I would like to state first and foremost that I am not affiliated with any political or action groups and speak here as a long time citizen of inner Newcastle (Newcastle East, Newcastle The Hill and Tighes Hill).
I think the rail corridor should be used for the use it was originally designated for: Heavy Rail. I cannot make economic, or otherwise, sense of removing working heavy infrastructure from a major city with a direct link to a capital city as well as the pulse of the region: the Hunter Valley. It just does not make any sense. Re‐install the heavy rail, immediately.
You can build over the rail, if you must, for more units and commercial space and interconnectedness between Hunter Street and the harbour. Perhaps reinvigorate the second storey of buildings either side of the rail corridor.
Then with all the money saved by not wasting it on the world's shortest tram route spend it on real and useful public transport options. Such as a tram (or other) route from Newcastle heavy rail terminus to Nobby's, Newcastle beach, King Street, Darby St, Bar Beach, The Junction. Or perhaps extend the rail to Wallsend and the build a tram (or other) from the growing residential areas of Cameron Park and Fletcher etc to the new rail at Wallsend or to Cardiff. Perhaps a tram or rail from Nelson Bay, via Newcastle air port, to Newcastle rail station. Maybe a decent ferry route incorporating Carrington/Linwood and lower end of Stockton.
My point here is, keep heavy rail in the Newcastle rail corridor. Save your money for other projects that will have a much greater impact. I would vote for that.
Name withheld. This is on behalf of all our family
NO DEVELOPMENT IN RAIL CORRIDOR, SUPPORT LIGHT-RAIL OR TRAM-TRAINS IF WE CAN’T HAVE TRAINS RETURNED TO NEWCASTLE STATION
We are one of the many of the people that support returning train services to Newcastle Station.
Since that is not going to happen, the next best alternative is to run either light-rail or tram-trains down the FULL length of the rail corridor from Hamilton to Newcastle Station.
No other major city would take efficient and WELL USED trains out of a city – except unless they may have been influenced, possibly by developers? And many believe, that this is nothing more than a land grab, which is what we believe, which will not allow efficient access to Newcastle Harbour.
A question that Urban Growth has failed to answer so far, is why have you considered a proposal of building OVER the Central to Eveleigh with the existing rail line and trains running underneath, but will not consider the same option for Newcastle to Wickham?
Light-rail or tram-trains along the full length of the Newcastle Rail Line between Newcastle & Wickham or Hamilton would actually benefit development. But it needs to be appropriate development, NOT over or bad development. Development in the rail corridor is over and bad development.
The best idea would have been to slow the trains down to tram speed.
Urban Growth has claimed that RailCorp is no longer allowed to build new level crossings and that fences need to be built near heavy rail lines. That is totally incorrect, as RailCorp has very recently built new level crossings. And there are many places that have heavy rail lines that go near roads that are not fenced, eg: Bombo & Koorangang Island, are just two of many examples, just in NSW itself.
We may not agree with Paul Broad, but he is correct when he states why has the state government allowed Urban Growth to take over? — I believe the all old Store building could be used to provide 'park and ride' facilities for commuters that work in Sydney and the central coast but also provide parking for travellers coming into Newcastle, as there is limited parking in the West end. The Store could also be used to provide an under cover bus interchange ‐ something that would really add value to the project as a whole. The Store could also provide food venders like at Central Station ‐ although you would not want to compete with the Mall development.
— I would also like to see a name Change for the railway station when it completed as Wickham is not a destination that those outside of Newcastle would be familiar with ‐ I propose that the new interchange should be called 'Newcastle Gateway Station' to reflect the importance of this project and distinguish it from the existing Newcastle Station.
Name withheld.
NEWCASTLE CYCLEWAYS MOVEMENT INCORPORATED
ABN 12 674 844 570
Submission to Revitalising Newcastle September 2015
From Newcastle Cycleways Movement Inc.
Newcastle Cycleways Movement has been the premier advocacy group campaigning for a better environment for cycling in the greater Newcastle region since 1977. As an affiliated Bicycle User Group (BUG) of Bicycle NSW we represent hundreds of their members in our region.
We are pleased to be able to participate in this consultation process because of the importance of Hunter Street and the parallel rail corridor in the future transport solution for a revitalised Newcastle CBD. Getting it right now, by ensuring the adopted plans are following the leading global best practice trends of encouragement of active transport is going to be far cheaper than repairing mistakes and retrofitting compromised solutions to problems not addressed, sometime in the future.
NCM has actively participated in local government and state government consultations in a spirit of good, since our formation. We only participate again, in this process, in the sincere expectation that this is a genuine open minded consultation and our ideas and contribution will be fairly considered.
This submission addresses only the transport and related issues relevant to the cycling interests of NCM, and does not intend to address the merit or other of increasing inner city population, or repurposing Newcastle railway station. The issues presented have been discussed in the NCM committee but may not represent the opinions of all members.
NCM’s previously stated positions
NCM has always supported the retention of a mass transport rail services into the CBD that encourages cycling as part of a mixed mode transport solution. We have also supported the expansion of the rail network and improvements to the service quality. If this is done through a transition to light rail, then this new service must also be able to support the carriage of bicycles to accommodate mixed mode travel.
NCM supports the cycleways plan for Hunter Street as proposed in the Newcastle council document Trial Changes to Hunter Street, Sept 13. That plan outlined a pair of separated, one-direction lanes down either side of Hunter Street with bicycle users travelling in the same direction as the motor vehicle traffic. 4 solutions proposed by Revitalising Newcastle
NCM does not support any of the 4 proposed concepts for the rail corridor and Hunter Street, as provided for discussion in the survey. While there may be some merit in them, they do not acknowledge the need for protected cycle lanes down both sides of Hunter Street. All of the options focus on one consideration for the light rail route coming out of the existing rail corridor at Worth Place thus making it difficult to include the separated cycle lanes in the rest of Hunter Street further east.
If it is the government’s intention to consider some development in the existing rail corridor, there is nothing restricting that future development from including light rail at ground level, and appropriate scaled development above.
On several occasions, in previous presentations, plans by council, or other public opinions expressed, it has been proposed to put a cycleway along the existing rail corridor. NCM would strongly advise against this because in our experienced opinion, for the reasons listed below, this option would produce a very poor cycleway, with comparatively low patronage compared with the paired one direction option in Hunter Street.
1. The existing buildings have all been developed with frontages to either Hunter Street or Wharf road, or other minor streets. Therefore the visual appeal for cycling through this area would be very minimal. It would take extensive refurbishment of these buildings to rectify this orientation, and considering most of these buildings are privately owned this refurbishment is not likely to take place without extensive public funding. The lack of frontage to this corridor will make this an unsafe corridor with very little passive surveillance compared to shop front placed cycle lanes.
2. Cycling in the back lane, as it were, does not appeal to cyclists who are going into the CBD for a commercial reason, as the preferred option will be to ride on the road to the front door. Even if cyclists chose to ride a “rail corridor” cycleway to the block containing their destination, in many cases they would still be required to ride along Hunter Street, or others, to get to their destination.
3. A large portion of the existing rail corridor east of Merewether Street, through to the last big building north of the corridor, the Fair work Commission building, is in shadow for the majority of the day through winter. The nature of the existing buildings and Foreshore Park also make this corridor quite the wind tunnel. This corridor is cold and windy, exactly the opposite conditions that make cycling appealing.
4. The greatest return on investment for the State government, in building a separated cycleway system, would be from placing it along Hunter Street. There have been many studies into the spending habits of the bicycle commuter or comparing different modes of transport. Generally speaking, whilst cyclists may not spend as much as driving consumers, per trip, they visit far more often, and the net benefit is in favour of the bicycle commuter.
The CycleSafe Network is our vision
The CycleSafe Network (CSN) is a transport infrastructure project covering the whole of the Newcastle LGA and the neighbouring denser population areas of Lake Macquarie LGA, with the bicycle as the mode of transport.
The attached CSN proposal document puts forward the case for building the CycleSafe Network, covers the design criteria of the CSN, the health benefits and economic analysis of the whole project. This proposal document forms part of this submission
This document was developed by the CSN steering group consisting of representatives from Newcastle Cycleways, The University of Newcastle, The National Heart Foundation, and Hunter Medicare Local. Supporters of the CSN also include The Property Council of Australia, and the Tom Farrell Institute. In September 2014 Mr Kyle Loades, President of the NRMA launched the CSN campaign, and recently provided a letter of support for the Hunter Infrastructure Investment Fund application for funding. Further supporters and supporter’s comments can be found on our website www.csn.org.au
The CSN is not a new invention of NCM, but a re-look at the cycling strategies of Newcastle and Lake Macquarie councils. In the same sense that the Revitalising Newcastle campaign is asking people to think about a big vision for the inner Newcastle precinct, members of NCM were disappointed with the lack of this scale of vision from the two cycling strategies developed in recent years by both the local councils. The CSN evolved out of these strategies with a fresh look at cycling as a genuine mainstream mode of transport.
