a referendum on the rail issue saw all government members except one National Party member between Gosford, the mid North Coast and into the Hunter Valley lose their seats.

A clear message to the government.

The HCC and many other groups and individuals have requested that the rail corridor route for light rail be included in the Urban Growth current consultation but these calls have been ignored.

HUNTER CONCERNED CITIZENS INC

President: D Blyth Secretary: G Foster

They cannot be ignored any longer.

All serious private and government reports say the corridor is the only route for light rail on practical and economic grounds.  An upper house inquiry recommended reinstatement of the rail services.

Also, the proposed transport interchange at Wickham is poorly considered and lacks definite planning and consultation elements.

Far better locations are either Hamilton or Woodville Junction.  Both are further west of Wickham  either would provide for expansion of the light rail system to eventually to include  western suburbs of Newcastle,  The Callaghan campus of the university,  John Hunter hospital and other locations.

Hunter Concerned Citizens lodges this submission to Urban Growth and calls for a new and broader consultation program which includes the option for light rail on the existing corridor. HCC further calls for the transport interchange location to be moved to either Hamilton or Woodville Junction.

Gary Foster Secretary

16/9/15

Submission on Newcastle Urban Transformation & Transport Program By Hunter Environment Lobby Inc

Hunter Environment Lobby Inc (HEL) is an environmental organization that has been acvtive in the Hunter area for over twenty years and is concerned with climate change effects on Hunter biodiversity and habitat.

HEL has been represented on major governmental environmental committees such as the Hunter Regulated River Water Sharing Plan, Environmental Water Advisory Group (Hunter), the Hunter Air Quality Monitoring Committee, and others over the years.

Our concerns for the effects of climate change on biodiversity have been well documented in every submission on major developments in the Hunter for well over this time frame.

This brings us to the comments we will make on Urban Growth’s community consultation for this particular issue. Climate change effects are brought on by the addition of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and global warming effects are proven world wide, thus more car journeys and less public transport is bad news for our Hunter biodiversity.

HEL has been active over the last few years in trying to bring to the attention of Hunter residents the effects of increasing car journeys and times of journeys, as opposed to more effective public transport for our people here in the Hunter.

We have worked with the Department of Planning at every opportunity to take part in community consultations on the plans for any revitalizing of the Newcastle area as it has major effects on the travel plans and opportunities of Hunter residents from as far afield as Scone, Dungog, Lake Macquarie, Central Coast, etc.

The effects on travel plans we talk of is the plan by this arm of the Dept of Planning to cut the rail line three stations from the original terminus, Newcastle, and build a light rail connection instead to Newcastle in some inderterminant hazy future.

Despite the people of all the regional areas that we just described having no say in whether the rail journey was going to be stopped abruptly on Christmas night, 2014, that is exactly what happened.

Commuters have shared with us the tragic and sad tales that have ensued since the rail service was cut on 25th December, and have taken the time to write letters to the Premier on over one thousand occasions, and HEL has posted those directly to the Premier. We understand that there were well over 15,000 names on petitions that were presented to Parliament by Save Our Rail.

The results have seen at least a 60% drop in commuters on the Hunter line from all stations, a terrible legacy for this government when one looks at the mission statement of the Department of Transport for NSW.

The businesses at the Newcastle end of Newcastle CBD have reported between a 5% to 40% drop in customers, parking is at gridlock in Newcastle itself, many people from regional Hunter are driving to Newcastle, or to Stockton and catching the ferry into their work areas in the CBD.

Surf Life Savers in Newcastle beach are telling us that their staff, especially on weekends cannot come in to be on duty, as often they are young, and rely on public transport to do their community duty as lifesavers, and officials are worried it will impact on the ability of the surf club to cover the beaches for the summer.

Even if they can drive or do have cars, it is impossible to get a parking spot all day any where near the beach, if you do, the costs are prohibitive, as Life Savers are volunteers.

People with mobility issues are particularly discriminated against with the premature cutting of rail services, as getting on and off one mode of transport is far easier than having to duplicate that process several times in the one journey.

The arrangement that the Dept of Transport has left commuters with at present is such a flawed scheme that it beggars belief that this department seriously think it is a fair scheme. The extra time that commuters have to outlay to travel with great difficulty from Hamilton to Newcastle or any where along Hunter St, has to be experienced to be believed.

I myself have had to endure travel times of over three times as long to travel from Newcastle to East Maitland, so that a journey supposed to take 30 minutes blows out to over one hour and forty minutes. The main reason for this, is that the shuttle bus coming from Newcastle does not meet up with a train from Hamilton, or very rarely.

Also the service of the shuttle bus coming from Newcastle does not seem to be timetabled appropriately. All the issues I have outlined above could be seen to be only issues of a transitional nature by your department.

However, we have no guarantee that this transition to anything better will occur, and when? In the meantime, the commuters have deserted the service, traffic clogs Newcastle daily, and people wanting to access work, businesses, beaches or medical appointments are left entirely to their own devices by a seemingly uncaring, ruthless Planning Department.

As professionals wanting to do your jobs, fulfill your role in this process, you may feel that all we have written about is not relevant, that your only purpose is to choose between the four options of where the lightrail will run when it is built? As you gave out to the community at all the consultations.

We hope that you may see that the issue for commuters in the regions around the Hunter is much broader than that narrow track your department envisions. The issue for the environment is also much broader.

With each degree warmer that our area experiences, Hunter biodiversity is altered exponentially, and it may not be a slow process. Wildfires on the North American continent this year have been the worst ever, Australian fire fighters have had to fly to the USA to help with their expertise.

Also flora and fauna cannot adapt as quickly as the temperature changes are likely to occur, we will have major extinctions here in the Hunter. When you add the effects on biodiversity of open cut coal mining here in the Hunter, which is clearing thousands of hectares annually, you get an exponential growth in climate change effects.

These effects are happening more and more quickly, with every new coal mine and coal mine extention, more and more species are being impacted, there are dozens of threatened species here in Hunter, and that is flora and fauna.

The effects on water quality in the Hunter River as well as the cumulative loss of available water for agriculture, viticulture and estuary health which impacts on the seafood and wine quality, is of great concern to HEL.

The biggest consumer of water from the Hunter River is AGL Macquarie, who need substantial amounts of water to produce electricity for Hunter consumers. With increasing effects of climate change, more water from the Hunter compared to agricultural needs, will be required in the future.

With the forecast climate change effects on climate here in the Hunter, our climate will experience both wetter than average times leading to worse flooding, and drier times, leading to no available water in the Hunter for irrigation purposes.

Their will also be times when the proposed allocation of water for both Town Water and Stock and Domestic uses will not be available. HEL believes we must not wait for these times to be planning ahead, and that entails trying to mitigate the effects of climate change, here in the Hunter.

To that end, ensuring no increases in private car usage here in the Hunter, apart from growth of population, which will be substantial, means that we must be serious in asking for proper planning processes to mitigate effects of climate change on our Hunter biodiversity, as well as the commuty.

We therefore maintain that to keep climate change effects to a minimum, to cause least worst options for biodiversity and for commuter comfort and least disadvantage, the rail service to Newcastle must be resumed.

After that happens, we can then concentrate on where to from there, and have a true community consultation, one where government departments listen and care what their constituents want.

Yours sincerely

Jan Davis President My first preference would be for the heavy rail to be reinstated so passengers can travel all the way to Newcastle Station and stations in between without having to change to another mode of transport. I'm sure that some creative architects and engineers could optimise this option in terms of allowing pedestrian access to the harbour and re‐thinking vehicular crossing points such as Stewart Ave.

Even though I like the idea of light rail as a mode of transport I think in this case it is totally unnecessary as we already have heavy rail.

Therefore my second preference would be for green space on the rail corridor similar perhaps to New York's High Line or Sydney's new Goods Line. This green space would allow easy thoroughfare to the harbour from Hunter St. and the green space could be used for all sorts of public events and gatherings and be an example of creative use of public space and a tourism drawcard.

My third prefence would be for light rail to run down the heavy rail corridor.

I absolutely oppose the idea of high‐rise development on the heavy rail corridor. If this happens I cannot help but feel that this was the intention of the council and the state government right from the very beginning, despite assurances to the contrary by both the council and the state government. It will look like a land grab by developers, aided and abetted by corrupt public officials in local and state government and I think would justify an investigation by ICAC or a Royal Commission into corruption surrounding this whole development right from the first suggestion that this should happen at all.

Thank you for the opportunity to express my thoughts on this subject.

Rob Hunter. URBAN GROWTH NEWCASTLE REVITALISATION SUBMISSION BY HUNTER TRANSPORT FOR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

I am Convenor of Hunter Transport for Business Development[HTBD], a not for profit organisation of professionals, concerned with doing what we can to ensure that Newcastle and the Hunter have the optimum public transport system to cope with the needs of Newcastle and the Hunter for the next 50 years.

HTBD's underlying approach is that effective urban renewal depends on effective public transport. It is effective public rail transport that makes cities and developments in them work.

The Community Engagement Program purports to exist to find out what the community wants['' the people's project'']yet the community is precluded from saying what it wants with respect to rail transport, when that is absolutely vital to effective urban renewal and is uppermost in many people's minds.

This renders the whole Community Engagement Program to being an artificial exercise on which no reliance can be placed in assessing what the Community really wants.

This was exemplified in the Design Newcastle Exercise last year, which also precluded discussion of the vital rail issue. Without being able to indicate what they thought about rail, ,participants were asked to locate developments on the rail corridor.

The Urban Growth web site then proclaimed that the outcome of Design Newcastle was that the community wanted the rail to go and wanted development on the rail corridor.

There is no way that such a conclusion could be drawn due to the artificiality of the process.

Unfortunately the current Community Engagement Program is similarly flawed and no valid conclusions can be drawn to the effect that people want the rail line to be closed and development to take place on the corridor.

The so called options for development amounted to a forced choice. There was no provision to say'' none of the above''. Nor was there an opportunity to say whether participants could be amenable to certain development provided the light rail system ran on the existing tracks on the existing rail corridor.

HTBD considers that no development whatsoever should be contemplated unless light rail services run on the existing rail tracks in the existing rail corridor to Newcastle Station.

My recollection is that the facilitator said that if we did not want any of the so called options we could apply a yellow sticker but the paperwork said that a yellow sticker indicated'' more work required''

If the latter interpretation is applied there is an inference that people placing a yellow sticker thought it was a good idea but just needed some tweaking . However following the facilitator's words, people who placed yellow stickers, were in their minds saying they did not like the option at all.

