DOCSLIB.ORG

Safety Plan Glebe Community Complete Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Safety Plan Glebe Community Complete Report Glebe Community Safety Plan 2009–2012 May 2009 Policy Owner: Safe City Unit TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION 4 2.0 BACKGROUND 5 2.1 The Role of Local Government in Responding to Crime 5 2.2 Legislative and Policy Context 5 2.3 The Safe City Strategy 2007–2012 6 2.4 Interrelated Plans and Strategies 8 3.0 GLEBE PROFILE 9 3.1 History 10 3.2 Glebe Demographics 12 4.0 CRIME PROFILE 16 4.1 Introduction 16 4.2 Crime and Safety in Glebe 16 4.3 Assault 17 4.4 Robbery 21 4.5 Steal from Person 24 4.6 Steal from Motor Vehicle 26 4.7 Malicious Damage 28 4.8 Responding to Crime and Safety Issues in Glebe 30 5.0 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION 32 5.1 Key findings 32 5.2 Other community consultations 34 5.2.1 2005, 2006, 2007 City of Sydney Community Satisfaction Survey 34 5.2.2 Local Area Action Plan North West 2007 35 5.2.3 Glebe Business Precinct Strategy 2007 36 5.2.4 A Survey of Community Services in Glebe and Forest Lodge 2004 36 5.2.5 The Village of Glebe – Commercial Renewal Study 2003 37 5.2.6 Key Issues for consideration in Glebe 37 6.0 GLEBE COMMUNITY SAFETY PLAN 2009–2012 38 6.1 Social Crime Prevention 38 6.2 Opportunity Reduction Approaches 38 6.3 Aim 39 6.4 Objectives 39 6.5 Guiding Principles 40 Objective 1 – Reducing crime and anti-social behaviour 40 Objective 2 – Addressing school retention, capacity building and diversionary issues for local young people 42 Objective 3 – Developing community capacity building projects with the broader community 48 Objective 4 – Tackling crime and safety in Public Housing 51 Objective 5 – Improving the look and feel of the physical environment 55 Objective 6 – Supporting ex-offender reintegration into the Community 59 7.0 MONITORING AND EVALUATION 60 References 61 Appendices 62 Glebe Community Safety Plan 2009–2012 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Glebe is an inner City suburb of Sydney renowned for its historic built and natural environment which is reflective of its role as Sydney’s first suburb. Its diversity of local residents reflected in the suburb’s ethnic mix, range of income brackets, private and public housing provision, professional qualifications and levels of employment/ unemployment have all contributed to Glebe’s strong village and community atmosphere with a number of active local community groups. Like communities all over the world Glebe is facing its own unique crime and safety problems which are the result of complex changes in economic, social and cultural factors. The Glebe Community Safety Plan (the plan) sits under the City’s Safe City Strategy 2007–2012 and aims to improve actual and perceived safety across the suburb and broader community. With Glebe Point Road identified as an Activity Hub in Sustainable Sydney 2030, the plan seeks to strengthen the distinctive and diverse character of Glebe. The plan aims to take a genuinely preventative approach to Glebe’s distinct crime and safety issues by tackling the underlying causes of crime. The aim extends to building on the existing strengths of the Glebe community and emphasises the importance of investing in those people identified as being vulnerable and in need of support. Compelling evidence suggests that those who feel excluded from participation in community life are more likely to offend against that community. The plan aims to address this sense of exclusion with a view to reducing the risk of offending by focusing on broad social outcomes. The key policy implication of this approach is that there is no single solution to the complex range of social issues facing the Glebe community and that only an integrated whole- of-community multi-agency approach involving a genuine commitment of time and resources can begin to have some impact in terms of reducing and preventing crime. 2 Glebe Community Safety Plan 2009–2012 With this in mind the key issues identified in the plan have been identified through information on crime from Leichhardt Police and the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, community consultation, a review of existing studies and previous consultations and discussions with key stakeholders. The primary objectives of the plan are to: QReduce crime and anti-social behaviour QAddress school retention, and addressing capacity building and diversionary issues for local young people QDevelop community capacity building projects with the broader community QTackle crime and safety issues in public housing QImprove the look and feel of the physical environment and QTarget supporting ex-offenders released from prison The key to success for the Glebe Community Safety Plan will be achieving broad agreement of the need to work cooperatively. Crime and safety issues are complex, interdependent and embrace the activities of every group and individual with a stake in the community. The safest communities are not those with