The CSN covers an area much larger than the Revitalising Newcastle campaign is concerned with, however we believe the goals of the CSN are absolutely in harmony with the goals of Urban Growth and the City of Newcastle for Revitalising Newcastle.
The inner city area cannot revitalise purely from energies of peoples within the confines of the same area. The Revitalising Newcastle campaign acknowledges this and therefore looks to ways to attract other people, who do not reside in the area, into that area. This intention will increase the traffic pressure on the inner city area unless alternatives to private motor vehicle use are seamlessly integrated into the plan. Light rail therefore dominates the transport discussion.
However we believe the CSN is the most cost effective and fully integrated transport infrastructure project capable of achieving this. This is because cycleways become the very attraction, bringing people in, as well as being the method of moving people around a revitalised inner city.
The linear nature of the area concerned also presents greater challenges for allowing the movement of residents, than if it was a more efficient square of circular space. The nature of the Newcastle inner city area, being flat, would allow the use of the bicycle to substantially contribute to these longer transport needs of local residents.
Hunter River Foreshore Park
Additional stated goals of the revitalisation program include;
Repurposing Newcastle Railway Station Enhancing our civic precinct and improving connections to the water front Enhancing the city’s public spaces for activities and events.
These aspirations apply to a large area of land already used by NCM members and the public, for recreational cycling. As such NCM would support good plans to increase the facilities for, and improving the safety of recreational cycling.
Currently the foreshore promenade is well used by cyclists, and has been for years. However sections of this path are not correctly classified as Shared Paths by council. This program could provide the catalyst to redesign and reclassify these paths. If this area is going to have an increase in public recreational use, then there needs to be some consideration to traffic calming along Wharf Road, and a pleasant route around the Queens Wharf buildings.
In recent years cycleway works for the Newcastle council have largely been focussed on the ocean side Bathers Way. This is an excellent recreational path, which offers some commuting qualities for local residents. Revitalising Newcastle should look towards the seamless integration of this path with the Hunter River Foreshore Park cycleways.
Global trends
The use of the bicycle for mainstream transport purposes is a growing global trend in inner cities. It is inevitable that this trend will in some part sweep over Newcastle as well. Indeed cycling can already be seen as increasing in popularity, particularly in areas where great infrastructure has been included. For example, our members report significant patronage increase along the Throsby Creek path since the installation of the Hannell Street lights and more recently the Lee Wharf temporary connection.
If we can take this opportunity to plan great cycling infrastructure then the benefits will be huge. If we ignore this trend now, the pressure will inevitably come in the future to try to retrofit compromised designs and the integration will not be seamless, or as beneficial as it could be.
NCM would welcome any opportunity to discuss with the planners of Newcastle the vision of the CycleSafe Network, or our other concerns regarding lanes in Hunter Street, the rail corridor, King Street, or the foreshore esplanade.
Yours Sincerely,
Peter Lee
President, Newcastle Cycleways Movement. The major drawback with UrbanGrowth's "revitalization" of Newcastle's inner‐city area is that all four options are based on replacing train services between Wickham and Newcastle with a light‐rail service along Hunter and Scott streets so sections of the rail corridor can be redeveloped with "mixed‐use" buildings.
This would seriously compromise public transport as train travellers would have to alight at a new "interchange" in Wickham and board a "tram" for the last 2½km of their journey to Newcastle. This would be inconvenient (as well as an unnecessary imposition), particularly for mothers with strollers, tourists with luggage, beachgoers with surfboards and people in wheelchairs. Yet the government maintains that this would be an "improvement" in public transport.
CLOSURE OF RAIL LINE
Since Newcastle train services were "truncated" late last year to a temporary terminus in Hamilton, with "shuttle" buses used for the last 3¾km to Newcastle, patronage has dropped by 50% (government had estimated 25%). As a result, businesses in the Newcastle CBD are reporting markedly fewer shoppers, while one backpackers' hostel has had to close due to a sharp drop in the number of visitors.
"Truncating" train services between Wickham and Newcastle would be similar to the government deciding to shut down Sydney's "city‐circle" rail network and terminate all suburban and country trains at Redfern. Imagine the uproar from Sydney people if that happened.
In a survey during the morning "peak" period in January of people transferring from trains to buses at Hamilton, I didn't see anyone in a wheelchair and hardly anyone on a "walker", also noticed a number of cyclists not allowed to board the buses. One rider from Maitland told me that he had to leave home an hour earlier to reach Williamtown in time for work as he must now ride into Newcastle to catch a ferry across the harbour to Stockton. The shuttle bus is taking at least twice as long as the train did to go from Hamilton to Newcastle.
The new transport "interchange" at Wickham will be an inadequate substitute for the train station in Newcastle. Its very location in a confined space behind buildings fronting Hunter St means that it will have only three platforms instead of four, with no room for expansion, while suburban bus services won't be able to stop right outside it as they do now at Newcastle station.
If developers want to erect "mixed‐use" buildings along the rail corridor, let them do so in the air space above the train tracks, as has been done at some suburban train stations in Sydney like Hurstville and Kogarah.
DIRECT ACCESS TO HARBOUR FORESHORE
A key feature of UrbanGrowth's options is the inclusion of several pedestrian pathways across the rail‐line to provide direct "connectivity" between Hunter St and the harbour foreshore. These are proving very popular and could be retained if train services were restored by installing gates and/or flashing lights.
Options 2/3/4 feature an attractive landscaped "throughway" on the site of Civic train station which would be demolished. However, there is already a direct link close to this location with a level crossing on Merewether St. Civic station would be needed if trains were to run again at some future date.
Regarding the level rail crossing in Stewart Ave, this was constructed as part of the Northumberland County Plan of 1952 which had envisaged a bridge over the rail‐line. At the time Stewart Ave ended at Hunter St, so it was extended across the rail‐line to join up with Hannell Street to replace the crossing on a very marrow section of Hannell St from Hunter St with a sharp (120?) turn that was extremely difficult for semitrailers to negotiate.
Some motorists objected to being constantly held up at the crossing while trains passed through. This could have been overcome if the bridge had been built as originally intended. If train services are restored, the level crossing should be replaced with either a bridge or an underpass.
LIGHT RAIL IN HUNTER STREET
As for running the new light‐rail service along Hunter and Scott streets, this could be the "last nail in the coffin" for the "ruination" of Newcastle's inner‐city. It will cause massive disruptions to traffic and have a devastating impact on businesses for two years during construction and after it begins operating .
Hunter St is the city's main thoroughfare and shopping "strip". There are only two alternate routes in and out of the CBD: King St which is narrow most of the way, and Wharf Rd/Honeysuckle Dr which are not only narrow but also have sharp bends and very small roundabouts that are quite a "nightmare" for drivers of large vehicles like buses. Should there be a major disaster like the earthquake in 1989, “emergency” vehicles would have great difficulty entering and leaving the inner‐city area.
Having light‐rail in Hunter St also poses a danger for passengers boarding and alighting as they have to step out onto the road in front of traffic. Imagine what could happen if a motor vehicle failed to stop for passengers getting on or off.
Why not use the rail corridor for light‐rail? Being traffic‐free it would allow for a faster service. Low platforms level with carriage entrances could be installed at stopping points for easier access, particularly for people in wheelchairs or with luggage, etc.
Furthermore, with a rapidly growing number of people living and working along Wharf Rd and Honeysuckle Dr (on opposite side of rail‐line to Hunter St) the rail‐corridor route would provide them with easier access to the light‐rail service.
IMPACT ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT
Returning to UrbanGrowth's "revitalization" plans, options 3/4 indicate a major redevelopment of the bus "layover" area on the northern side of Newcastle train station and relocation of the bus terminus to the West End.
As already stated, buses would be unable to stop immediately outside the new "interchange" at Wickham. The closest bus‐stop would be in Hunter St 200m from the interchange entrance, with no weather protection on the way.
UrbanGrowth has not indicated where the bus terminus would be located in the West End but it could probably be near the Marketown shopping centre . This is 600m from the Wickham "interchange", with no weather protection most of the way, so would be most inconvenient for train travellers wanting to catch buses, especially those with luggage etc or in wheelchairs.
If suburban bus services terminated in the West End, passengers would face the inconvenience of having to walk up to 600m to board the light‐rail near the Wickham "interchange" to reach the Civic and East End precincts. How can UrbanGrowth honestly claim that this would be an "improvement" in public transport?
Construction has begun on the "NeW Space" city campus for the University of Newcastle in Hunter St just a "stone's throw" from Civic train station. The new campus is expected to open in 2017, about the same time as the light‐rail service. No provision is being made for student or staff parking.
With an anticipated enrolment of 3500 students (plus numerous academic and administrative staff), along with people transferring from buses terminating in the West End, this could place such a heavy demand on the light‐rail service that it would need to run almost continuously. Imagine the extra traffic congestion this would cause along Hunter St.
If trains were still running right into Newcastle, university students would have a direct rail link from the main campus at Callaghan (Warabrook station) to the city campus near Civic station that would be much quicker than by bus or car.