I noticed a preponderance of yellow stickers on the sheets displayed and this indicates that many people did not like any of the options. It will be interesting to see what interpretation is placed on this in the published outcomes.

I was particularly appalled by the option involving creating an ''opportunity'' to link Wheeler Pace to the gardens next to the museum providing a so called viewing corridor to the Harbour. We eventually were told that this would require demolition of Civic Station. Civic Station is virtually directly opposite the new law courts and the new city campus and thousands of people could utilise light rail on the corridor to disembark right at their destinations.

I understand that there has been a plan before Council for a car park to be built to the west of Civic Station and that maybe it would be more economically viable if it encroached on the existing rail line.

It seems to me that is the real reason for the demolition of Civic Station and removal of the rail line. Civic Station operates very well as a station and should continue to do so. Please advise.

The option of developing Newcastle Station as a produce or fish market has no appeal for us. It also operates very well as a station and should continue to do so. With markets there is a need to get people and produce in and out of the area and this would be difficult, particularly if Wharf Road is re aligned.

The upper floors of Newcastle Station are unused at present and there could be enough room for a primary school or a function centre in that space. However Newcastle Station must continue to be used as a station. There is no need whatsoever to remove the rail to achieve such developments.

The very idea of re aligning Wharf road to provide car parking is repugnant to HTBD. The government should be focusing on encouraging people to use rail transport not encouraging more cars in an already congested area.

Unfortunately the government's approach has been to ask what can be done to ensure that the existing rail corridor can be freed up to allow it to be developed. The vital component for effective urban renewal, effective public transport, has been trashed with the absurd proposal to run light rail along Hunter Street only 20 metres on average from the existing rail corridor causing very slow journey times for travellers, putting business owners at risk of going out of business during construction of light rail down Hunter street and seriously increasing road traffic congestion.

On the government's own figures this is going to cost $100 million more than light rail on the existing corridor. That demonstrates conclusively that the objective has been to ensure that the rail corridor is made free for development.

Accordingly the community has had foisted on it, a light rail route involving installing light rail partly in Hunter and Scott Streets, which will not only cost ,on the government's own figures,$100 million more than our submission of light rail on the existing rail corridor but will involve a significantly slower journey time. This will cause commuters from Maitland , the Hunter Valley, Lake Macquarie and Central Coast to abandon rail travel and drive cars adding to the road traffic gridlock predicted by 2016 in the Council''s Bitsios report, or not come at all, both of which will be bad for business. The government offered 3 options for a light rail route for consideration by the community, none of which included the best option of all viz light rail on the existing tracks in the existing corridor, which is our proposal. We know it is the best option because the government's own transport experts said so in the leaked cabinet document 71.

The government's own experts recommended light rail in the existing rail corridor and advised against light rail in Hunter Street, yet the government is proceeding with light rail in Hunter /Scott Streets.

The government has on the one hand budgeted $10 million for studies into how the light rail network could be extended beyond the interchange, to destinations such as Callaghan Campus, Jesmond ,Wallsend, John Hunter Hospital ,yet have not disclosed to the public enough information to know whether the Wickham interchange is designed to enable that extension to occur.

If it has not been so designed, we are going to end up with 2.6km of ''white elephant'' light rail in Hunter and Scott Streets which can not be part of a total rail system serving the suburbs and regions . Businesses would be at risk of closing down closing down due to need to relocate underground services during construction.

HTBD has designed an interchange at Hamilton which provides for this extension west. For a total of $210 million, less than half of the $460 million for the government proposal,HTBD can run light rail on the existing corridor to Newcastle Station from the Hamilton interchange.

The light rail could be operating within months compared to the 2020 date in the most recent government plans for light rail in Hunter Street. Our proposal could be implemented without having to amend the Transport Administration Act. Simply by running light rail on the existing corridor to Newcastle Station with an Interchange designed to ensure light rail extensions west for $210 million instead of $460 million, problems can be avoided and urban renewal enhanced . Importantly a long standing divisive issue will have been resolved.

Our proposals in ''Rationale for a Hamilton Interchange'' and Introduction to the Lower Hunter Tram train Network will be forwarded separately. We would appreciate the opportunity to explain these documents and urge the government to reconsider our proposal.

Alan Squire Convenor Hunter Transport for Business Development Newcastle does not require the dominating arrogance of Sydney to dictate to Newcastle its options for future progress.

The last State election clearly showed what Newcastle and the Hunter Valley thinks of the "Sydney Govt".

The Heavy rail line must be utilised as a light rail corridor with green options to beautify all the corridor, utilising and beautifying the existing stations to their full potential with future expansions built into the light rail track.

Any excuses that this is not possible is total rubbish emanating from Sydney's desire to minimise any expenditure away from Sydney.

It is obvious that any construction can take place with vision, eg, road and rail under harbours, rivers, channels(English) tunnels through mountains, bridges over very deep valleys, so to say the rail corridor is not suitable is nothing short of insulting.

Stop wasting taxpayers money, do what Newcastle needs, ie rail transport to Newcastle station and beyond, stop treating us as fools and earn a little respect from others, other than the people who have a short term vested interest in the cheap short sited vision being presented by developers and Sydney "connections".

Build what is necessary to enable free flow of vehicle and pedestrian access to open up the city for all to enjoy and stop attempting to sell Newcastle short and treating Novocastrians with contempt.

Light rail is the answer utilising the existing land, open up access to the harbour, as many other cities have done, ie Melbourne, Adelaide, Vancouver.

Hunter street is not suitable for light rail as many reports have indicated.

John Brent Hutchinson. The Station needs to be a place people will use. Art galleries etc are great and an import part of a developed city but people will not go there regularly enough. a market idea is good but I fear it will not be refined enough for where I believe The city needs to head. Something that was a bit of a cross between a small gallery/historical display, The James Street Markets in Fortitude Valley in Brisbane that specialised in Hunter produce and a lane in Collins St in Melbourne would be ideal because locals would use it and then be proud to show it off to visitors when they came. This would also influence The precinct around it.

The railway line needs to be green. If The developers are so hungry then they should be given The areas that have buildings on The edges already to re develop. This opportunity only comes once and we should be giving that land to The people through a green space. If there is a demand for more floor space we should revisit The height limits. All The great cities in The world have green. Sydney, New York, London, Paris et all. If we build on it then there is never going to be another chance.

Forgive me for being cynical but I suspect you have already made up your minds and there will be buildings All through it which will be a travesty. we need to get away from developer greed and use This The chance we have been giving.

Tom Inglis

The 'rail corridor' should remain a transport corridor, preferably light rail, extended along the beach front and around to complete a self‐contained loop. Ultimately, whichever transport option is chosen it should not be an add‐on to the current heavy rail system. If light‐rail for instance, the relevant infra‐structures should eventually run throughout Newcastle/Lake Macquarie/Lower Hunter as one system.

Bob James. The light rail should use the existing rail corridor. If for no other reason than for a SAFETY issue. Pedestrian / light rail passengers/ motor vehicles etc requiring access across the light rail track can be more safely controlled in the corridor than if it was located down an open busy main street. SAFETY should be the paramount consideration.

Richard Jenkins

I suggest that Newcastle takes one from the whitsundays books, constant beachside festivals kept tourism coming into airlie beach, something as simple as a stand with a dj and light show, advertised on social media and a Newcastle events webpage, as well as cultural festivals such as airlie beaches turtle festival, it attracts thousands of people, a weekly market on nobbies beach, legal busking and fire spinning performances, sand castle competitions, fireworks displays, free music festivals, all of these things allowed airlie beach to become a tourism hotspot and made local quality of life like a paradise. It does cost some money, but setting up stalls along with the entertainment encourages spending in the area. You can also allow people to organise their own festivities, for example market stalls at $15 a plot and encourage local circus performers and even martial arts demonstrations, military marches, the list goes on, if you do a festival every 3 months (4 times a year) we can bring a community back to Newcastle and encourage spending, beachside festivals are fun, also lowering the rental prices of the stores in Newcastle cbd will bring back businesses. The majority of people in Newcastle are too poor to afford expensive things, keep prices low if you want it to work.

Robert Johnston. As someone who once relied on the Waratah to Newcastle rail link to get to work I can speak directly to the huge advantages this offered in time and convenience. It was vastly superior to other options, for example, buses, which took approximately three times as long to get to the same destination. The private parking was expensive and limited and I felt sorry for colleagues who did not enjoy the option of train travel and the numerous advantages it conferred. Commuting to work is an important factor in quality of life and I am grateful that I was able to enjoy this option before it was destroyed by poor city planning.

I support the maintenance of the exiting Newcastle heavy rail. I condemn the truncation of the line at Wickham.

Elyssa Joy. Lukas Junker

Revitalising Newcastle UrbanGrowth NSW PO Box 33 Newcastle NSW 2300

September 17, 2015

Submission in response to the community consultation on the Newcastle Urban Transformation

I fully support the stated program vision and objectives to:

• Bring people back to the city centre • Connect the city to its waterfront • Help grow new jobs in the city centre • Create great places linked to new transport • Create economically sustainable public domain and community assets

I further support the vision of new connections across the heavy rail corridor, where suitable, particularly at Civic, Argyle and Darby Streets, Market Street and further west at Kiwumi Place, Cottage Creek and Bellevue Street. These future connections however are a given, as they are the only reason why heavy rail was stopped in the first instance. These connections need to be delivered as attractive, well designed and engineered infrastructure for cars, bicycles and for pedestrians.

I further believe that the two flagship projects currently under construction, courthouse and even more so the University’s NewSpace, will have a great impact on revitalising the Civic precinct.

The current round of consultation however is disappointing in its focus on development in the rail corridor for urban transformation. It appears to not to raise any further visions for the city precincts East End/Civic and West End apart from opportunities of mixed use development on the corridor.