the most police and prisons, but those with the strongest community structures, including cohesive families and socialisation and economic opportunities. A central theme of this plan is therefore shared responsibility, that we all have a role to play in building effective partnerships to meet the emerging challenges in community safety. Glebe Community Safety Plan 2009–2012 3 1. INTRODUCTION Glebe is recognised as one of the first inner Sydney suburbs and more than two hundred years later is generally considered to have a charming village atmosphere. Glebe’s unique village environment, set against the skyscrapers of the CBD, is a combination of a number of factors which have contributed to its diverse and close-knit community. Residents and visitors appreciate the mix of students, academics, artists, ethnic groups, backpackers, retirees, families, professionals and alternative communities which give the suburb its distinct character. While the vibrancy and individual character is unique to the suburb it is also acknowledged that, like any suburb, Glebe is faced with its own crime and safety challenges. The City of Sydney recognises that crime in Glebe is a genuine community concern and seeks to work with a range of groups and individuals in forming genuine partnerships and developing compassionate and innovative solutions to the community safety needs of its communities. The City recognises that there is no “one size fits all” solution to the complex causes of crime and anti-social behaviour. Accordingly the City focuses its resources into preventing crime from occurring in the first place. The Glebe Community Safety Plan, the first of its kind for the area, is a three year strategy which recognises the considerable strengths of the community and its ability to work together in developing local solutions to its own unique crime and safety problems. 4 Glebe Community Safety Plan 2009–2012 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 The Role of Local Government in Responding to Crime The City of Sydney recognises that the NSW Police and the criminal justice system are the most important components in maintaining law and order in our city. The role of the City of Sydney as the Local Government Authority includes input into planning decisions and designing out crime, public crime prevention education campaigns, developing strategies and responses to address community safety issues, providing a framework to improve social and community services and investing in social programs aimed at vulnerable and marginalised people in the community. The City aims to develop partnerships with the NSW Police and other government agencies, manage the impacts of licensed premises and manage the public domain through the provision of appropriate street lighting, cleansing, maintenance, graffiti removal and undertaking community safety audits. 2.2 Legislative and Policy Context Local government has a legislative responsibility to respond to crime and community safety concerns. Additionally, national and state crime prevention policy frameworks provide a clear role for local government. Federal Whilst there is no National Crime Prevention Plan or any specific legislative/policy framework at the Commonwealth level, local government crime prevention programming is guided to some extent by the following. Crime prevention legislation is developed by the Criminal Justice Division of the Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department and includes national law enforcement policy, legal and policy advice on criminal law and legal aspects of the Federal criminal justice system. Legislation and policy frameworks relating to the reduction and prevention of crime is largely drawn up by the states in their administration of the criminal justice system. Glebe Community Safety Plan 2009–2012 5 State Whilst there is no NSW Crime Prevention Plan, local government responds to crime and safety via the following legislative and policy frameworks: The Children (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Act (1997) provides a statutory basis for the development of community safety or crime prevention plans with Local Governments taking the lead agency role. The Act recognises the importance of community safety activities that draw upon local knowledge and services in adopting a strategic partnership approach to addressing local community safety issues. The City’s Charter under the Local Government Act (1993) requires Council to take responsibility for managing public land. By implication, this can mean that Councils have a duty of care in relation to people who use public land. The Local Government Act gives Councils the power to issue and enforce orders which aim to prevent activities that place members of the public at risk. A range of other legislation such as the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979) and the Roads Act (1993) also provides Council with a range of responsibilities and functions including public health and safety. The assessment of development proposals under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979) requires a consent authority to consider and assess whether a development application addresses community safety matters.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Research Your House Online