EAST END REDEVELOPMENT
UrbanGrowth's options 3/4 refer to turning Newcastle train station (preserving its heritage features) and adjacent bus ":layover" area into an entertainment precinct and regional playspace to make it a "dynamic destination".
These are great ideas BUT... without good access, especially public transport, they could end up as "white elephants".
Who would fund and manage these projects? The government, or private enterprise? If the latter, investors would no doubt spend considerable time assessing the feasibility of these projects before starting the long process of obtaining approvals etc. This could take several (even many) years.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
To sum up, UrbanGrowth should abandon its grandiose plans to redevelop the inner‐city rail corridor and install light‐rail along Hunter and Scott streets. These ideas have been initiated by Sydney politicians and developed by Sydney bureaucrats with little knowledge or understanding of Newcastle's unique heritage or character.
That a major development company (GPT) has formed a partnership with UrbanGrowth (a government entity) on the Newcastle "revitalization" project raises the question of whether there is a "conflict of interest" in determining the future "re‐use" of the inner‐city rail corridor.
The public forum I attended during the six‐week "consultation " period in Newcastle came across as an "indoctrination" session aimed at replacing people's opposition with acceptance. This failed to convince me to change my mind, and I'm sure many others came away with the same feeling.
Trains into Newcastle have given outstanding service for over 150 years. Newcastle station can provide the "seamless connection" between trains and suburban bus and regional/interstate coach services that would be impossible at the new Wickham "interchange".
The $460million allocated by the government for the interchange and light‐rail could be much better spent on the following: ? Build a new transport interchange (rail/bus) at Glendale next to the Stockland shopping centre and a large sports complex (this been voted as the Newcastle region's greatest need). ? Replace the level crossing at Stewart Ave with a bridge (as envisaged in the Northumberland County Plan of 1952) or an underpass . ? Replace the very busy level rail crossing on Glebe Rd near Adamstown train station with either a bridge or underpass. ? Improve the woefully inadequate suburban bus services. ? Complete the "missing link" in Newcastle's "bypass" road from Bennetts Green to Sandgate (Wollongong has had its bypass road for over 40 years!).
UrbanGrowth's plans for the "revitalization" of Newcastle's inner‐city is a recipe for the "ruination" of a great city.
Peter Newey.
18 September 2015
Michael Cassel Program Director, UrbanGrowth NSW Revitalising Newcastle Community Engagement Program Level 16, 227 Elizabeth Street SYDNEY NSW 2000
Dear Mr. Cassel,
RE: NICRA SUBMSSION TO REVITALISING NEWCASTLE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Newcastle Inner City Residents Alliance has a strong commitment to the growth and development of Newcastle. It firmly believes the city’s historic centre, incorporating Newcastle East and the Hunter Street Mall precinct, has critically important heritage and historical assets that belong to Newcastle, NSW and Australia. These areas define the unique character and appearance of mainland Australia’s second oldest city with its distinctive low-rise built environment, natural topography and heritage features, alongside the exceptional public vistas that have made this location unique in Australia. NICRA asserts that they should be respected and valued.
Accordingly, the Newcastle Inner City Residents Alliance (NICRA) takes these principles into consideration in this submission. NICRA welcomes the opportunity to make this submission to the Revitalising Newcastle Community Engagement Program.
1
Contents:
1. Introduction p. 1
2. Planning Minister Rob Stokes calls for revision of the Newcastle CBD high-rise towers p. 2
3. Appropriate development In Newcastle’s heritage East End pp. 2-5
4. Why the GPT Group / UrbanGrowth NSW Newcastle East End Project (DA 2014/323) should not proceed in its present form pp. 5-13
*******************
2. Planning Minister Rob Stokes calls for revision of the Newcastle CBD high-rise towers
NSW Planning Minister Rob Stokes called on UrbanGrowth NSW to reconsider building heights for its Newcastle East End Project. At a Parliamentary Budget Estimates Hearing on 2nd September 2015, Minister Stokes said he had asked the government development agency to consider objections raised by the Newcastle Inner City Residents Alliance (NICRA). He said, “I understand their (NICRA) concerns in relation to human scale and also in relation to the heritage fabric of the (city’s) East End. I strongly agree that those are threshold considerations.” (Newcastle Herald, 3 September 2015)
3. Appropriate development In Newcastle’s heritage East End
THE BOOM in regard to inner city residential apartments currently occurring in Newcastle highlights that organic growth has been working in our city. It also demonstrates that ‘development on steroids’ based on high-rise tower developments in the city’s heritage Hunter Street Mall precinct is not required.
Hence, it is both interesting to Newcastle residents, and potentially encouraging that the so-called Newcastle East End Project, a massive high-rise development planned by joint developers the GPT Group and the state government agency, UrbanGrowth NSW, is not included in the Revitalising Newcastle community engagement program currently being conducted by UrbanGrowth. — Or is this an inherent component of the quiet before the storm?
2 The distinctive low-rise form of Newcastle’s old town centre is a critical part of both the city’s heritage character and its visual identity, with the presently non- interrupted vistas from Christchurch Cathedral to the harbor and, vice versa, from the level of the harbour to the pinnacle of the Christchurch Cathedral hill. It is an invaluable historical and heritage asset for the state of NSW and Australia, with Newcastle being the second oldest city on the mainland. The Newcastle Inner City Residents Alliance (NICRA) supports new development that takes the city’s heritage legacy into consideration appropriately, and that is why we oppose high-rise towers in that area. NICRA has not opposed other high-rise developments such as the 18-storey apartment block being built on the old Jolly Roger site in King Street. However, as far as the inner city heritage precinct is concerned, we continue to support the height of 8 storeys that was proposed, and accepted by the local community in response to comprehensive, long-term consultations in responses to the original 2012 Newcastle Urban Renewal Strategy (NURS). NICRA supports appropriate development in the heritage Hunter Street Mall area of up to 24 metres (or approximately 8-storeys), the height limit recommended in the original Local Environment Plan (LEP 2012) — prior to the 2014 amendments — for which there was broad, comprehensive, long-term community consultation, engagement and business support.
From the perspective of a majority of local Newcastle residents, the inner city is neither socially nor economically dead, as some developers and their advocacy bodies would have us believe, and which has continued to be reflected in the marketing language that has been used in regard to “Revitalising Newcastle”. The area is home to thousands of residents and more people are moving back into the city centre, because of the economic expansion that has been occurring organically. These aspects are real and positive, and they should be acknowledged and nurtured by UrbanGrowth NSW, the state government and both independent and local planners.
Planning Minister Rob Stokes recently stated in Newcastle that he wanted “development outcomes that protect and enhance the heritage character of the [Newcastle] city’s historic East End” and that he is prepared to look at the matter “with fresh eyes” (Minister Stokes met with NICRA representatives on 27th July 2015).
That assurance by the minister gave NICRA cautious hope that earlier poor planning decisions affecting the city’s heritage precinct will be re-examined and might be changed. Thus, the controversial three high-rise towers of the Newcastle East End Project, proposed by GPT in collaboration with UrbanGrowth NSW must be abandoned.
The changes to development controls to allow these unnecessary and highly inappropriate developments, were approved on 29th July 2014 by former
3 Planning Minister Pru Goward, who spot re-zoned the Hunter Street Mall sites. That planning decision favoured two developers — GPT Group and UrbanGrowth NSW — over established practice; community expectations, consultation and engagement; expert advice and sound planning principles; and ended up prioritising other property developers, but not the local community and residents.
In early 2014 the Urban Design Consultative Group (UDCG), Newcastle City Council’s expert planning assessment panel, reported on this development proposal. The expert group unanimously concluded that the high-rise proposal was “highly intrusive and unacceptable” and would irreversibly damage the unique heritage of this city. Hence, the expert panel clearly stated their concern about the destruction of Newcastle’s heritage.
NICRA urges the NSW Baird government and UrbanGrowth NSW to either retract or ignore the punted Minister Goward’s approval, and reinstate the original planning controls signaled in the highly regarded and well consulted Newcastle Urban Renewal Strategy 2012. It is fundamental that developers too, have faith in consistent planning regulations and processes they are engaged with and participating in.
NICRA was clearly encouraged when Planning Minister Stokes recognised the sound basis of Newcastle Urban Renewal Strategy (NURS) 2012, with its emphasis on protecting the historic East End by maintaining lower building height limits there (27th July 2015). It suggested high-rise development in Newcastle’s West End, where a new city business hub is emerging.
The Newcastle Urban Renewal Strategy (NURS) 2012 planning controls would help protect noteworthy buildings from undergoing inappropriate alterations. Newcastle’s former post office is a case in point, a magnificent sandstone landmark in need of major restoration. Recently, the Hunter Property Council’s Andrew Fletcher endorsed construction of a 15-storey high-rise tower over the historic building (City icon needs to grow up. Herald 14th July 2015). The Post Office needs restoration not further vandalism.