East End

The project that will deliver urban renewal in the East end is not the re-purposing of the old railway station, but the project that Urban Growth is developing with GPT between Hunter and King Streets. It is that project, and the resulting future density and transport needs of the East End that should inform what happens in the old rail corridor. There is clearly an opportunity to re-align or amalgamate Wharf Rd and Scott Street and ensure connections into the Urban Growth/GPT development site of this road via the old Street grid, while simultaneously preserve some public waterfront land. I believe Scott Street should be widened while Wharf Rd should be closed between Perkins Street and Watt Street and integrated into the foreshore park land. In makes no sense to keep a green strip in between two roads, if one road can do the job and the green strip could hug the waterfront instead. Light rail needs to be planned so as to work in with this revised street grid and to best serve destinations and passengers. I believe light rail in a designated landscaped corridor within the current heavy rail easement would deliver this best, both from accessibility for pedestrians and efficiency from an operational transport point of view.

The old Railway station and bus interchange land can be re-used for now, but absolutely need to remain in public hands to provide an opportunity for future generations to provide a significant public building once Newcastle and the lower Hunter have grown to an Urban space with a million residents and associated changed needs for public infrastructure of this future city.

Civic Precinct

The civic precinct has great potential for revitalization along Hunter Street. This revitalisation will stem from the current developments of the courthouse and NewSpace and the various residential and commercial projects planned or under construction in the adjacent areas.

Due to the current street grid and existing building blocks (to the west on Hunter Street the long block between Civic and Worth place, to the East the blocking of the foreshore from Merewether Street by the Crown Plaza), the only location for some connection from Hunter Street to Honeysuckle is at the current Civic station. Civic is also the area where Hunter Street is the furthest away from the harbour foreshore, making synergies between harbour foreshore and Hunter Street development difficult to achieve. So, yes create the pedestrianised Plaza from Hunter Street through Civic to the Museum, but place transport centrally to this to serve both Hunter Street, Civic precinct and Honeysuckle, by creating the light rail stop within this pedestrianized plaza in the rail easement, and keep light rail out of Hunter Street.

It is vital that Hunter Street is made more attractive for pedestrians and cyclists in the civic precinct. This requires widening of footpaths, catering for cyclists and provision of shading and tree planting, while retaining adequate parking. The plan developed by Newcastle City Council in 2013 can be implemented without delay to start testing some of these measures.

The contribution that buildings on the rail corridor would make to urban renewal in the civic area are very dubious. They would not contribute to Hunter Street, as they are screened off, and they do not particularly add to the Honeysuckle precinct either, as there appears to be no street grid in place to service such building in any attractive way. The best option would be to re-visit the master plan for the undeveloped areas in Honeysuckle, including the carpark along the rail corridor, and adjust it to make the most of the opportunity of a Civic plaza, the new reality of the freed corridor from heavy rail and look at the opportunities that light rail in the rail corridor would present for the Honeysuckle development areas.

West End

This round of community consultation is silent on the West end, due to it’s focus solely on development of the rail corridor, which in this area is reserved for light rail. It is disappointing that there is no development master plan included for the Northern side of the rail corridor in the West end. Connection and integration of the Wickham interchange and light rail and opportunities of great public spaces along Cottage creek and the harbour are vital pieces of the revitalisation of the West end, yet there has no planning been made public for comment.

I remain sceptical of the published plans for the Wickham interchange. Not because of its location at the western end of the city, but because of the space constraints and the apparent lack of integration with a decent bus interchange. I remain convinced that the public transport aspect of the whole Newcastle Revitalisation project lacks strategic direction and commitment to continuous improvement of service to provide an attractive alternative to the private car. The public transport mode share of commuters in any bigger city is a lot higher than what is achieved in the Hunter. This will change in the future, as and when the Newcastle CBD develops together with the growth of the region as a whole. Public transport provisions to the future Newcastle CBD and connections to the Sydney CBD need to be planned for future projected use, not based on current rates.

This lack of strategy is manifest by ignoring department of transport advice on the best light rail route, lack of a plan for light rail extensions to the west past Wickham and to the south towards the Junction and Merewether. The least that the project team can and should do as part of the current planning to ensure Newcastle has viable public transport options in the future is to ensure that light rail is built in the current rail easement, integrated with proposed works in the corridor, and by ensuring the existing corridor is not wasted by development of buildings or sold to private investors.

In summary, the revitalisation project’s vision and objectives have my full support, but the focus on development on the rail corridor in lieu of a focus on strategic infrastructure plans of road ways, pedestrian and cycle space, integrated public transport and improved public amenity to provide the new skeleton of the future Newcastle is disappointing. It is an absolute must that the HDC’s master plans for the land north of the rail corridor and GPT’s plans within the old CBD are integrated into this planning exercise and that the Public transport solutions follow a strategic plan that takes into account future needs. This means that the rail corridor should be preserved, or better, used for light rail.

Sincerely,

Lukas Junker I believe that the following should happen with the Newcastle rail corridor:

‐ rail corridor to be used for the Light Rail development with foot crossings for the public

‐ this area should not be built on

Regards,

Zvonimir Jurak. I wish to express my concern at the dodgy and dishonest way this matter has been handled by Urban Growth. At no point have we been able to talk about the transport links. This apparently had been decided on beforehand but by whom and on what basis? No one at Transport for NSW was able to tell us.

At the forum I went to this came up again and again. Why are we paying $460 million dollars to take out a rail line and build a slower tram that will carry less people and still has to cross Stewart Avenue?

Ifn Urba Growth really care what people think why not offer an option with the $460 million dollars spent on improving the city with the train line remaining in place and give us a vote on it?

Paul Keating

Firstly , I cannot think of ANY City in the World that would not want a major rail line that could take you from anywhere in the Country and take right into City and its World Class Beaches

I would only support the removal of the rail line IF a fully integrated transport system and open green spaces were built PRIOR to other major development

Paul Kelly

I fully support the removal of the heavy Rail Line into the former Newcastle Railway Station. However I do not wish to see light rail being "run" up and down Hunter Street Newcastle at the cost of parking spots, interruption to traffic flow and interruption to existing or possible future businesses. I wish for the light rail to move along the current old rail corridor. Thus giving access to Hunter Street with only small journeys required on foot from any Light Rail infrastructure to access Hunter Street. I also wish that the current rail corridor NOT be subject to more buildings being constructed. No High Rise, no residential and only buildings which contribute to improving the already sparse Public amenities. More public toilets, more public seating which offers protection from rain, summer heat and unpleasant conditions. I also believe we do not require a proliferation of small businesses such as coffee shops, restaurants and fast food outlets. I firmly believe if these are required they can be constructed within existing premises, facing towards the open space area for ease of access. Areas set aside for Public performance, busking, Street art and provision of public expression of the Arts and performance.

I firmly believe in the future of Newcastle City area and the need for further residential growth, business growth and all the opportunities which arise with building for the future. I fail to see why building heights cannot be raised from the current limits and assist in bringing a vibrant Newcastle for the future.

I thank you for the opportunity to place my submission.

Bruce Kidd.

I strongly support light rail along the existing rail corridor. Light rail at ground level, such as in Barcelona) would provide:

1. Closer access to the foreshore than a line in Hunter street would

2. A quicker trip because there would be no need to stop at traffic lights as is the case in Hunter street.

Further using the corridor would reduce congestion on Hunter street.

Any light rail would need to be supported by an interchange where trains, buses and car parking are available to provide access to the foreshore via light rail for all residents not just those near a train line. Once these basics are in place, beautification and enhancements to the city centre and foreshore can be considered.

Jennifer Knight. I have an idea that will revitalise Newcastle and at the same time retain the existing infrastructure. The idea that I have is to convert the truncated section of the corridor into a heritage tram line and turn Newcastle Station into a fully functioning tram museum showcasing trams from Australia and around the world. Remodeling and rewiring works are necessary but this idea would compliment the light rail system and at the same time, boost tourism in the area.

Adam Krslovic. To Whom It May Concern,

1. The four UrbanGrowth 'Revitalise Newcastle' planning options for development on the former Newcastle rail corridor are too limited. There should have at least also been an option to keep this transport infrastructure corridor in public ownership and use, as a heavy rail / light rail corridor for the future.

However, of the four options I would choose No. 1, which allows the maximum open space and public access to this land. High rise development should not be permitted on this land as it will likely wall off the heritage city centre and destroy the unique low rise cityscape. I would like to see the historic Newcastle Railway Station function as a transport hub not dolled up as a Saturday market place.

2. I would like to see the transport corridor kept for the use of the light rail service between Wickham and Newcastle Stations, freeing up Hunter Street for cars, buses, cyclists and other vehicles.

3. Depending on the kind of developments, I would be supportive of limited development over a light rail service run on the existing heavy rail corridor, which may help meet address both the wider public's and developers' goals, while keeping the land functioning as a transport corridor.

4. Any inner city development should maintain existing strict building height limits in the heritage city centre (Newcastle East End), that is to a maximum height of 24 metres (approximately 8‐stories), as agreed to in the original LEP 2012, before the 2014 amendments were approved.

5. Any development in this precinct should be appropriate, i.e. sympathetic and respectful of existing heritage buildings. Any new development should respect the natural topography of the city and the scale of existing low‐rise buildings. Point out that any building development on the northern side of Hunter Street, King Street or Scott Street should not overshadow buildings on the southern side of the street. The public vistas of Christ Church Cathedral to and from the harbour foreshore must be maintained.

6. Without an adequate public transport and parking plan, transport and parking difficulties that have escalated in the CBD since the truncation of the heavy rail services should be addressed.

7. I am extremely disappointment that the 'Revitalise Newcastle' Community Engagement Program does not include GPT/UrbanGrowth’s 'Newcastle East End Project', despite it being a fundamental aspect of any future plan for the city. I hope UrbanGrowth is not planning to play off less development on the rail corridor for greater high rise on the Newcastle East End Project sites? That would be unacceptable to many Newcastle and Hunter residents.

8. The original LEP 2012, prior to the 2014 amendments, should guide future planning for Newcastle. This planning document was widely supported by residents and business alike, after an exhaustive, inclusive and transparent consultation process.

Brian Ladd. SE 25 – Ken Lambert

I have sent a submission in on the website but was not sure it uploaded properly so I am submitting the same document here.

-- Ken Lambert

Revitalise and Transport Plan

I am a local General Practitioner. I am also a keen pushbike rider, commuting to my workplace regularly and riding with my partner into the city centre. Our community is faced with an obesity epidemic; studies have shown that children are fatter and slower than their parents and there has been a major shift in a generation from children walking and riding to school to being driven by car.

Children have just as much right to utilize the city as adults. To bring all people into the city; children, the rich and poor, workers, tourists, shoppers to name a few Newcastle needs a multimodal transport plan. This transport plan need to serve the city well and decisions made now will shape the city for decades to come.