    If you are lucky you might find a picture of your house online, either on its own, part of a streetscape or in the background. The State Library of NSW holds this image of Bellevue at Glebe Point, saved more than once from demolition. The photo was taken in 1899 soon after it was built. The occupier is posing for the shot, indicating it’s for a family album. 1 Also digitised by Mitchell Library are Edith Blacket’s sketchbooks. The daughter of architect Edmund Blacket, Edith spent a lot of time walking around Glebe with her pencil and pad. This is The Retreat on Blackwattle Bay, drawn in 1867, a sandstone house still standing. 2 Also held by the SLNSW is this 1872 photo of twin houses in Derwent Street. This area close to Parramatta Road filled up more quickly than the Glebe Point estates. 3 55 Glebe Street, photographed in 1962, an image online. 4 As is this, perhaps not the same shop, but the characteristic corner door and stone step and display windows are the same. The inner west corner store is nearly always a domestic building today. 5 Your house may have been mentioned already in a Glebe Society Bulletin. To check old issues, Google Glebe Society. There’s a search pane. 6 A useful starting point is the City of Sydney archives. The collection is constantly being added to. You can check its catalogue and search tools. 7 Starting with its Investigator which will give you an idea of what’s held. I typed in Boyce Street Glebe and these items came up.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment B
    ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT B INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE AND TIMELINE ATTACHMENT B FOLEY PARK INTERPRETIVE OVERLAY STAGE 2 ISSUE: 22/06/2011 REVISION:C Project: 3224#_ASP_FOLEYPARK Attention: Kate Luckcraft Aspect Studio’s Studio 61, Level 6 61 Marlborough Street, Surry Hills, NSW, 2010 P +61 2 9699 7182 F +61 2 9699 7192 M 0439 800 460 [email protected] Suite 67/61 Marlborough Street Surry Hills NSW 2010 Australia Telephone +61 (0)2 9699 9710 www.deucedesign.com.au ATTACHMENT B FOLEY PARK INTERPRETIVE OVERLAY _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ INTRODUCTION In 2006, Deuce Design were commisioned to develop an interpretive overlay strategy for Foley Park. The strategy was endorsed in 2007 and the tender package was issued in September 2008. From the original scheme only the Park entry signage and the interpretive panel for the Wireless House were produced in 2010. 1B In March 2011, Deuce Design was re commisioned to amend the original material so it could be applied using the new City of Sydney Park signage system. The items covered in this new strategy are: > 2 X Interpretive panels (COS style guide) > History timeline (Ground plane) - Revision of item 08 from the original scheme All content used in this document has been previously endorsed in the stage one strategy. All amendments to 2 1A the original material have been made purely to fit into the new interpretive media formats.
    [Show full text]
  • Mayhem on Broadway Or Sharing the Pain
    C • Bay St. Mountain St. +- \ \ I> ::, m The Broadway Shopping Centre Mayhem on Broadway or sharing the pain raffic flow around The Broadway Shopping Centre continues to be a major · Tconcern. Leichhardt Council provided an extensive submission about Francis Street to the RTA and South Sydney Council made a similar submission. The latest report is that the RTA has decided to "share the pain" between the two Councils and Leichhardt Council is awaiting formal notification that Francis Street is to be opened to two-way traffic with left turns both into and out of Glebe Point Road. The key to the RTA's decision lies at the Mountain/ Broadway intersection. The RTA felt Council's suggestion to introduce two right rurn lanes from Mountain Street into Broadway was not achievable because of: • insufficient room for heavy vehicles turning out of Mountain Street; • inability to change the traffic light phasing at Mountain Street (involving more right turn green time) without congesting the City Road/ Broadway intersection; and • pedestrian demand being for the pedestrian crossing on the west side of Mountain Street. It was believed that if forced to cross Broadway on the east side, pedestrians would only cause more conflict when crossing back from the east side to the west side of Mountain Street. The RTA has, however, concurred with other Council suggestions such as: • traffic light phasing improvements at the carpark/ Bay/ Smail Streets intersection [Smail connects carparkexit to Mountain Street]; • larger pedestrian lanterns; • traffic priority change at the Smail/ Mountain Street intersection; • internal carpark changes; and • staggering cinema finishing times etc.