UrbanGrowth NSW must be upfront with the public about whether or not it is still committed to the Newcastle East End Project and high-rise towers overshadowing the Mall and East End. NICRA supports good planning and genuine community consultations but we are concerned that UrbanGrowth NSW is putting up a false choice: trading off more green space and less development on the rail corridor for high-rise towers.
Newcastle doesn’t need high-rise development in the East End, hidden State Government and UrbanGrowth NSW agendas, or false choices that will kill the vibe that makes Newcastle unique and which is fundamental to the current low-
4 rise apartment boom. Start with using the buildings and empty upper floors, instead of adding high-rise buildings that do not have anything to do with the heritage character of inner city Newcastle.
4. Why the GPT Group / UrbanGrowth NSW Newcastle East End Project (DA 2014/323) should not proceed in its present form
The Newcastle Inner City Residents Alliance is opposed to the proposed development — DA 2014/323 — Newcastle East End Project.
The Newcastle Inner City Residents Alliance (NICRA) is a broad based residents’ group, formed in March 2014, out of community opposition to the radical plans proposing massive (up to 69.5 metres in height) residential towers in the historic ‘Old Town’ inner city precinct and because of the proposed significant height and floor space ratio increases of these buildings. Whilst the initially proposed height proposal has partially been lowered, it continues to be inappropriate for the Hunter Street Mall precinct, because it extends beyond the previously approved 8 storey height agreed upon deriving from comprehensive, reciprocal consultations with the community, with the latter being listened to.
NICRA has a strong commitment to the growth and development of Newcastle. It firmly believes the city’s historic centre, incorporating Newcastle East and the Hunter Street Mall precinct, has critically important heritage and historical assets that belong to Newcastle, NSW and Australia. These areas define the unique character and appearance of mainland Australia’s second oldest city with its distinctive low-rise built environment, natural topography and heritage features, alongside the exceptional public vistas that have made this location unique in Australia. NICRA ascertains that they should be respected and valued.
NICRA maintains there is broad community opposition to this high-rise development proposal DA 2014/323. At the NICRA Town Hall meeting (14 April 2014) attended by over 300 residents the principal concerns raised in a survey completed by attendees were: 1. Inappropriate height of proposed towers; 2. Diminishing the unique cultural character of the inner city heritage precinct; 3. Lack of genuine community consultation; and 4. Lack of transparent planning processes.
A Majority of Newcastle Residents Have Opposed the Inner City High-rise Development
5 An analysis of public submissions in response to proposed LEP amendments, in 2014, to alter existing height limits has established that approximately 70% of those submitted opposed the amendments, whilst an approximate 13% were equivocally in favour of the proposed changes.
NICRA Rally At a public rally held on 24 May 2014, approximately 1,200 people marched peacefully through Hunter St Mall to express their opposition to the proposed high-rise development: http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2304551/protestors-march-against-high-rise- development-pictures/?cs=305
DA Submissions NICRA is aware that over 1,000 people have formally indicated their opposition to the proposed high-rise development, by submitting directly to the JRPP. These submissions are all signed by individuals who live in all suburbs of Newcastle and other parts of the Hunter. These submissions identify concerns regarding: 1. The need to retain long-standing and successful planning laws; 2. The adverse impact and inappropriateness of siting high rise buildings in an area of low and medium rise historic buildings; 3. Proposed developments do not respect the existing form, character, scale and heritage values of the city; 4. The need to protect the unique heritage precinct and vistas of Newcastle as a key asset of the city for future generations.
The Newcastle Urban Renewal Strategy (NURS 2012) NICRA is generally supportive of plans outlined in the original 2012 Newcastle Urban Renewal Strategy (NURS 2012), which suggest the West End as an appropriate site for high-rise building. Yet DA 2014/323 — Newcastle East End Project — is inconsistent with that original NURS 2012 vision.
Instead of the West End, GPT and UrbanGrowth NSW have proposed high-rise towers in the heritage city centre, which was certainly not part of any earlier community consultation process in conjunction with developing the original NURS document (before the SEPP Amendments 2014 were approved). The developers’ proposals are inappropriate and excessive, and will:
1. Severely damage the city’s traditional and unique built form - its character, scale, heritage and associated identity that provides the city with a special quality for residents and visitors, including a growing tourism market.
6 2. Will overwhelm and dwarf all existing buildings in the historic precinct and greatly distort the profile of nearby Christ Church Cathedral and along The Hill. 3. Forever destroy key public vistas of the city to-and-from the Christ Church Cathedral, Stockton, The Hill, Nobby’s and Fort Scratchly. 4. Apply out-dated and discredited urban design planning concepts that will sterilise the city centre. 5. Stimulate a perverse distortion of the property market for a very significant time span, disadvantaging many investors and other developers. 6. Signify an abuse of the planning process and will deliver immediate windfall gains to private and public developers while impeding the orderly development of the city. 7. Require amendments to planning laws (SEPP and LEP) simply to allow this development and thereby create a clear impression of conflict of interest, special treatment and corruption.
We note concerns about special local rezoning and amendments to planning laws were raised by the former NSW Minister for Environment, Hon Robert Stokes (now NSW Planning Minister) who told Parliament on 27 March 2014:
“Put bluntly, where a spot rezoning is all about the developer’s interest and the case for public interest is not crystal clear and compelling, it simply should not happen.” (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/ LA20140327062?open&refNavID=HA8_1 ).
These concerns are elaborated below: 1. Changes to the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP), the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and the Development Control Plan (DCP) are being changed to suit the applicants, being the GPT Group and UrbanGrowth NSW, without adequate or genuine consultation with the community or clear community benefit. 2. The proposal would clearly be unacceptable under the existing LEP, which — under cl.7.9 (4) — restricts heights in Area C (the heritage area of the East End and The Mall) to a maximum of 40m. The proposal clearly relies on the changes to the LEP that would be brought about by the recently exhibited SEPP amendment, which were not approved at the time of the DA going on public exhibition. The proposed changes to the Newcastle DCP are also highly relevant to this proposal, and those proposed changes are also still under consideration. 3. The proposed amendments to previously approved LEP height limits would permit increases in height limits by almost three-fold, allowing
7 for an inappropriate massive scale and impact of this development, completely out of character with the current built environment. 4. The likely impacts of the proposed development, includes adverse environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, as well as adverse social and economic impacts in the locality. These include severe over-shadowing of nearby properties, loss of privacy, wind tunnelling and major loss of public vistas to-and-from the city’s iconic locations, including Nobby’s Headland and Beach, Stockton, The Hill and Christ Church Cathedral. 5. Additional concerns include, but are not limited to, traffic intensification, noise pollution, diminished heritage values, degradation of topography and urban form, as well as financial devaluation of a significant number of neighbouring properties. 6. Given the large scale and prolonged construction phase there is insufficient information about how the developers will deal with adverse noise and dust pollution or with traffic delays, congestion and access in this part of the city. 7. The unsuitability of the site for the proposed development (due to significant heritage as well as being undermined by disused coal mine shafts), including unacceptable proposed amendments to increase the height of buildings within the Newcastle East End and heritage area which allow high-rise to be built in the middle of low-rise and medium- rise buildings. This will destroy the visual connection between the urban structures and natural topography. 8. There is a lack of public benefit in the project. The project will benefit the State Government agency UrbanGrowth NSW and the GPT Group, which have a vested interest in promoting high-rise and massive increase in floor space ratio, and hence the bulk and scale of the development, without any clear community benefit. The adverse social impact of this development has not been adequately addressed, indicative of a lack of genuine or effective community engagement. This contravenes currently acceptable planning processes, and NSW Governments own stated principles for community participation in planning of significant sites, particularly a state-significant site of this nature. 9. While proponents may argue that the height and scale proposed in the DA are necessary for the financial viability of the project, no evidence has been provided and no alternatives offered that support the proponent’s claims regarding the need for this type of development. 10. The adequacy and capacity of public transport access to the city has not been addressed, nor have issues of increased vehicular traffic and loss of rail services. The light rail, which has been proposed as an alternative to heavy rail, has not been built.
8 11. Serious concerns exist regarding the accountability and probity with NSW Government being both the beneficiary and authorising body for this development. 12. There are serious concerns about the social impact these developments will have on many residents living in or adjacent to the heritage precinct. It is alarming that the developers have not fulfilled their requirements to undertake a Social Impact Assessment (as required within the Council’s policy). The attachment 9 that they refer to provides an outline of what might be intended in future (none of any of the proposed community engagement activities of any substance have occurred to date). 13. The developers refer to plans for “community contribution to the process of planning”. It is not acceptable that this occurs after the development application is lodged, and the suggestion of it seriously undermines the authenticity of their claims of wanting genuine community engagement in the process of community involvement. 14. Vague claims regarding a “sense of belonging” are made by the developers but no substantial justification or explanation is provided for how this will develop. NICRA believes that a “sense of place” already exists largely because of the unique heritage setting, which will be threatened if the proposed high-rise towers are approved. The massive scale of proposed buildings will overshadow many nearby properties, streets and Christchurch Cathedral Park, and destroy forever significant public vistas, all of which contribute greatly to a “heritage sense of place”.