Revitalising Newcastle needs have a positive and workable plan that is going to serve this city and the surrounding suburbs now and into the future. There is $460 million dollars that needs to be spent well and that is used in such a way as it lays the groundwork for future development of the city.

The options laid out in the Revitalise Plan makes little provision for an integrated cycleway plan usable for commuting and recreation for all ages. Utilising the rail corridor for the light rail will save 90 million dollars. This money would deliver a fully funded integrated cycleway system for Newcastle and its suburbs. Currently bike users literally take their lives into their own hands to cycle around this city. Parents frequently tell me that they would like to see their children more active but they fear that they will be seriously injured or killed out on the hostile Newcastle roads. Their fear is well founded. I was seriously injured by an at fault utility driver 3 years ago while commuting to work. Parking motor vehicles is an intractable problem for cities. Workable cities around the world are finding that they need to move away from cars overcrowding their CBDs.

Key to the development of a Revitalised and Liveable city is drawing on the cities historical, geographic and intrinsic strengths and then combines that with expert local and international opinion. There needs to be an evidence base and cost benefit analysis for any mooted plan.

Newcastle has an unfortunate history of divisive politics and a plethora of ‘opinions’ that are anything but expert. The Revitalise Concept plans seem to be 4 variations of a theme which appear not to be embedded in a larger concept plan for the city. There is a real danger that millions of dollars will be spent for a limited benefit. Critical to a workable city is its transport plan. This needs to encompass all the modes of transport available now as well as the likely ways in which transport is likely to change over at least the next 50 years. Melbourne is a great example of a city that has won repeated international awards for its liveability. The backbone of this success has been its multimodal transport systems that allow the population not only to efficiently move around the city but also access the cities resources. http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/melbourne‐named‐worlds‐most‐liveable‐city‐for‐fifth‐year‐ running‐20150818‐gj1he8.html

Newcastle has considerable advantages over Melbourne, its climate, beaches and hinterland just to name a few. Forging a functioning and liveable city here with rational but visionary planning is before us with a once in a lifetime fund to develop workable infrastructure now and into the future.

The integrated planning of road, rail, trams, cycle ways and walkways are vital for not only commuting but recreation and tourism. It’s not just Melbourne but Brisbane and Perth have been making great advances in improving the functioning of the city by vastly upgrading its multimodal transport systems. It is not just Australia but the international trend in North America, Europe and the rest of the world is seeing the limitations of expensive road based systems and putting an emphasis on public transport, separated cycle ways and walkability of the city.

With a transport plan then the development of build structures and green spaces can be considered.

Historical Considerations:

Newcastle in the first half of the 20th Century had an extensive tram network and there were many more pushbikes on the road than cars. The dominance of the private motor vehicle and the degradation of public transport systems have harmed cities immeasurably. Successful revitalisation of cities such as London and New York has seen this trend reverse. There are plans that have been mothballed for Newcastle done with considerable expertise and expense that need to be reconsidered.

The Woodville Junction Light Rail would actually give a meaningful length of light rail infrastructure and adequate land for an integrated transport exchange. It would also eliminate the Beaumont St level crossing and would lend itself to future light rail expansions. http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2740823/opinion‐what‐happened‐to‐light‐rail‐proposal‐1/

The internationally acclaimed architect and urban designer Hans Gehl was contracted by Newcastle City Council do design a separated cycleway for Hunter St. http://newcastlecycleways.org.au/archives/tag/hunter‐street

Cities around the work are embracing Gehl’s ideas and their cities are thriving.

Currently:

The cutting of the heavy rail into Newcastle without its replacement being at an advance planning stage continues to harm the businesses in the CBD. A replacement transport plan is urgently needed but one that forms part of an integrated citywide solution.

The Future:

Infrastructure like the proposed light rail will be in Newcastle well in excess of 50 years unless it proves to be unworkable and uneconomic in which there will be a huge waste of public money. Running the light rail down the existing corridor would fully fund a workable safe separated citywide cycleway system for Newcastle and its suburbs. This would service thousands of trips per day including a large proportion of children who could use the system for school commuting and access to the city and the beaches. This highlights the need to do a cost benefit analysis of any proposed money spend. There are also health considerations, not only the obesity epidemic but environmental impacts. Any plans must include consideration of the changing needs and projected shifts in transport and urban use over the coming decades. This vision is informed by the successes of other cities but also the utilisation of Newcastle’s natural advantages.

Dr Ken Lambert

I would urge you to consider the magnificent features of our wonderful Newcastle. Do NOT do what happened when there was supposably public consultation for the development of Honeysuckle. Have a good look at the original plan with a lovely tiered design from foreshore to manageable heights in accompaniment with the older Newcastle design. To what a disgrace we are lumped with now. *Leave the essential rail corridor for light rail. allow people to move freely across this to the harbour. Put in a dropped walkway( check out Forster's timber stepped boardwalk) on the promenade in certain areas to allow greater access to the water. This will also allow more boat access as well. Please review the map of Newcastle 1992 to the map of Newcastle now. Give back to the public. Not developers, I reference the Crown Plaza land grab. Thanks for the opportunity.

Lesley Lane

I am writing because I am very concerned that the heavy rail be allowed to continue to operate right through to Newcastle Station. Poll after poll has shown that the majority of the people of Newcastle are in favour of keeping the heavy rail. The premier said that the last election should be seen as a further poll on the wishes of Newcastle people regarding keeping the rail line. Eight Liberal members in the Hunter lost their seats in that election ‐ surely a pretty clear outcome but still the premier persists. We ought to remember that the Liberal member for Newcastle lost his position before the election because he took a bribe from a pro‐development mayor who wanted the rail line ripped up.

If light rail runs down the heavy rail corridor it will be an enormous expense and also inconvenience for many travelers wishing to travel to the end of the line as they always used to do ‐ before this current state government went against the spirit of the court ruling denying them the right to rip up the rail line. The fact that the line was effectively closed by the state government when they had no right to rip up the line shows a bloody minded determination to go ahead with their own wishes no matter what. The rail line could have been left running these last six months and saved a lot of money and a lot of inconvenience to the people of Newcastle whilst we awaited the results of the government's appeal against the court ruling. We now have buses taking up parking space that used to be available for cars and we have road congestion at Hamilton railway that never used to be there before the bus trains were started to replace the actual trains. Parking in the inner city of Newcastle is now more difficult as more people discover the poor service now available by public transport.

The inner city of Newcastle is a peninsular and has two main roads heading through the business district. If light rail is sent down one of these it can only result in further traffic congestion.

There are ways of opening up the city whilst retaining the heavy rail.

Lets have some common sense here are stop this senseless plan to go against global trends in ripping out the heavy rail.

Catherine Laudine. I am a resident of Newcastle East and am passionate about the future of the city I call home. I am a regular user of the train, especially the train to Sydney and am very sad and angry about the train services no longer running from Newcastle Station. It makes perfect sense to put the proposed light rail on the existing rail corridor and continue to use the existing stations. The $100 million that would be saved by doing this could be spent in so many ways that would benefit the city, for example, repair and rejuvinate existing derelict buildings and Hunter Street, especially the old Post Office, increase funding for education and health, improve the safety for bikes and more bike paths, incentives to encourage industry and people to the city.

It seems like a blatant waste of money to spend $100 million to create a new rail corridor when there is one already there. The residents of the city don't want it and Urban Growth need to start listening. The future growth of Newcastle can be acheived without ripping out the old and replacing it with new, the future of Newcastle depends on encouraging industry, business and people to the city to make the economy grow. This will not be acheived by building a new light rail and developing the land where the old rail stands.

Rebecca Lawrence. Re the revitalisation of Newcastle. I am excited by the overall aim of the program but suggest: 1) The rail link to Sydney be restored as more residents and workers will need this. When the new university complex (planning based on Civic Station) brings c. 5000 students and the new law court (virtually no parking) brings its considerable population into the city we will see utter chaos with parking and gridlock. Already, since the cutting of the rail, the increased car volume has seen the beginning of these problems in my area. 1) If the heavy rail is not to be restored (legal reasons might mean it is!) the light rail must run along the corridor and in time could also expanded to other areas that would connect the suburbs and the city. This helps solve the issues I outlined in point 1). The cost and disruption of running light rail along Hunter Street has been noted by every transport expert, committee and company that has assessed its viability. Surely using the existing corridor would impact favourably on both money and time aspects of the project? Why should public money be spent to enhance private profit? 2) If this is disregarded ‐ no high‐rise development along corridor. Public park, low‐rise public facilities only. The historic station to be restored. The corridor must remain in public ownership. Even parking in some sections of it would help relieve the biggest problem the city faces in the near future 3) High‐rise is limited in the historic area above Darby Street that includes the foreshore, East End, and all the area of The Hill round to Shepherds's Hill. If any are approved, they should not exceed 8 stories and should complement heritage buildings and disrupt our historic sky‐line as little as possible. Shadowing and scale issues have to be considered. Higher limits apply in the in the west end but really I think this kind of development belongs further out, against the escarpments following our natural topography. In this way (like at a rock concert where the people at the front sit down) all would share an unimpeded view and the property developers could make their profits multiple times! 4) The Revitalise Newcastle Community Engagement Program must include the older Newcastle East End Project and the original LEP 2012 that had really good support from all sections of the community should be restored and used as the basis of all development made in our beautiful, internationally recognised city.

Kath Leahy. My Revitalising Newcastle ideas Urban Growth Submission – 2015

By Geoffrey Lee (pictures for indicative purposes only) Better Use of existing open areas

Where can people actually DO something

. Rowlands park, the Junction? . Empire park, Bar Beach? . Nesca park, Cooks Hill? Better Use of existing open areas –get a main square people watching!