    [Show full text]
  • The Demise of the Community Reference Group? the Bays Precinct CRG Has Run Its Designated Two-Year Term
    Sadly, the answer to the above is no. The original bid to locate its main offices in White sudden death of UrbanGrowth as a strategic Bay. player following its brave (and apparently The dominance of WestConnex and the need to justified) refusal to accept any of the developer finalise decisions relating to the new City metro proposals for the White Bay power station site have overridden the possibility of coherent has returned the Bays Precinct to uncoordinated transport planning relating to the Bays Precinct. development lacking visible strategic coherence. The most recent (23 March) communication from The left-over bit of UrbanGrowth-as-developer UrbanGrowth indicates that there might now be only retains responsibility for the Blackwattle Bay some action on this – ‘We’re continuing to work development – so there is, once again, no one closely with Transport for NSW and Sydney agency with strategic oversight of the Metro on planning for a metro station at The development of this extraordinary area of Bays Precinct.’ publicly owned harbour foreshore. However, I would guess this is more a matter of UrbanGrowth being told rather than participating in decision making. The demise of the community reference group? The Bays Precinct CRG has run its designated two-year term. I – like others – did not attend the last meeting. It was never able to function as a The area contained within the ‘Bays Market District’ meaningful consultation process because there (image: thebayssydney.nsw.gov.au/destinations/bays- was such a tight restraint (almost certainly from market-district/) the Government) on UrbanGrowth sharing ANY The Government’s failure over recent years to useful information with the Group.
    [Show full text]
  • Glebe Conservation Area Study Report
    ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A GLEBE CONSERVATION AREA STUDY REPORT ATTACHMENT A City of Sydney Glebe Conservation Area February 2008 Study Report ATTACHMENT A © City of Sydney. All rights reserved. No part of this work will be reproduced, translated, modified, transmitted or stored in any form or by any means without the prior permission of the City of Sydney. ATTACHMENT A Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Methodology 2 Investigation of Signifi cance 2 Fieldwork 2 Public Consultation 2 Assessment of Signifi cance 3 Management of Signifi cance - Policy 3 3 Historical Background 4 Land Grants 4 1828 Subdivision of The Glebe 4 Subdivision of Church Estates 5 Subdivision of Villa Estates 6 Victorian and Edwardian Development 7 The Interwar Period 8 Postwar Glebe 8 Conservation and Gentrifi cation 9 4 Fieldwork 10 Overview and Street Rating 10 Component Contribution and Height 10 Public Domain Items 11 Review of Heritage Items in Glebe Point Road and 12 Potential Heritage Items 11 5 Signifi cance 12 Aspects contributing to the heritage signifi cance of Glebe 12 Statement of Cultural Signifi cance of Glebe Point Road 12 Shopfronts 13 Archeological Signifi cance 13 6 Constraints Arising From Signifi cance 14 Conservation Areas 14 Toxteth Conservation Area 14 Lyndhurst Conservation Area 15 Hereford and Forest Lodge Conservation Area 15 St. Phillips Conservation Area 15 Bishopthorpe Conservation Area 16 Hughes Conservation Area 16 Glebe Point Conservation Area 16 Heritage Streetscapes 17 Heritage Items 17 7 Management Of Signifi cance - Policy 18 Recognise The Historical Layers 18 Protection Of Signifi cance 19 Enhance Signifi cance 19 Specifi c Policies 20 Recommendations For LEP Protection 22 8 Policy Recommendations For Conservation Areas 23 9 Implementation 24 10 Conclusion 25 ATTACHMENT A Table of Contents (continued) List Of Appendices 26 Appendix A - Grading of Streets 27 Appendix B - Grading of Lanes 29 Appendix C - Public Domain Items 31 Appendix D - Summary Heritage Items 34 Appendix E - Conservation Area Boundary Justifi cation 38 Toxteth 38 Lyndhurstv 39 St.