Other matters of concern are listed below:
Vested Interests Versus Public Interests What GPT and UrbanGrowth are proposing will cause long-term damage to Newcastle’s significant historic character and unique low-rise skyline without any clear benefits to the community.
NICRA believes the developers are motivated solely by maximising financial gain for their investors. If approved, this DA will significantly disadvantage Newcastle and Hunter residents who stand to lose significant heritage assets, features, public vistas and low-rise city development that the majority of Newcastle residents desire. They will instead inherit long-term problems associated with these sub-standard developments, including severe over- shadowing, loss of public vistas, privacy issues, wind-tunnelling.
Traffic and Parking Problems The introduction of large high rise buildings, and resulting significant increase in the local population potentially contributing to already grossly inadequate
9 parking provisions and poorly conceived public transport options available to local residents and visitors.
The DA documentation indicates that the development relies on the use of Council's King St car park to meet its parking requirements. Developments are usually expected to meet their own car parking requirements, while this one would be dependent on a car park facility owned and operated by another entity, which could dispose of the asset at any time in the not-too-distant future.
The Appearance of Excessive Developer Influence Given Newcastle City Council’s declared budget emergency it is surprising that Newcastle council is tying up valuable resources exhibiting and assessing this DA when it does not meet current Local Environmental Plan guidelines. This is financial wastage and many residents will want to know why this decision was taken.
DA 2014/323 does not meet the current Newcastle urban planning criteria for this city precinct. Under the existing LEP (clause.7.9 (4)), height limits in Area C (the heritage area of the East End and The Hunter Street Mall). This appears to demonstrate a clear breach of the accepted planning process.
Newcastle city’s council’s handling of this controversial DA in early 2014 seems less than impartial, appearing to favour and support the applicants GPT and UrbanGrowth NSW. This is wrong because it disadvantages other developers, investors, local businesses and many residents. It could be interpreted as a corruption of the local government planning process and, as such, should be investigated to see if excessive developer influence is behind it.
The recently proposed amendments to the Newcastle Development Control Plan (DCP - 5 March 2014), will greatly benefit the developers GPT and Urban Growth NSW, which seek to maximize the scale of the development to achieve a one-off windfall profit for the developers at the expense of almost everyone else, including other developers, existing businesses and especially Newcastle residents.
Conflict of Interests The proposed changes to the DCP are currently being assessed by the NSW state government (Planning and Infrastructure Department), which has been unable to allay community concerns of a potential conflict of interest regarding the Government’s own financial investment in UrbanGrowth NSW and the Government being the assessing and consent authority (through the Department of Planning and Infrastructure). The proposed amendments to the Newcastle Urban Renewal Strategy - DCP and LEP - are still under consideration.
10 Excessive height increases NICRA is opposed to excessive height increases proposed in the draft State Environmental Planning Policy Amendment (SEPP) (Newcastle City Centre) 2014, which was made available for public comment from March 5-21, 2014. The NSW government is supposedly considering such submissions, but the State Member for Newcastle has already indicated that these towers “are going ahead”.
The state Member for Newcastle, Tim Owen MP, who was recently named in the growing ICAC investigation into developer donations for political favours scandal, certainty confirms widespread community suspicions that submissions to both the SEPP Amendment and the Newcastle Development Control Plan (DCP) (Newcastle City Centre), 2012 Amendment from the public are merely part of a “must-do tick-box” exercise in cynical public “consultation” that will have no influence on the outcome of urgings by The GPT Group and Urban Growth NSW to the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure to facilitate height changes to the existing Newcastle Local Environment Plan (LEP) 2012.
The DCP Amendment proposed various height changes according to location. Changes include:
- height limits that are currently 10 metres will increase to 24 metres - height limits that are currently 24 metres will increase to 35 metres - height limits that are currently 24 metres will increase to 70 metres - height limits that are currently 30 metres will increase to 55 metres - height limits that are currently 30 metres will increase to 59 metres - height limits that are currently 30 metres will increase to 49 metres
If the proposed height increases and construction of towers will forever ensure cumulative and permanent degradation to the existing built form, character, human scale, heritage and associated identity of Australia’s second oldest mainland city. This will prove to be the totally opposite outcome from what the NURS set out to achieve. This is unacceptable.
No Justification Given for Seeking Increased Floor Space Ratios (FSRs) The justification for huge increases in FSRs associated with the three towers proposed in DA 2014/323, rely on the proponents’ claims regarding the financial viability of their development, rather than on any established planning principles. However, the proponents have not released any evidence or financial modelling to substantiate their assertion that it is essential to go 20 storeys high to make the project financially feasible. NICRA finds this arrogance both unprofessional and unacceptable.
11 Current Urban Renewal NICRA believes there is a presumption in the GPT and UrbanGrowth Development Application (DA 2014/323 ) that the city centre is dead. This is a misconception. Over recent years a growing vitality in the inner city has been recognised internationally (listed among top ten locations by Lonely Planet in 2011), and the village style development and renewal currently occurring has been widely acknowledged (Sydney Morning Herald http://www.smh.com.au/comment/newcastle-development-a-warning-we-are-on- the-road-back-to-askinland-20140507-zr69w.html, Virgin Australia Magazine – March 2014).
Re-population of the area has been occurring in conjunction with well-designed, integrated and low-rise apartment buildings in the city’s heritage east-end precinct. This progress is evidence that development is occurring with community involvement, but without the need for high-rise towers within the inner city. It is NICRA’s considered position, and the view of many others, that the proposed GPT and UrbanGrowth NSW development would effectively destroy the city’s unique characteristics and retard the urban renewal that is already underway.
An Alternative Vision In relation to Newcastle’s unique heritage city centre, NICRA proposes more rational development that meets the wider community needs, and not just those of particular developers.
We strongly advocate retaining the original 2012 Newcastle Urban Renewal Strategy and the original 2012 Local Environmental Plan as the principal planning documents guiding and governing all future developments in this sensitive historical area. The approved 2014 amendments to NURS must be revoked.
NICRA seeks an opportunity to make a formal presentation about our concerns regarding DA 2014/323, Newcastle East End Project, to the Central Coast and Hunter Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP), when it convenes to evaluate this development proposal. We look forward to this opportunity in the near future.
Please confirm receipt of this submission in writing, thank you.
12
Yours sincerely,
“Electronic submission, therefore not signed”
Brian Ladd
President, Newcastle Inner City Residents Alliance (NICRA)
cc. The Hon. Mike Baird, MP. Premier of NSW The Hon. Rob Stokes, MP. Minister for Planning Nuatali Nelmes, Newcastle Lord Mayor The Hon. Tim Crakanthorp, MP, Member for Newcastle The Hon. David Shoebridge, MLC
13 I am totally opposed to the demolition of Civic Station and am concerned that the heritage integrity of Newcastle Station will be compromised. I support the return of heavy rail in the rail corridor. If this does not occur I think the corridor should be retained. In the unlikely event that light rail ever occurs it should run on the existing corridor. I am vehemently opposed to any building development on the rail corridor. Until the truncation of the rail line I was a frequent train user but like many others I have found having to change from bus to rail is too inconvenient and in some instances impossible.
Jennifer O’Donoghue. The Newcastle Rail station should be a24/7 Permanent markets. Hunter St with the light rail should be vibrant and buzzing with the historical buildings preserved. The foreshore should be open space with seating toilets and bubblers, providing a contrast to a buzzing Hunter St and an area for relaxing and looking at our beautiful water and coast.
Parking west of the new rail... buildings anywhere but on the open foreshore area....no concerts or entertainment venues... With a buzzing main street, permanent markets, a quiet well lit foreshore the centre of Newcastle will morph into a very vibrant friendly and peaceful place. Good walking, cycling, rickshaw access to and from all this is very essential. Plan less than more to give it a chance to morph naturally and slowly as needs dictate.
Dawn O'Flanagan. Total destruction with truncation of heavy rail service to existing Newcastle station‐light rail MUST run along existing rail corridor: Restrict height of buildings in heritage city centre (Newcastle East End) to a maximum of 24 metres as agreed in original LEP 2012: Appropriate development, sympathetic & respectful of existing buildings to include natural topography of the city & scale of existing low‐rise buildings. No overshadowing on northern side of Hunter, King & Scott Streets: Well thought out public transport & parking plan, transport & parking difficulties have escalated in CBD since truncation of heavy rail: Disappointment that 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: Original LEP 2012 should guide future planning for Newcastle. This planning document was widely supported by residents & business alike, after an exhaustive, inclusive & transparent consultation process.
Dianne O’Keeffe. I believe effective public transport which integrates need of the entire greater Newcastle Region has suffered with the removal of a direct rail link from regional and outer Newcastle region into the Central Business District. Both recreational, health, work and business outcomes suffer from the interruption to effective public transport options. The increase in vehicle traffic and bottlenecking into Newcastle has been apparently managed simply with increases in parking meters and parking costs, to which ordinary workers are completely hostage . I believe the exisiting rail corridor should be maintained, I have not seen effective cost benefit analysis that shows that removal of the rail benefits the majority of voters in this region. I believe funds directed at rail removal and light rail construction could more effectively be directed to creating better bus networks especially linking hospital, university, CBD and Lake suburbs.