Where can people relax and be with the community

. Re‐design the Junction? . Bulldoze Civic Station? . Revamp Pacific park? Better Use of existing facilities Eg) Moololaba and Burleigh Heads surf clubs in QLD

Where people can relax with a water view anytime they like

. Cooks Hill Surf club –full time facility . Dixon park surf club –full time facility . King Edward Park –new facility Better Use of great places –pop up cafes and new venues

Where people can relax with a water view anytime they like

. Lake Macquarie ‐ anywhere . Dyke Point ‐ Honeysuckle . Throsby Creek, Carrington or Islington Family friendly locations –water activities

Eg) Airlie Beach or South Bank – shallow and little kid and all age friendly

. Nobbys foreshore . New Lambton super acquatic park . Carrington foreshore Family friendly activities

Eg StKilda park South Austraia

. King Edward park, Newcastle (especially for the slides) . Smith Park, Broadmeadow . Braye park, Waratah Some General Comments . Combine Lake Macquarie and Newcastle –its one region –everyone goes to Blackbutt, Charlestown, Kotara and Honeysuckle . Build some playgrounds with some fences, shade and a café . Use some of our existing open areas for activities –more bar beach wall ball, skate bow etc and add some other things for people to try or watch . Get a better sporting plan for Broadmeadow – like Albert Lake in Melb • District park is good but tired • Broadmeadow basketball stadium is the shame of the state and is packed every week • Get some bike networks where you don’t have to ride on the road –kid friendly and not dangerous My vision for the revitalisation involves replacing the heavy rail to original area, making a more user friendly timetable for traffic, beautifying the area surrounding the rail line and doing more highrise development in the western end of town, the eastern end should be more user friendly for the resident ande tourist trad that exists there. The rail buildings should be given a facelift and gardens, street art etc included.

Maureen Lindus. SE 29 – Joy Llewellyn-Smith

Newcastle Rail proposals

In lieu of the most logical and efficient option of leaving the heavy rail in use ;

1 Any replacement should use the heavy rail corridor so allowing the heavy rail it to be reinstated if and when it is deemed necessary.

2 Any replacement rail should be made in conjunction with a city wide rail plan that gives Newcastle a dual track ring rail with counter running rail cars.

3 The ring rail should attempt to include the hospitals the university campuses the air port and other major centers.

4 Rather than the rather inadequate transfer station at Wickham a proper transport interchange be constructed at the rail junction west of Hamilton station.

5 This proposal would benefit Newcastle by reusing contaminated land owned I believe by Shell oil Co. allowing easy connections to the highway and area for parking cars buses and rail cars.

6 Being a long term project rather than a quick fix it would have the advantages of providing ongoing employment of planning and construction personnel. And could be done by either public of private management.

7 The heavy rail corridor if not utilized at this time should have any buildings restricted in construction type and material so they can be easily removed in the future.

8 An alternative if an area plan cannot be formed at this time would be to run the rail down the heavy rail corridor and back up hunter street with any developments on the corridor to include a station area for the “light rail”.

Thank you for considering my input

A Lloyd BE (Civil. Eng.) Ret.

I am definitely NOT in favor of any plan to use Hunter or Scott Sts as a transport corridor.This will not revitalize Newcastle but the works phase will deliver a "coup de grace" to all the new innovative businesses which have been mentored.Lately I have been in conversation with many people already affected by the need to transfer at the railhead.Several of those were disabled and/ or wheel chair dependent.

One train load of people does not fit on one tram set,or bus either.This necessitates folk waiting around in your draughty looking terminal.That is the last thing anybody wants to do having flown into Sydney at dawn and arrive in our beautiful city with heavy luggage. I have this year traveled to Auckland, Vancouver, Winnepeg, Montreal, Toronto, London, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Birmingham, Athens and Johannesburg.I have not had to take a transfer from airport to CBD in any of these cities as there is a frequent direct service.Why should we have to relinquish the possiblity of such benefits?I am informed that an international hostel and 2 large hotels have already closed in the East end since Newcastle rail service has been snatched away from us.Additionally I have grandchildren and friends in the lower Hunter who cannot reach the beach or theater conveniently now. My GP is at 59 Hunter St and due to NCCs savage parking regs I would park and ride from Cockle Creek to the city but can no longer do that! Why are bureaucrats being allowed to control what works for Novocastrians.Last year I expressed most of these views to Ms Berejiklian who replied in a dismissisive manner.Please listen to our opinions and/or consider some other alternatives to keep our CityRail services or you are wiping us off the Map? You can put the track over or under to clear access or you can build commercial or residential premises overtop.You have no legal license to take our rail away especially with new courthouse,uni campus and future police center having no nearby station.If the rail were cut at Strathfield there would be a huge outcry so what makes us any less deserving of convenience. Oh,and by the way no high rise on the waterfront please, do consider the canyon effect!

Angela Longworth.

I have four major points . One, The rail corridor should not be developed. If we do end up with light rail this is the most appropriate way for it to operate. If we don't end up with light rail , then the corridor should be open and with lawn and trees and seating at various locations. You just need to see the families with bikes etc ride around from Elizabeth street along the foreshore etc. The green corridor would enhance this experience and provide a safe environment to do so. Also the green area would compliment the foreshore greatly as it extends East towards Nobbys .

(2) We need to restrict the building height east of Stewart Avenue. The proposed high rise by GPT will not compliment the Newcastle city one bit and to me looks like GPT trying to maximise their investment which has turned South on them. The skyline of the city is dominated by the cathedral and should remain so. If Newcastle wants or needs extreme high rise then this should be west of National Park street and in the Newcastle West area.

(3) Stopping the heavy rail at Wickham as disadvantaged the Stockton and Bay residents. No thought has been given to them. I suggest that a ferry wharf be constructed at the Wickham basin area and therefore the Stockton and northern residents can still have the ferry meet up with the rail connection as before. This is simple and shouldn't be too hard to do. The ferry then has a loop from Stockton to Queens Wharf to Wickham or vice versa. And additional thought could be to have a ferry terminal under or close to the Stockton bridge. This would have a large car parking area and service the commuters from Fern Bay and north.

(4) The transport interchange is intended to be at Wickham. Practically there is just no room at all for this to be functional for all modes of transport. It is a short term solution or cheap solution from the government. I suggest the interchange be moved further west about 500m to the part just south east of Passmore oval and use that unfenced park to develop a proper interchange. There is a lot of space without building so this would allow for a fresh start to build car parking, taxi and bus bays and appropriate buildings that are needed to support a full transport interchange, This would eliminate the need to purchase the Store building, it would also move the interchange away from the Stewart Avenue area which is going to be a hazard under the current proposal. Trains are already stopping at the side of this park .I would also move Hamilton Rail station to this area as well to be part of the interchange ( a move of 500m east at most). To me this makes sense as it can be planned without buildings and roads to be taken into consideration , we have a clean site to work with and not far from the intended location.

Scott Lucas. Concerning the rail corridor and the submission to run light rail down Hunter street.

I submit that both these submissions be revisited and the option of light rail, if heavy rail is to end , be continued down the existing corridor. A single line commencing from Wickham upon the termination of heavy rail at this station to the existing station at the top end of the cbd.

Room for development of a terminal at Wickham is already in place and plans drawn up. a single line down this corridor has less impact on the Hunter Street shopping and businesses district and access to the foreshore can be made at the existing points already put in.. over head or underground drives and walks would be possible at these points.

The impact of the rail as far as I am aware has been on the boards from the early 2000's how long before this I do not know but after all this time surely someone has had the foresight to realise that removing rail completely tearing up the main street to place a light rail access here would not be of benefit in the long haul..

Parking issues dog the inner city and unfortunately not everyone can have access to rail and must use vehicles to access the city.. developments have gone ahead and are of benefit but development brings residents, residents bring vehicles and more thought access by these residents and the parking of their vehicles should have been more considered and brought into the equation as the inner city develops and as the development continues into the connecting suburbs parking is also being compromised in these areas and overpopulation restricting access to home owners and residents.

The space left for development of the corridor after light rail is placed can easily be developed to supply more inner city parking, and future building development still obtainable incorporating this. ... This kind of system is in place in other cities throughout the world and I cannot see why a talented and creative architect cannot develop around an existing light rail in this corridor. It is there .

It would be cheaper by far to place a light rail in this corridor. future development Can be designed to allow for it. Placing a light rail down Hunter street raises many WH&S issues and future safety issues. As well as the financial impact on business owners during the construction would be negative and problems will arise for residents as well .

Implementation and development including parking areas for business here would be of great benefit to residents and business owners as well. The public transport aspect for Maitland and Sydney daily commuters and can be retained for their access and incorporated into new buildings built around the corridor .

In the mean time Hunter street and the inner city suburbs of the cbd can be more historically friendly in its redevelopment and revitalisation and the feeling of the old Newcastle that we grew up to love and respect may just be able to be found once again and a newer more vibrant Newcastle re established.

In the mean time we could also look at the problems that our poor drainage system is causing , the damage caused by its inability to cope with heavy down poors and the flooding that occurs. It's widely known that after being looked at the old drains would cost more than we can obtain to fix so why not adapt to the situation and build with the intent to allow a way to ease the problem and place drainage to the harbour from the streets in the form of a few channels to allow the run off of water in extreme weather situations. Ragards and good luck but we don't need trams down hunter street and we do need more friendly development in the city for all to enjoy this wonderful place and bring back a little of its former character.

Ian MacKenzie.

Submission to Revitalising Newcastle 2015

Macquarie University and University of Newcastle

Submission to the 2015 Revitalising Newcastle Community Consultation

As a team of researchers from Macquarie University and the University of Newcastle we welcome the opportunity to make a submission to the Revitalising Newcastle consultation process (August— September 2015).

Our team consists of Dr Kristian Ruming (Department of Geography and Planning, Macquarie University), Dr Kathy Mee, Professor Pauline McGuirk (Discipline of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Newcastle), and Dr Jill Sweeney (Department of Geography and Planning, Macquarie University, and Discipline of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Newcastle). Since 2013 we have been engaged in an Australian Research Council‐‐funded study of urban regeneration and renewal in the Newcastle region. We have investigated the ways in which the Newcastle region is being regenerated through the formal and informal practices of households, organisations, businesses and governments. We have also sought to learn more about how residents view urban regeneration as it is currently being undertaken in Newcastle.

As part of this we conducted a survey of households through which we gathered a sample of 200 residents in inner Newcastle and, drawing from this group, conducted a further 34 in‐depth resident interviews. We also conducted interviews with key informants from government, business and community groups, and have attended a suite of consultation and discussion sessions about regeneration. The following submission highlights the issues and concerns that have been identified as being most important to our residents.