    [Show full text]
  • Sydney Directory, for 1858-9
    SANDS COMMERCIAL AND GENERAL SYDNEY DIRECTORY, FOR 1858-9 INOLUDINO— j BALMAIN, BISHOrTHORPE, BONDI, OAMPERDOWN, COOGEE, COOK'S; RIVER ROAD, DARLING POINT, DOUBLE' BAY, GLEBE, NEL- - ^ SON'S BAY, NEWTOWN, NORTH SHORE, O'CONNELL', ]l '*'• vl TOWN, PADDINGTON, RANDWICK, REDFERN,' '",'" % . ROSE BAY, RUSHCUTTER'S BAY, SOUTH > ^ HEAD ROADS, ST. LEONARD'S. •'--•.*' WATSON'S BAY, WAVERLEY. >'. FIRST YEAR OF PUDLICATION. SYDNEY: SANDS AND KENNY, U92, GEORGE STREET, AND -1(5, COLMNB STIIKET, MI'.I.UOUHNE. s 18 58. V »; Vv. - .'.. y ' •?*-'' J <*' ^•5. PREFACE. A DinRCTOiiY that shall combinu the cssontinl eloinonts of exactness and com­ pleteness, requires but littlo to bo said (tho necessity thereof being so obvious) iu the shape of recommendation to tho Inhabitants of this groat commercial City. In compiling this important work, it has been tho anxious dosiro of the Publishers to rentier in tho most portable form all needful information; and in now submitting tho work to tho suffrages of tho Public, thoy would indicato tho loading foaturos of tho modo of compilation adopted. grower: As far as practicable, intelligence has been obtained from individuals, at i'uixTfD ay r. LTXSIXOIIAME, KINO STREET. their private residences, or at their accustomed places of business, bycomp6tenfc • parties, who have boon both diligent and careful. •c* Tho whole of their labour has undergone subsequent revision,—a process involving considerable delay and additional expense; ^ No slight difficulty aroso during tho progress of classification, owing to the rc-numbcring of houses; soma inaccuracies may, in consoquonco, bo perceptible in tho "Stroct" portion of tho Directory; but, generally, theso havo been amendod in tho Alphabetical arrangomont of tho names.
    [Show full text]
  • Davince Tools Generated PDF File
    ,.--------.r--------------------.... '-AR .s, ~RRmREE J • .. February 2000 ---~------------------- , Thorp Cultural"Re~9f1tr~~ir.N(~!1agement • « L ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT HEREFORD HOUSE & KERRIBREE 53,55 HEREFO.RD STREET February 2000 Prepared for Perumal Murphy Wu WendyThorp Cultural Resources Management Archaeological Assessment: 53-55 Hereford Street, Glebe ICONTENTS OF THE REPORT 1.0 PRECIS OF THE REPORT. ... 1 1.1 . The Site and the Work . 1 1.2 Historical Context . 1 1.3 The Archaeological Resource 2 1.4 Cultural Significance . 3 1.5 The Proposal and Its Impact 3 1.6 Management ........ 3 2.0 THE INVESTIGATION ........... 4 2.1 The Study Area and.Subject 4 2.2 Status of the Site ... 4 2.3 Methodology ........ 5 2.4 Objectives and Tasks .... 5 2.5 Authorship, Client and Acknowledgements 5 2.6 Abbreviations Used in the Text .... 6 Figure: The Study Area ........ 6 Views: Hereford House and Kerribree 7 3.0 HISTORICAL ANALYSIS 8 3.1 The Pre-European Environment and Aboriginal Occupation. 9 3.2 . The Clergy and School Lands Corporation & Subdivision 10 Undated Plan of Glebe Lands ............ 11 Plan ofForest Lodge Allotments 1845 3.3 William Bull and Hereford House: 53 Hereford Street 12 Plan ofHereford House in 1888 . 13 Plan ofHereford House in 1926 ......... 14 3.4 Joseph Leeds and Kerribree: 55 Hereford Street 15 Plan ofKerribree 1896 3.5 Camden College . 16 View ofKerribree and Dormitory 1915 18 3.6 The NSW College of Nursing . 19 4.0 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE .. 20 4.1 Assessing the Resource 20 4.2 The Site . 21 4.3 The Buildings . 22 4.3.1 Hereford House .