Funds are desperately needed by schools and hospitals in this, needs that outweigh the need to build light rail.
I believe if construction is unavoidable that the Urban Renewal Strategy of 2012 should be implemented. Civilised cities around the world aim to reduce vehicle traffic and provide safe clear and effective cycleway network wherever feasible to promote health and reduce greenhouse emissions.
The excuse initially put forward for removing the rail was its unsightliness, I think that light rail in hunter st will blight the visual landscape destroy the heritage value of that strip, be an impediment to business and it should remain in the existing rail corridor.
Miriam Paquet. I believe that cutting the train line at Wickham has only been a good thing for the beautiful city of Newcastle we have so much to offer tourists to the area. Having said that the transport links must be there to make the journey to work/Uni/TAFE satisfactory for all users. I believe that if housing is to replace the old train line that new businesses and current businesses will prosper and flourish. And the whole city of Newcastle will benefit from new residents and visitors. Parklands are an essential part of this development and a cruise ship terminal will enable a link for visitors to the main part of town. The only other thing that would make Newcastle more awesome is for the old Post Office to be completely revamped and developed as ?accommodation/entertainment. I currently live on property but my husband and I are seriously considering retiring to an apartment in the CBD, a wonderful new 'connected' Newcastle would be more of an incentive for us to do this.
Tracey Pass. As a resident of the region, i wanted to voice my support for the removal of the heavy rail line. It has cut off the Hunter st mall from the beautiful honeysuckle area and is generally an eyesore.
I beleive that light rail or even an undergournd rail is a better solution. All the greatest cities in the world do not have aboveground rail in the CBD.
However this should NOT be used as for highrise buildings. It needs to be given back to the (entire)community, not up for sale to a select few.
Elissa Peattie. SE 12 – Andrew Peek
My name is Andrew Peek
I attempted to make a submission online on the 9 September But I think the attachments, or one of them, did not attach correctly, So I am now forwarding by email the attachments, they are:
A letter named Interactive Science Place(s) & Display Frames and is now attached And photo of display frames is also attached
Thanks
Andrew Peek
9 September 2015 The Manager Revitalising Newcastle PO Box 33, NEWCASTLE NSW 2300
REVITALISING NEWCASTLE INTERACTIVE SCIENCE & OUTDOOR DISPLAY FRAMES
Please find below some suggestions for Revitalising Newcastle. 1) Interactive Science Place(s) 2) Regional Toy Library 3) Outdoor Display Frames as per photo attached
1) INTERACTIVE SCIENCE PLACE(S) (ISP) Interactive Science uses playing, games, hands on, touch, looking, listening, taste, fun, research that presents science first principles and encourages discovery, asking questions, exploring, learning, problem solving and critical analysis. Some examples of ISP’s are Questacon in Canberra and Puzzling World in Wanaka, New Zealand (www.puzzlingworld.co.nz) and a few displays in the Newcastle Regional Museum.
Interactive science is for everyone and needs to be easily, frequently and readily accessed.
The benefits of interactive science include promotion of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) and daily decision making. Science skills assist evidence based process evaluation. This process is useful in normal daily decision making as well as STEM. An improvement in general decision making can improve social outcomes, indeed social problems follow poor decision making. The STEM Age is here now and in the future. An appreciation and capabilities in science is currently lacking in our society with future prosperity linked to success in science. Science offers skills for a number of future jobs with future prosperity linked to success in science.
Interactive science could be applied in a number of places in the Revitalising Newcastle plan. It is for all people, appealing to children, families and adults. a) The ISP at the Harbour Play City regional playspace could have some interactive science activities incorporated in the play activities. These can be outdoor, indoor and undercover eg under the Newcastle Railway Station roof. This is interactive science at the junior level, it is important this is easily accessible as a part of everyday playing. Apart from learning the particular science it is also important to self discover the process of learning from playing with trial and error, correcting, patience, analysing and concluding. Examples can include equipment with rotation, inertia, lever arm, optics, uplift, maze etc
A regional playground in Newcastle City is very important in order to have a feature for children and a reason to bring children into the city. This will help establish children from an early age to have an ownership of Newcastle City and then overtime they keep returning to the City for other reasons. A successful city with a future needs young people with a future and a foundation of this can be children at the regional playground. b) ISP at the Innovation hub An interactive science place above the junior level, would be appropriate adjacent or in the innovation hub or high tech enterprise zone and maybe also near the junior interactive science place. Activities would be more advanced than the regional playground. The visitors would be students from Primary School, Secondary School and University, Families, Tourists, General Public School Students may visit say a few times a year, like an extended school science laboratory. In addition to some paid workers, this ISP could have a number of volunteers working there. There could also be a social hang out area for the volunteers, and others, that would be encouraging for playing and part of the innovation hub. This would be another part of the “reward” for the volunteers. During weekdays schools can visit and during weekends there would generally be family admissions. c) ISP with some old Engineering and Technology items These can be displays and preferably be available for playing eg for example the workings of a steam engine. This could also, like at the innovation hub, have volunteers and be part of the social hang out for the innovation hub, yesterday inspiring tomorrow. d) ISP at an Old technology diner An old technology diner can have interactive or observational science. This could be near the regional playground, innovation hub and old technology items.
2) REGIONAL TOY LIBRARY A regional toy library would have relevance in the vicinity of the Regional Playground and the Interactive Science place at this playground. With some of the toys of an interactive science nature. Some items could also be sold eg puzzles.
3) OUTDOOR DISPLAY FRAMES These are built with a steel frame and plastic/glass viewing panel, a photo is attached. This photo is taken in Christchurch. The contents in the frame can be changed easily. a) These outdoor display frames can be at the Harbour Play City regional playground area with children’s art presented, like a small outdoor art gallery. Each school, for example, can have a feature time period (say a week) of displaying the school’s art at the regional playground with this encouraging that school community to visit the area at the time of their school display. The feature school idea helps children and their families own the regional playground area, creates an occasion for people to come in to the Harbour Play City and encourages an appreciation of art. b) In addition to art other matters can be displayed eg some visual science. c) These outside display frames with art could also be clustered in other locations, for example in the street and park outside the art gallery ie Street with Art, Park with Art. Some people feel an art gallery is a fortress. This brings art to the people and for people with just a short amount of time a quick but effective use of time. d) These frames can also be adjacent walking and cycling tracks and outside cafes. This could lead to Cafes with Art.
4) MUSIC Music busking areas can go in a number of places. Music is linked with science and an area at the interactive science place at the regional playground is appropriate. Having a piano available for buskers is also unique. This would be in a “kiosk” or behind eg a roller shutter. This could be used by booking and in vicinity of supervision (maybe the interactive science place or old tech diner) and suitable adjacent the art display for schools at the regional playground.
Satisfying the objectives of Revitalising Newcastle The above satisfy the following Revitalising Newcastle objectives: Repurposing Newcastle railway station Enhancing the city’s public open spaces for activities and events Innovation Introduction of new educational facilities Interactive art Performance spaces, (sort of) museums, (outdoor) art galleries, education facilities Iconic buildings and one-of-a-kind experiences Newcastle needs to be an internationally renowned educational city Strongly supports the introduction of new educational facilities in the city centre Infrequent visitors, good place for families and children Innovation, links to education
Please feel free to contact me about further explanation and assistance. Thank you.
Regards
Andrew Peek
Dear Sir,
I object to Hunter St being used to accommodate the light rail. The most obvious site for this, if the train line remains closed, is to run the light rail down the site of the existing rail line. The best option would be to restore the line as most cities around the world have a rail line into their cities. It was always promised that if the rail was to be removed the land would remain a grassy sward and not be built upon. However lies are part and parcel of government speak so the land will be designated for the developers to do what they wish to build upon the line. Sadly the present Government is besotted by the developers promises and jobs without considering the aesthetics of the end result. Keep the rail line green if the rail track is pulled up.
Yours faithfully,
Brendan Pell SE 23 – Ashley and Lorraine Pepper
We wish to make the following submission regarding the proposed redevelopment of the Newcastle Rail Corridor.