Key Points:

 Newcastle residents are proud of their city and desire revitalisation which is place‐ appropriate, and which serves to increase the liveability, accessibility, inclusiveness and amenity of their home.  Residents want revitalisation to clearly respect and reflect the work, heritage and identity of Novocastrians, which they see as integral to making Newcastle an increasingly vibrant and valued place.  Residents particularly want to be able to see the big picture of revitalisation plans, and to be involved in consultation processes beyond generalised visioning stages so that detailed plans may be adjusted to suit the people who will use the services and live with the changes.  Some residents are fearful of losing Newcastle’s character and identity in large‐scale changes that do not adequately account for heritage, diversity and sustainability.

Type and scale of revitalisation

Revitalisation is not the sole province of governments and developers, nor is it confined to large‐ scale redevelopment. The residents we spoke with highlighted that regeneration is a process already underway in Newcastle, largely due to the efforts of local people. This is a process they value highly. Residents described the vitality and energy they have seen developing in the city in the last few years, and appreciated the fact that Novocastrians were driving those changes with the introduction of unique shops, cafés, small bars and creative endeavours. Small‐scale efforts and experimentation in particular have proven to be popular among our surveyed residents, who praised organisations such as Renew Newcastle and events such as the annual Hit the Bricks festival. As such, there is strong concern that large‐scale development processes may disrupt the vitality and organic growth which residents feel so positively about.

This does not mean they are opposed to large‐scale change or to development in general. Rather, it is the type and nature of the change that determines their level of support. Importantly, the residents we spoke with expressed a strong desire to see well‐planned development that was sympathetic to, and that worked with, existing forms of revitalisation.

Transport

Transport planning in the city is seen as particularly problematic, especially with regards to revitalisation planning. There is general agreement that regeneration plans have overlooked the crucial and integrated role of transport in the city, and the way individual forms of transport and regeneration will work together as plans are realised.

There are concerns, for example, that existing plans have not taken into account the likelihood of greatly increased traffic density and parking difficulties caused by new residential and commercial buildings and new attractions. Many of our surveyed residents pointed out existing congestion concerns regarding Stewart Avenue (near to the proposed Wickham Interchange), and Hunter Street, which they expect to worsen with the addition of light rail.

The light rail plans were seen to offer some positives, yet many said in its current form it would not be enough to be a genuinely useful curb to traffic congestion. According to residents, efor th light rail to be a worthwhile undertaking it needed to offer transportation beyond Hunter Street to surrounding areas and suburbs. They suggested that having to take the light rail along Hunter Street and then find alternative transport to go to other parts of inner Newcastle will mean many residents will simply elect to drive their cars into the city instead. It is worth noting that buses are not favoured or well‐patronised as a means of transport in these areas.

In addition to these concerns, we found some significant anxiety over the potential disruption to regional connections, including the greater Newcastle area to southern and western Lake Macquarie, Maitland and Cessnock. Although regeneration plans are focused on inner Newcastle, these connections are vitally important, as a majority of Novocastrians live outside of inner Newcastle and travel in for work, study and most of all, recreation.

Residents would like to see greater provision for active transport, such as cycling and walking, allowing people multiple ways of moving around the city. Connected cycleways and accessible walking pathways throughout the city have been repeatedly identified by residents as being important to enhancing Newcastle’s liveability. Importantly, they wish to see these elements

included as part of a broader and integrated transport plan for the city that informs and indeed is directly incorporated into any revitalisation plans.

Consultation and Public Information

Much has been said about the perceived inadequacy of community consultation measures in Newcastle to date such that it may come as no surprise that many of our interviewees expressed misgivings about consultation processes. Yet we found two particular aspects of consultation about which residents are concerned.

Firstly, that residents feel they tend to be consulted only on individual matters, such as the light rail route or plans for the rail corridor, without their ideas and experiences being sought on how the multiple elements of regeneration might fit together. Residents want to be consulted about the broader vision for their city,d an not just the individual pieces.

Secondly, they also want to be involved beyond the visioning stage. The people we spoke with were often concerned that they had not been consulted about the details of planned projects and thus were only able to offer generalised responses to images and suggestions. As we have found over almost three years of research, the details of plans and projects are extremely important to Newcastle residents, as it is these which will impact them directly in their everyday lives. Knowing, for example, if the light rail carriages will fit strollers and surfboards, and what bus connections will be available at changeover points determines whether or not the service will be useable by the people who live here. Thus residents felt strongly that only being consulted on general visions meant consultation processes represented an unsatisfying and superficial engagement.

Very much in concert with these concerns, we found people were feeling frustrated with the manner in which decisions and proposals were announced. It was felt that information was shared with the public in the manner of ‘drip feeding’ which made it difficult for residents to gain an overall picture. Arguably this approach to informing and engaging the public directly contributes to prevailing feelings of distrust and disappointment with the process of regeneration in Newcastle.

Planning Processes

The lack of trust that many residents feel has been exacerbated by the 2014 ICAC investigation and subsequent Upper House parliamentary inquiry. This lack of trust flourished particularly in response to the changes made to the 2012 Newcastle Urban Renewal Strategy (NURS), itself the product of lengthy consultation and community engagement. Of greatest concern are the spot rezonings allowing larger height limits in the East and West Ends on particular sites. We found that for residents, this is both a case of inequity and a cause for doubt, raising questions about the fairness and transparency of planning processes, and whether or not regeneration plans are actually in Newcastle’s best interests.

Heritage

Our research has revealed the crucial importance of heritage to Novocastrians. This was perhaps most obvious with the community’s generally negative response to the proposal to construct towers

in the East End, an area residents know as the historic quarter of the city. However it was also a frequently discussed topic in our interviews. Reflecting on regeneration plans for Newcastle, residents were frustrated by what they saw as a lack of understanding of the importance of historic landscapes eand th heritage of the city.

Heritage, as our residents understand it, is not confined to individual old buildings or facades. For them, heritage encompasses the broader historic fabric of the city, and the knowledge and sense of history which people attach to that landscape. It is also significantly implicated in producing the sense of identity and community that is so valued by Novocastrians.

Regeneration plans which have sought to substantially redevelop an area with new buildings, landscaping and uses, were seen to disregard and even threaten the heritage of the area. This was particularly the case when residents were confronted with glossy images remaking sites that are to them well‐known and cherished.

The people of Newcastle love their city. It is a city with a long and richly‐textured history and, being a small town that has grown slowly and steadily in relative obscurity, the people here have been able to forge a strong sense of identity and place attachment. Residents thus have very clear views on what the city is and what it should be – indeed, their attachment to Newcastle colours how they see the past and present, and affects how they envision Newcastle’s future. Heritage is thus a vitally important component of any revitalisation efforts, one which our residents wish to see reflected in plans and consultations.

Green Space and Sustainability

We have discovered that residents have a range of ideas for open and recreational spaces within the city, but there was great support for green spaces. They value and enjoy the existing green spaces and were very clear about wanting these to be retained during any regeneration process. They would also like to see green space expanded within inner Newcastle. Specifically, they are hoping for additional well‐designed green spaces that are more than simply a swathe of grass. The residents we interviewed were excited about opportunities for creating high‐quality, appealing and useable open green space within different parts of the city.

It was also felt by residents that more green space, street trees and community gardens would increase the sustainability of inner Newcastle. In fact, sustainability was identified as an important element of Newcastle’s future, particularly given that the city lies on a low‐lying peninsula likely to be affected by sea‐level rise. This includes a desire to see the inner city shift away from cars to more sustainable methods of transport. However many residents believed that sustainability has not been appropriately incorporated into regeneration plans, undermining those plans’ perceived ability to sustain Newcastle into the long‐term.

Indigenous City

It remains to highlight one further aspect of Newcastle which appears to have been overlooked in plans for the city’s future. There has been little to no overt recognition that Newcastle remains Indigenous Country, home to the Awabakal and Worimi peoples who have a living culture and a long‐standing connection to these lands. Regeneration plans which fail to consider and consult on

this aspect of the city not only ignore an important part of the local community but also implicitly participate in the continued dispossession and marginalisation of Indigenous Australians.

Conclusion

The residents we have spoken with hold diverse views regarding transportation and development, but share a common concern about the planning and consultation processes of recent years. They have expressed a desire for greater transparency and equity in the planning process. They also feel they have been consulted on a range of vague and isolated plans without being asked to engage with the broader vision for the city, or provide feedback on the specific details which will determine the usefulness of regeneration plans to the population.

Several aspects of Newcastle which residents feel are of special significance in the life of the city, such as its heritage, sustainability, and recognition of the local, organic revitalisation currently underway, are seen to be missing from regeneration plans and consultations. Residents also feel frustrated by and uncertain about the lack of big‐picture planning that builds on a cohesive, integrated and innovative vision for the future of the city.

In sum, the time we have spent engaging with residents throughout our project has shown that people in Newcastle sincerely wish for planners and governments to recognise the unique nature of the city, and to demonstrate greater recognition that residents have experience and knowledge which should inform all revitalisation plans and guide future decisions.

Dr Kristian Ruming Department of Geography and Planning, Macquarie University

Dr Kathy Mee Deputy Director, Centre for Urban and Regional Studies Discipline of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Newcastle

Prof Pauline McGuirk Director, Centre for Urban and Regional Studies Discipline of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Newcastle

Dr Jill Sweeney Department of Geography and Planning, Macquarie University Discipline of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Newcastle

CONTACT For further information please contact: Dr Kathy Mee T: (02) 4921 6451 E: [email protected]

I favour Proposal 4 Harbour Entertainment City . This will give a proper use of the railway station as an integral part of the top end of Newcsatle CBD and the fact this it also highlight produce and transport for this region is appropriate.

Gregory Markham. HI there, I'm an Architect who's quite interested in the larger public domain as well. Wondering if there's an opportunity to utilise the existing rail infrastructure for light rail? I'm passionate about community parks and breaking up the corridor for more playground and involvement, and still think this is achievable along some parts. Worried about future congestion along Hunter St. Having relocated from Sydney and seeing the city's congestion, I'm wondering what the future of Hunter Street wil look like if we introduce the light rail there instead of the corridor that we already have in place? Considerations are: How much width of Hunter St will be chewed up with light rail infrastructure? What is the population predicted in 50 years time? How will population growth affect traffic along Hunter St? Sydney CBD is chaotic at the best of time ‐ avoid similar mistakes.

Thank you for your time,

Carmen Masry

Why have light rail at all. Why not adopt the transit buses that Perth city has. The system works perfectly. Each route has different colour system so you never get on the wrong bus. This system would work and the roads don't need to be dug up to lay tracks and if for some future government decides it doesn't work they can stop it and there will be no tracks to pull up. As This system uses existing roads there would be next to no traffic and pedestrian problems crossing the rail lines.