    [Show full text]
  • Glebe Society Bulletin 2005 Issue 09
    Glebe Conservation Area Study Residents of Glebe and Forest Lodge were invited to attend a Community meeting, on Wednesday 26 October at the Glebe Town Hall, to introduce the Glebe Conservation Area Study which is being undertaken for Council by the consultancy Architectural Projects. The Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, welcomed Councillors Robyn Kemmis and Verity Firth, and about 45 other residents who attended the meeting. Here is the text of her welcoming speech. Glebe’s Heritage Importance grand buildings, like Lyndhurst and Toxteth House, as well as the Victorian In the 1960s, Glebe’s residents were and Edwardian terraces that give Glebe among the first in NSW to resist un- and Forest Lodge their distinctive checked developments in our city. character. During the 1970s, the Glebe Society The City is committed to continuing to prepared a masterplan that led to Glebe preserve Glebe’s heritage and promote its being listed as a conservation area. rich history. Thanks to these efforts the community We’re here tonight to explore ways to stopped the wrecking ball and slowed the continue to preserve Glebe’s living damaging expansion of freeways and heritage and to get your input into the high rise buildings over heritage and Glebe Conservation Area Study. residential amenity. 9/2005 October/November Purpose of the Glebe In Glebe, the community fought to preserve whole sections of the neighbour- Conservation Area Study hood and its streetscapes, unlike other The Study seeks to expand our under- parts of the city, where preservation was standing of heritage values in the Glebe often piecemeal or an afterthought.
    [Show full text]
  • THE GLEBE SOCIETY BULLETIN Box 100, Glebe 2037 2 /1981
    THE GLEBE SOCIETY BULLETIN Box 100, Glebe 2037 2 /1981 PARKS A sub-committee has been fonned to draw up The Glebe Society's policy on parka. It is intended that the policy statement developed by this group will be not only comprehensive, but the definitive policy of the Glebe Society on parks. What the Management Committee Did Naturally this committee will draw on (rely on to a large degree) earlier submissions presented to ~: Alan Robertson is compiling his work in preparation for the Society to put its policy to Council, and it is hoped that the authors of these Leichhardt Council"s Parks and Open Space Committee. earlier submissions will lend their services to the Gideon Rutherford noted that there had been a committee. meeting every 2½ days over the last 9 weeks at Earlier submissions to Council and other authorities Harold Park. The Glebe Society would be represen­ tended to identify specific park needs in Glebe and ted at a meeting called by Council to discuss the problems of traffic associated with Harold Park develop a policy to overcome that need. In this new meetings. vein impressive proposals have been made for Bl.aok­ wattle Bay Park, a waterfront park in Rozelle/ Bla.ckwattle ~ foreshores, the Johnston Valley and General Meeting, LRT proposal, House Inspection, Wine bottling; see articles in this issue. the Glebe Estate. It is unlikely that the Committee could improve on Pla.nping1 The Committee reinforced Alan Robertson's any of these proposals, but the Society does need positiom as· the Glebe Society's Planning Convenor.
    [Show full text]