1. We resent the heavy handed approach taken by the NSW Government in this regard and especially the way in which the wiring was removed and attempts were made to remove the heavy rail lines. 2. Although your website claims that community consultation has taken place, it appears to us that a decision was made to relocate light rail to Hunter and Scott Streets on the basis that this is the only land not undermined in the Newcastle area and is thus more appropriate for profit for commercial developers. 3. We do not want light rail running along Hunter and Scott Streets and we do not wish the current rail corridor to be removed from public use and ownership. 4.We are aware that retaining a heavy rail line to Newcastle station had the major disadvantage of separating the city from Honeysuckle and the Foreshore. 5. A solution to this problem was proposed by Tony Proust and his associate several years ago at a meeting of the Newcastle Forum. His proposal involved retention of the heavy rail line to Newcastle station and the purchase of special tram/train rolling stock (as tried and proved in Europe). This could operate as train up the Hunter Valley and as a tram between Wickham and Newcastle. Thus the barriers and fences could be removed and the corridor between Wickham and Newcastle could be accessible as a light rail corridor. We understand that submissions have been made about this, but have never seen any serious consideration or reasons why this would not be a good solution. 6. In our observation, at the times we travel to and from Sydney, most passengers have alighted from the train by Hamilton Station and so there would be no need to use the tram/train on the Newcastle Sydney line (provided suitable light rail connections were provided). However, we have observed that many people from the Hunter Valley used to use the train all the way into the city. This will become more important as the presence of the University in the city grows. 7. We wish to reiterate that the existing rail corridor should be retained for public transport, preferably light rail off the tram/train type as described above We object strongly to any other commercial development, especially high rise development, in the rail corridor. 8. We wish the height restrictions on buildings in the Newcastle city area, which were enacted many years ago to remain to preserve the character of the area. Any new developments should be sympathetic to the existing character of the area.
Yours sincerely,
Mr Ashley and Mrs Lorraine Pepper 20 Silsoe St Hamilton, NSW 2303
We are lodging this submission as two individuals. We have read and understood the terms and conditions. We have read and understood the privacy statement.
We understand that you will print our names but not our address.
I believe Newcastle's image and culture will benefit from turning the concrete wall running along the Southern side of King Street between Darby Street and the Tower cinemas into a series of murals which depict and highlight the history and culture of our city.
As it currently stands, the wall is quite bleak and bare, making for a gloomy walk between Darby Street and the mall. With the revitalization of the city centre well and truly under way, this is quite a popular walk between the CBD's two main hubs and many people travel this path on a daily basis, particularly on the weekends.
The wall is naturally divided up into roughly 20 sections by the way the concrete was poured. Each section could be given to a local artist who would be given a theme or topic and then the creative control to create an iconic local art piece that locals could relate to or which would help both locals and tourists learn about the history of this beautiful city. To help with funding, each section could be sponsored by a local business which would be identified on a plaque at the bottom of each section which also explains the image depicted in that particular section.
These are simply ideas which may help to make it happen, but I believe however it is done, having a series of murals would be a wonderful initiative.
Local artists have already had works on display on public buildings such as the back of King Street Hotel and on the building next to Newcastle Permanent on King Street. These are great pieces but I believe this "Novocastrian Wall" would truly be the main artwork for local artists.
When thinking of murals, one from Newcastle and the Hunter naturally thinks of Kurri Kurri, because they have exactly what I am proposing all over the town. These are an icon of Kurri Kurri and help to draw tourists to the area, something I believe this project would also do.
I hope you find my submission to be a good idea and I am glad to have been given an avenue to present it.
Samuel Pickering.
If/When the railway line is truncated at Wickham, the rail corridor to Newcastle should either: convey light rail; be developed as an interesting and innovative community green space; or safely combine light rail and green space.
I am opposed to any commercial development, high or low rise, along any portion of the rail corridor beyond kiosk type development.
Lois Pollnitz. SE 40 – Sophie Powrie
Dear Sir/Madam, I submit that it is important for light rail access into Newcastle CBD be routed along the existing heavy rail corridor in order to • avoid further congestion of Hunter St • avoid additional construction and destruction costs associated with changing Hunter St to service 5 different uses; cars, trams, pedestrians, bicycles and parking • maintain existing Hunter St businesses and provide an opportunity for new business or diversification of existing business along the laneway south of the corridor and on the foreshore • allow for multiple pedestrian and bike connections across the rail corridor as have been established in the temporary, current design • eliminate disconnection between the two forms of rail transport • simplify the Hunter St and Hannel St intersection
In addition, maintaining alignment with the current heavy rail network may facilitate seamless rolling stock if, in future, technological innovations become economically viable. This would afford Newcastle the same transport potential as cities such as Cologne, Germany where the Cologne Stadtbahn meets the Deutsche Bahn InterCity rail service.
I further submit that the city requires intelligent design of the transport interchange that is able to be upscaled in future. The interchange must integrate heavy rail, light rail, bus, commuter car parking, commuter bike parking, taxi zones and car drop off zones. Long term planning should consider future services to the Newcastle airport, in addition to tram line extensions already mooted to Cooks Hill and Maryville. This will require expansion of the interchange and therefore influence site selection or property acquisition required to support a suitable transport interchange.
Newcastle has a growing number of cycle commuters and the student population is predicted to increase in Newcastle. These influences, combined with ongoing investments in cycleways and public health initiatives, have potential to increase bicycle use of the transport interchange as shown below.
Figure 1: Bristol train station, 2012.
A well designed transport interchange, and well executed, connected light rail network will attract significant use and help Newcastle grow as the second largest city in NSW.
Thank‐you for considering these matters. This submission is made as a private citizen/ Newcastle resident.
Yours sincerely, Sophie Powrie
Submission 1:
Newcastle requires public transport system that is reliable, not prone to disruption due to brake downs in the transport network, and is efficient.
In short we need a direct rail connection linking Maitland and the Sydney system with Newcastle.
Please re‐instate the direct rail connection to Newcastle CBD which is at the original terminus point.
You are all intelligent people and know that efficient direct rail link is the most cost effective long term solution for ensuring "urban growth", and removing it forces those commuters and visitors onto a road network which is already straining at peak hours. There is also the high environmental cost both from emissions, and use of fossil fuels by commuters who until now were utilising the direct single trip rail network to access their place of work or study. The demand for this service to provide direct connection to the Newcastle CBD will again increase with the additional education and law precincts to be adjacent the Civic Station.
Please re‐instate the direct Rail connection to Newcastle CBD to ensure Newcastle Grows.
Submission 2:
Newcastle needs a roller skating rink in the inner city.
Newcastle has a large, sustained and flourishing skate culture. We currently sport several Roller Derby leagues for women, men, and children; roller hockey teams; ramp and jam skaters. All compete regionally, nationally, and internationally. Yet Newcastle, our home, has no suitable facility for them to train, or host tournaments.
A dedicated indoor skate facility large enough to accommodate these tournaments can also be multipurpose. When not used as skating facility in can be used for other sporting groups to train, and community groups to meet. Over the past 5 years there has been a dramatic decline in the number of indoor sporting facilities available to established sporting groups whilst demand continues to increase with population growth, and people choosing a more active lifestyle.
There are a number of people within the local roller skating leagues that have experience running skating rink facilities. If the facility was constructed as part of the urban renewal then those leagues could provide the people to administer and run it.
Please Revitalise Newcastle with a Roller Skating Rink.
Natalie Perfrement.
I wish to make a submission to Urban Growth addressing my concerns about the proposed Newcastle Revitilisation Project.
I attended the recent Urban Growth Community Consultation Forum and was disturbed to find that the agenda was strictly managed to promote Urban Growth’s pre‐determined ‘vision’ for Newcastle. The two most controversial aspects of the redevelopment plan (proposed towers in the heritage centre and the light rail route) were not up for discussion. 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. Urban Growth Representatives (from Sydney) were clearly unfamiliar with the city, its history, its geographical assets and limitations, the fierce pride of its residents and the overwhelming dissatisfaction with Macquarie Street decisions. I found them inadequately prepared and poorly equipped to deal with questions.
The plan for the light rail is an absurd and expensive outrage. For years the State Government has been promising Newcastle residents that if the rail was truncated, there would be no development along the rail corridor. We were assured that the light rail would follow this route. It is the most logical, least expensive and favoured option for the majority of Newcastle residents.
Once again, we are being dictated to by pro‐development partnerships that stand to gain short‐term benefits from the sale of this land.
The original Foreshore plan, (a continuous green corridor of land around the harbour) would be realized if the rail corridor was reserved for light rail and green beautification. There could be pocket parks and small‐scale development (cafes, kiosks) in keeping with the parkland concept. A bike path could also be incorporated into the plan. The regional Foreshore Park is already heavily used and any planning for the revitilisation of Newcastle should aim to expand areas of parkland rather than limit prospects for it. Opportunities arise for businesses along the existing rail corridor to activate towards the corridor as well as onto Hunter Street. I was astounded to see that in the plans presented by Urban Growth, there would be substantially more car parking spaces right on the harbor front! What a wasteful, unimaginative use of prime foreshore land! If your transport renewal plan is a successful one, there will not be the need for more car parking, especially right on the waterfront.
I am also appalled that the new ‘transport interchange’ does not have provision for bus lay‐overs. Surely a transport interchange should establish a seamless transition between all modes of transport. It is an ill‐conceived, short‐term solution and will be inadequate for future needs almost as soon as it is built.
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) will not be resolved. These issues should have been addressed in the transport planning stages, since movement (along Wharf Road, Hunter/Scott Street, and King Street) in and out of the narrow peninsula of the East End is difficult.