James McCarter. Evening,

I attended the community session held yesterday filled with a mild level of hope and a mid level of expectation of an enjoyable day ahead to engage in some fruitful and engaging conversation of the future development of Newcastle's CBD, Civic and West End precincts. However,it was not that and therefore I am compelled to write and provide comment and feedback on the day's activities and how it was conducted. The experience was less than inspiring and in my view a very big bit futile.

Any discussion on the revitalisation of Newcastle CBD, Civic and West End areas MUST be an inclusive all encompassing discussion focussed on all the elements of the revitalisation plan, including transport options. To try and have a discussion without presenting the transport items is bizarre and immediately places a large amount of suspicion and doubt about the genuineness of the process. I could not help but think that this was purely an exercise in futility, but one that allows the NSW government to tick the box and say that community consultation was conducted and all was good in the community. Well, sorry but it is not!

The day started very badly with the introduction delivered by Marcia Dwonczyk. Her blunt announcement of no discussion on rail, or transport in general, put many members of the community off side and reduced the level of enthusiasm and commitment of many in the room, and certainly mine. Indeed her opening remarks were at minimum very rude and disrespectful of the community members who had given up their day to come and be part of the engagement process, an engagement process that following these comments was painfully clear was not engagement at all but simply a smokescreen hiding under the badge of engagement! She had the luxury of being paid for the day (though should not have been following that disgraceful demonstration of disdain for and disregard of the community).

I fully understand that the Transport decisions are made by that Agency but for consultants to come to the community seeking their engagement and ideas without any knowledge of what the transport arrangements will be for future Newcastle was absolutely ludicrous. How can people confidently comment on new spaces and development of the city of Newcastle without this vital information? How are we to understand the true value and possible success or otherwise of any development proposal if it is unclear how mass numbers of people can access that space or development in a Newcastle minus the heavy rail transport and already congested for parking spaces on weekends? This is especially so given the highly circulating rumour of the removal of buses from the CBD and Civic regions and truncating those services back to the West End.

I asked this question of my tour group at Newcastle Station only to be told that this was a rumour that UrbanGrowth had not heard and was not part of any planning they had undertaken or worked up. This turned out to be a blatant lie, and something that later made the consultants stunned and lost for words when confronted with new contradictory information. The concept idea plans presented later that afternoon showed removal of the Newcastle Station bus layover to accommodate new green space or markets and a new layover facility on the rail corridor between Merewether and Argyle Streets in the Civic area. The layover appeared on both the Harbour Entertainment and Harbour Play diagrams, options 3 and 4. UrbanGrowth's Michael Cassel could not explain it satisfactorily when confronted, only to say it was an idea only. Lame and untrue! He was clearly caught off guard and unprepared.

And finally, the day revolved around the same topics and presentation of information that was surveyed of community members recently, a survey that I had completed for Revitalising Newcastle some 4-6 weeks earlier. How was that information not collated and presented on the day for the communities benefit and taking to the next level or step forward? What has this group (UrbanGrowth) been doing in that timeframe and spending our tax payers dollars on?

I am sorry but any faith in the process was absolutely destroyed on Saturday and I left absolutely despondent! Very disappointing.

PS - congratulations Lord Mayor for opening the session and Councillor Posniak for attending Saturday. I participated Nuatali as you requested, but it was all just a big waste of my time and commitment when there was absolutely no detail on how it is all expected to fit together and when any attempt to discuss the vital missing links and information are stymied and treated with disdain by the leaders of the project. This is not democracy and a community consultation process at work it is a dictatorship at best! Do it my way (well not mine but theirs) or no way at all - that was the only clear message to come across all day!

Terry McCauley

SE 44 – Stephen McEvoy

As text below and word attachment

PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL PUBLIC SUBMISSION TO REVITALISING NEWCASTLE URBANGROWTH (NSW)

(Newcastle Urban Transformation and Transport Program)

The following is a submission to UrbanGrowth NSW and the NSW public for consideration. This submission is made in accord with the Terms and Conditions published and in acceptance of the Privacy Statement including acceptance of Newcastle City Council's resolution to require public availability of submissions.

The submission is made as a private individual, unaffiliated. My details as required being;

Name: Mr Stephen R McEvoy

Address:

Contact Details:

1. PREAMBLE

I Stephen McEvoy submit to the review that the Newcastle Urban Transformation and Transport Program (the Program) is both unacceptable in its current form and not in the interests or benefit of the Newcastle and broader NSW community.

Firstly, the 4 options provided for discussion (1-4) incorporate truncation of the heavy rail line at Wickham (i) and routing of a light rail conveyance partially down the heavy rail corridor and partially down the automotive carriageway of Hunter / Scott Streets (ii). It does not provide any ‘permissible’ option to these two incorporations despite being a) notified as, in part a 'Transport Program' and b) unsubstantiated legality of (i) and absence of legislative capacity of the current government to perform such a truncation (i).

Having been a willing participant in the 12 September Community Forum at Harbourside, I became acutely aware of how directed and un-consultative this process, run by UrbanGrowth, is given the nature and requirements of true consultation. Please see the end of this document for a court definition of consultation. This Paragraph does pertain to my submission and the Newcastle Urban Transformation and Transport Program and must be included.

Regardless of the above, I offer the following review of UrbanGrowth Options 1-4 and opinion of an alternate option (SRM) that I would support and which would be in the Public Interest.

2. Assessment of UrbanGrowth Options

2.1 Option 1: Of the four options offered for engagement this is the least irresponsible as predominantly the existing rail corridor is ‘developed’ as ‘public green space’. However, it is deficient and unsupported by me as

i) It does not provide any transport interchange detail at the Eastern terminus of the light rail and, ii) does not provide any detail of parking / cycle storage or amenity at the said terminus or Wickham interchange which would clearly be required if light rail / heavy rail are to be considered part of a Transport Program from the Newcastle Precinct.

2.2 Options 2-4: I reject these options out of hand. These three options exacerbate the objections that I have to Option 1 and further add problems of loss of amenity and overdevelopment that are clearly in conflict to one of UrbanGrowth’s 5 Revitalising Newcastle Objectives, specifically ‘Connecting the City to its Waterfront’. This significant objective, which I DO strongly support, is not just about standing on the middle of a street, for example Perkins St, and seeing a glimpse of the harbour; it Is about opening the city to it’s harbour and ensuring that Newcastle’s unique and treasured ‘terrace’ from the waterfront to the Cathedral and The Hill are emulated through the buildings that occupy Newcastle and East Newcastle. Imposition of buildings upon the rail corridor will forever destroy that continuum of natural / built topography and destroy the amenity for Newcastle’s significant population living south of the rail corridor. It would, in my opinion, mirror the travesty that is Honeysuckle

2.3 Option SRM : My preferred Newcastle Revitalisation

2.3.1 Background: Newcastle CBD, in spite of successive planning instrument failures by previous State and Local Governments, is undergoing and has undergone some ‘Renewal and Revitalisation’ in the 21st Century. Of particular note is the Hunter Street mall which is now considerably more vibrant thanks to the efforts of groups like Renew Newcastle and Newcastle Now which have fostered community and business development in the precinct with woefully inadequate government funding support. This has ensured, with NCC backing, that Newcastle CBD and East have remained the cultural and entertainment centre of Newcastle LGA and the most inviting part of Newcastle for families and responsible social activities. The most recent inclusion of better new restaurants and small bars as well as galleries and bespoke shops in the quarter is further enhancing the vibrancy for visitors and residents.

2.3.2 SRM Option: To enable more viable mass transfer of residents and commuters and tourists, it is critical that the NSW Government reinstate the heavy rail connection to Sydney, Maitland and the Upper Hunter areas like Dungog; without destroying the opportunity to open the City to its Harbour. To that end, I propose that the heavy rail be ‘undergrounded’ from West of Wickham Station to the current Newcastle Station. Undergrounding the heavy rail is both preferable and achievable and will result in much greater amenity for the city’s residents and visitors as well as meeting the objective to open the city to its harbour. I would further propose that a small proportion of the ground corridor not aligned to N-S facing streets would make appropriate parking available for commuters and CBD visitors; particularly between Auckland an Merewether streets and Crown and Perkins streets. Commuter Parking is available at, and about, most major Sydney rail stations; why not Newcastle?

Further, I would propose a new light rail system, if supported by the Newcastle constituency, should be a separate proposal routed in such a way as to enhance rather than replace existing transport infrastructure.

The current proposal; unsupported by residents, Transport NSW, State and Federal Members of Parliament for Newcastle, and the majority of Newcastle City Councilors, is clearly not endorsed as a viable strategy.

I see opportunities for light rail as an enhancement in the future through consultation; potentially being a route from NW Newcastle; e.g. Tighes Hill/ Mayfield /Industrial Drive to Wickham along Wharf road to on to Shortland Esplanade.

3. Appendices

I offer the additional and consider them consistent with the Community Engagement and Newcastle Urban Transformation and Transport Program.

3.1.1 Consultation:

"In relation to the concept of consultation I wish to make it clear that this involves more than a mere exchange of information. For consultation to be effective the participants must be contributing to the decision-making process not only in appearance, but in fact". Commissioner Smith, Melbourne, 12 March, 1991

3.1.2 Observation regarding impact of truncation on CBD parking

I am a regular, almost daily user of Newcastle East / Newcastle CBD

I have noted since the rail truncation that on street parking south of the rail corridor is far more difficult to obtain; both by day and evening. I propose that this is an impact of a combination of two significant factor caused by the removal of heavy rail services. i) The greater reliance of Inner Newcastle residents on private transport; it is apparent that more residents have acquired / rely on personal motor vehicles and hence evening parking in the precinct is more difficult. ii) a rejection of visitors and commuters of the rail / bus Hamilton / Newcastle ‘solution’ which has reduced the number of public transport users into Newcastle and increased those using private transport. UrbanGrowth’s Newcastle Urban Transformation and Transport Program does not address this issue and offers no indication for a solution to parking issues in Newcastle; a problem that will clearly be exacerbated by the CBD University of Newcastle Campus and new Law Courts.

END OF SUBMISSION

Sincerely,

Stephen R McEvoy

18 September, 2015

cc.

Opinion on Revitalisation Options Option 4 is the most attractive for the future of Newcastle except as its currently shown the option of installing a seamless transport link in the future is eliminated by buildings on the rail corridor. So unless the heavy rail is put into the buildings basements we should implement it without the buildings on the rail corridor. Items important for the revitalisation of Newcastle which are independent of buildings on the rail corridor are : • move the bus terminal to the Wickham interchange and revitalise the old Newcastle Station as a tourist hub (tourist information, pick up spot for tours, restaurants, etc). The open space created could feature water play park, sculptors, etc • Market street bridge should be removed and a ‘stairway to heaven' built linking the foreshore with the cathedral park (ie a wide pedestrian stairway so visually the cathedral and harbour are connected). This will become a main conduit for people to go to the mall and increase peoples usage of the cathedral park for people to enjoy the fantastic views. • Establish a view corridors at Perkins Street • at Civic the proposed connection between the harbour and civic park is great. This should include demolishing the old station building but maybe keeping the old foot bridge for its historic reasons.

Peter McGrath. I submit that the rail corridor should remain as a heavy rail corridor. The maintenance of public transport infrastructure to Newcastle's CBD is vital: the congestion of Sydney's CBD provides evidence of the need to keep existing public transport, rather than destroy it. At the very least, the heavy rail corridor should remain to Civic Station to service the very large, new justice precinct. An efficient train service that connects the Newcastle/Lake Macquarie district, Hunter Valley and the Central Coast to the new courthouses should be considered as part and parcel of 'access to justice'. Civic Station would also efficiently service the new University of Newcastle campus as well as existing civic services such as the Newcastle Council, Newcastle Art Gallery and Library. If the Newcastle Station is to be permanently closed (a decision I disagree with), the architecturally significant buildings should remain and be re‐visioned for creative, cultural and community pursuits. The Station could be a vibrant hub for locals and tourists, connecting the harbour foreshore with Hunter Street's coffee culture, bespoke ventures and retail businesses.

Carolyn McKay. SE 43 – David McPherson

Please accept the attached document as my submission about the Newcastle urban Transformation and Transport Program regards

David McPherson

My submission is that the following decisions should be taken: 1. Locate the new light rail within the existing rail corridor and adaptively re-use existing train stations as light rail stations. 2. Adopt the Greeenway Option subject to point 1 above.

Key Reasons for making this decision are: 1. Locating the light rail within the existing corridor will be logistically simple. More importantly it will cause the least traffic and economic impacts, and thus fewer impacts for local businesses, visitors and consumers, and local residents. It is disappointing that this option has not been put to the community for consideration. 2. Lengthy legal challenges are almost certain with the other options. As such this option would be achieved in the least amount of time, at the lowest cost and with the least risks/greatest certainty taking into account the complexity and costs of achieving planning approvals. 3. The win fall from the upfront capital revenue injection achieved by the lease of the Port asset must be wisely used to avoid waste through poor decisions and risky ventures by a government openly committed to its budget position. 4. The option proposed here would benefit visitors, existing businesses and existing residents whereas the other options proposed favour prospective residents to the detriment of visitors and existing businesses and residents. 5. Visitors will travel to experience a world class Greenway option, they will not travel to see mixed use development and residential buildings. Bordeaux’s greenway and light rail stretch between its harbour and CBD is a great example of what can be achieved simply. 6. There is a very limited amount of open space in the Civic and CBD area, but there are a substantial number of heritage and historic buildings in need of renovation. Surely we should be investing in renovating our original buildings instead of using our valuable open space for development. 7. I am strongly opposed to Option 4 Harbour Entertainment City as it leaves the least open space and achieves few outcomes for all.

Submission on Revitalising Newcastle [Type text] Page 1 of 2

Part 3 - Additional considerations against options other than what is proposed include: 1. Traffic problems and logistical nightmares currently being experienced as a result of the termination of trains will be further exacerbated, and for extensive periods, if the light rail is located in Scott Street and Hunter Street. Many existing businesses in the CBD and the Civic area will not survive the development period. 2. All of the proposals put in Options 2 and 3 can be achieved with the light rail being located in existing train corridor if effort and investment goes into revitalising existing buildings as has been the approach in most contemporary French cities that have light rail (like Bordeaux). Funding saved from pursuing unviable options could be reallocated to preservation and urban renewal as has been done with great success in the Hunter mall façade programs. Devolved renewal programs facilitated by funding allow the market to drive effort into the best areas. 3. There appears to be no delivery of bike or pedestrian paths, surely this is a major consideration for reducing traffic and increasing pedestrian access. 4. There appears to be no allowance for native gardens and passive recreation areas. 5. The most appropriate use of Newcastle Station would be as an open market if it is not used as a light rail station.

Yours sincerely

David McPherson

Submission on Revitalising Newcastle [Type text] Page 2 of 2

Hello I am a resident of East Maitland /Ashtonfield. I strongly object to the dismantling of the Newcastle Railway line. Every city I have been in has a railway station and a railway line to get there. Newcastle is a beautiful City and to abandon the railway line int the city is a mistake. To dismantle the line does not allow older residents and young people ie Surfboard riders etc to access the foreshore or the city with luggage or bicycles.The Railway is the only way to do it with the minimum of fuss buses or light rail wi9ll be a nightmare. It seems to me that the Council is trying to destroy the line for motives best known to them. I believe it is to sell off the land to Developers for Money. Do not kill Newcastle.

Thank You Sidney Milne Please restore the trains into Central Newcastle, it was much easier to catch another train without climbing stairs or crossing lines and roads it is close to go to Dr and shin cancer appointments and visit the local shops.

Dawn Moffitt. Transport corridor Light rail should run along existing rail corridor, rather than down Hunter and Scott Streets. The economic case for ripping up these streets cannot be justified. Furthermore, light rail on the rail corridor is safer for cyclists and pedestrians as compared with the unpredictable movement of buses and cars. Sydney’s light rail network is a better model running along the former Rozelle freight rail corridor leaving the existing roads unimpeded.

Consolidation of green space, cycleway, safe and easy access to both waterfront and city, will take full advantage of the existing underutilised railway line corridor infrastructure and contribute to the increased future sustainability of commuter and other transport usage in this part of the city if integrated well. The impact on the immediate environment, in terms of noise, air quality and safety is far less for light rail run on the old corridor, than on the busy streets.

The height of buildings in the heritage precinct (Newcastle East End) should be restricted to a maximum height of 24 metres (approximately 8 stories) as agreed to in the original LEP 2012, before the 2014 amendments were approved. Upholding the original LEP 2012 decision widely supported by the community, will help to future proof the East End against any future development excesses and where there are current and future economic benefits flowing from ‘branding’ of the East End heritage precinct, then these are likely to be protected.

Any development in this precinct should be required to work with the natural topography of the city and the scale of existing low‐rise buildings. The heritage precinct (East End) should be protected and nurtured for it’s history but also for sound economic reasons – why kill the goose that lays the golden egg? Heritage first is critical to the lifeblood of the culture of the East End and critical to business interests. There is the potential to leverage the heritage character of Newcastle even further. Newcastle has an organically growing culturally hip area with a big future. It has artists, artisans and small trendy businesses. Sensitive re‐use of old buildings’ alongside sympathetically designed new development will attract more people to invest in the local economy.

Final comment I cannot understand why the Revitalise Newcastle Community Engagement Program (important for planning Newcastle’s future) does not include GPT/UrbanGrowth’s Newcastle East End Project. Consultation should be built on ‘good faith’ encouraging trust, cooperation and fairness while demonstrating legitimate interest and intent for proper purpose. Omitting GPT/UrbanGrowth’s Newcastle East End Project from the Revitalise Newcastle Community Engagement Program will not serve to encourage the community to have trust or confidence in the processes of consultation.

Jacqueline Monti. The rail corridor should be retained for heavy rail. The heavy rail should resume running from Hamilton into Newcastle station with stops at Wickham and Civic. Plans to build an interchange at Wickham should be abandoned. Plans to introduce a light rail system should be abandoned in favour of a resumptionl of heavy rai into Newcastle.

Christopher Mooney. I submit that this was not a real consultation with the citizens of Newcastle. A great majority of people here want the rail restored but that was not allowed to be discussed. The results of the last state election are evidence that people wanted to retain the rail. A petition of over 11,000 signatures against cutting the rail was presented to parliament. There is no mandate to remove the rail. The matter is in front of the court at the moment. The farce of the Urban Growth 'consultation' is a travesty of the democratic process.

I came to Newcastle 26 years agod an within the first few months I went to a meeting at the Town Hall which was packed with about 2000 people.

The meeting was about protecting two things: 1) the rail service and 2) Newcastle's iconic skyline.

What a fantastic place I thought, great values!

It is essential that we stand together. If the rail line is cut, all the other constraints will go down like a house of cards.

We need to stand together and say that it is community and the live‐ability, beauty and heritage values that put Newcastle in the top ten of cities to visit according to Lonely Planet, or to live in according to those of us who live here.

We are for compatible development, not development that will ruin what we have.

It seems that people who live at a distance have more of a grasp of what Newcastle offers, those who travel in on the train from anywhere on the Sydney or Scone lines. Particularly in Maitland they see what they are about to lose.

You can come in from any of the many stations on those two long lines and go all the way to one of the best end‐stations in the world: beach, harbour and heritage buildings all within walking distance.

We need to think holistically if we are to keep all the best that is our city. It is not just Newcastle East, or just Civic and Newcastle stations, or King Edward Park, or The Art Gallery. It is actually the area between Broadmeadow Station and Newcastle Station that is the key at the moment. It is that bit that allows everyone on the Sydney line or the Scone line, or any of us who live here as well (particularly for the big events like New Years Eve ‐ how are the buses going to manage that night Gladys?) to bring their friends and have a wonderful day or night, or few days in a very special city.

Paula Morrow I would like to express my concern at the proposed light rail going down Hunter Street. This is a busy street and already has many modes of transport travelling along it as well as members of the public trying to cross the road at all hours of the day and night. Currently, there is parking available on either side of the road and this assists members of the public to access the businesses easily. If this parking is removed to allow the street to cope with another form of transport, this will deter people even further from patronising the businesses already in this precinct.

The current heavy rail corridor should be used for the light rail. It is an ideal corridor for such a service. This is a safer option for members of the public. If you want people to be attracted to visiting this area of Newcastle, do not put the light rail down Hunter Street as it is congested enough.

Frances Munt.