Urban Growth representatives referred often to the ‘railway barrier’ between the city and the harbor. Residents pointed out that only ‘outsiders’ see it as a ‘barrier’. Newcastle people look on it as their gateway to the rest of Australia and the world. It is not a visual barrier because you can see through it. As a light rail route it would become even more to Novocastrians‐ a pathway from the city to the wider region and a beautified extension of greenspace linking the city to the foreshore. Development of buildings along the corridor would be a visual as well as a physical barrier. Novocastrians would lose much if this type of development was to occur. Developers’ economic arguments (still not substantiated) exaggerate returns and play down the actual social, environmental, financial and cultural costs.
The proposed high‐rise towers in the historic CBD will blight the Newcastle landscape for generations to come. Their sheer size and bulk will completely destroy the character of the heritage centre of the city. Minister Pru Goward approved the changes to building heights (only on these three sites) against recommendations from the community, the Council, and the Urban Design Panel. There has been no proof that these are financially viable, or that they would be of architectural merit. Unfortunately since the development of Honeysuckle began (under the auspices of the Honeysuckle Development Corporation) our city has suffered the ignominy of bland, utilitarian buildings that maximize economic returns at the expense of architectural legacy. Newcastle has a rich history and some fine historical buildings. These must be protected. It was disappointing to note that preservation and protection of historical assets was not included in the Revitilisation objectives set out by Urban Growth. This is quite an omission, considering that Newcastle is the second oldest city (established just after Sydney) and was the birthplace of European industry in Australia. History is one of the city’s strengths, and yet, you are not using this opportunity to make it a focus. At the ‘engagement’ session I attended, this was a high priority for the majority of attendees. Building heights in the heritage city centre (Newcastle East End) need to 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. All development in this precinct must be appropriate in that it must be sympathetic and respectful of existing heritage buildings. The unique topography of the city (crowned by the cathedral) must be maintained. The wonderful views into and out of the city must not be marred by the incongruity of unsympathetic high‐rise development. Visitors to the city are attracted by its lack of high‐rise and its homogenous building character. It is a city centre distinguished by the availability of sunlight and its comfortable and comforting, human scale. Any further development on the northern side of Hunter Street, King Street or Scott Street must not overshadow the existing low‐rise buildings on the southern side of the street.
I must stress again that the original LEP 2012 indicated that Newcastle West should become the ‘new’ commercial Newcastle with room for growth in building heights and density. Newcastle East End would remain the intact, historic focus of the city, building and strengthening the links between the Lumber Yard/Convict Stockade, Newcastle East conservation area, Fort Scratchley and Nobbys, the Newcastle Station precinct and Customs House, the Post Office and old Police Station and the plethora of well‐preserved 19th century buildings running from The Hill to the foreshore.
I noted with interest, the major issues for attendees at The Revitalise Newcastle Community Engagement session. High on the list of priorities was developing the West End into a new commercial/residential hub. Another important issue was to bring people back into the city by focusing on innovative arts/design businesses and education facilities that would create jobs in a diverse market. This is already under way as small‐scale, creative workplaces grow organically. A supportive network of like‐minded people has been growing steadily since Marcus Westbury first began his Renew Newcastle initiative. Development and progress do not necessarily come from the top down. More sustainable are the numerous small and creative businesses that are emerging.
The original LEP 2012 should guide future planning for Newcastle. This planning document was widely supported by residents and businesses alike, after an exhaustive, inclusive and transparent consultation process. Urban Growth would do well to follow its recommendations if they were truly about giving the people of Newcastle a genuine voice in the future of their city.
It is not surprising that Novocastrians view Urban Growth and the State Government with enormous skepticism. Earnest promises made to us about keeping the rail corridor in the public domain as green space have been broken. The obvious inefficiencies of the under‐planned transport interchange are predictably causing Newcastle people much concern. The lack of government and developer concern for utilities and assets that Novocastrians hold dear is a major cause for complaint. The perception (often supported by State Government actions) that Newcastle is a revenue‐raiser for Sydney, NSW and the rest of Australia, is widely held. The leasing of the port should have benefitted the Newcastle region by providing the finances to fund all the planned revitilisation projects. Instead we see now that the State Government intends to siphon off large amounts of money to spend elsewhere in NSW leaving Newcastle a watered down and considerably inferior version. The alarming partnership between Urban Growth and GPT gives substance to the belief that this set of ‘revitilising’ initiatives is really about recouping financial losses incurred because of poor government investment. The private partnership between Urban Growth and GPT had many Novocastrians asking questions about the true nature of the development plans. The lack of transparency throughout the process (including the government investment in commercial property market and the secretive land deals associated with the rail land) has resulted in a very wary and suspicious community. In the pre‐amble Urban Growth states: Our vision for the revitalisation of the city centre has been informed by feedback from the community, Newcastle City Council, expert planners and architects, government agencies and city renewal experts. This statement appears to be flawed in several ways. Novocastrians don’t believe their voices have been heard. There is certainly no evidence that residents’ views have been heeded after the last round of ‘consultation’. The Urban Design Panel convened to give (expert) advice about the planned development of the city, specifically targeted the proposed building height changes in the historic centre. They recommended that these heights would be detrimental to the city and would detract from heritage buildings and views of the Cathedral from many vantage points in and around the city, including views from the water and from Stockton. Transport experts advised that if light rail was to be adopted, then the route should not take a path along Hunter Street, but should follow the existing rail corridor. It would be cheaper, more direct and would utilise stations already in existence. Additional stops could be incorporated into the plan.
I have attended several forums where representatives from the real estate sector have questioned the financial viability of the proposed tower developments. They have called for evidence from Urban Growth, GPT and the Property Council to prove the figures they have presented.
Who has Urban Growth been listening to? The list includes former disgraced politicians, GPT, the business community, developers, NSW Planning and Environment and the Hunter Development Board. Tenuous claims about Newcastle’s best interests have a hollow ring when you examine what is in it for them.
Newcastle people believe that Urban Growth should honour the promises it made about keeping the rail corridor for the light rail route. Maximum building heights in the Newcastle East precinct should revert to those set out in the original LEP 2012 (24 metres) allowing greater building heights in the Newcastle West commercial precinct. The transport interchange should allow a seamless transition between modes of transport on the same site. Otherwise, Urban Growth’s legacy will prove to be a very poor outcome for our city.
Name withheld.
SE 49 – Dianne Richardson
I would really like to see the heavy rail line reinstated all the way into Newcastle Station. The cutting of the rail line at Hamilton has greatly affected the people from Maitland, the coalfields, upper hunter and Lake Macquarie areas who travel by train to Newcastle. It has put more cars on the road because people can’t be bothered with changing from trains to buses as buses are not as convenient as the train if you are a person with a disability, a mother with stroller and small children or have a pushbike or surfboard. The buses take longer to get you to your destination in the inner city which makes your journey longer. My son who has a disability used to catch the train into Newcastle but is totally confused by the new system of changing at Hamilton and having to catch a bus. The only way he will go to Newcastle now is if I drive him and this means that he has lost that independence which took him along time to acquire. The shopkeepers have also noticed a decline in people travelling into the Newcastle CBD.
I don’t know of any Major city in the world that is cutting the transport options into the heart of the city, most are expanding these services to keep more cars off the roads. Where the State Government should be building a light rail system is to Newcastle Airport as there is only a local bus service at the moment. With the expansion of the airport this service is greatly needed.
I have noticed in my last couple of visits to Hamilton there are a lot of homeless people begging on the street and there are also a lot of inebriated homeless people on the street as you walk up Beaumont street, it is very hard to ignore these people. I have only noticed this happening since the rail line was terminated at Hamilton. In speaking to business owners and cafe operators they do not like this happening on their street, their customers are being bothered by these people and it is affecting their trade.
I feel it’s a great waste of public money to build this new interchange and light rail system because we already had a perfectly good railway system in place until the State Government decided to truncate it. The money could be better spent on areas that need more funding eg light rail to Newcastle Airport, hospitals, schools and public facilities that would attract more people and tourists to the city. There has to be a better way of incorporating the heavy rail system through to Newcastle Station and also revitalising the inner city.
Kind Regards Dianne Richardson Edward Chasty Zane Richardson‐Chasty
I am a long term resident of Newcastle and I am devastated by the short term thinking that is inherent in these so called revitalisation plans for our city.
Stopping the rail services that provide the public tranport link for Newcastle city centre to the rest of the state is bad enough but to then perpetuate this stupidity for future generations by giving up the rail corridor to development is criminal.
I don't know why you use the title "Newcastle Urban Transformation & Transport Program". There is nothing sensible in this plan from a transport perspective. I can imagine a light rail system could be a useful addition to Newcastle public tranport but it would have to be a system that actually goes somewhere I want to go. A few km of stand alone light rail tacked on to the end of the existing rail system makes no sense. All it does is add time and inconvenience to every journey. The supposed benefit ‐ connecting the harbour to the city is a spin doctor's mantra. Why spend hundreds of millions to give us a transport system that is worse than what we had?
The other major problem is the proposed high rise towers in the city centre ‐ way in excess of the previous height limits for this area. Spot rezoning is just wrong. The whole point of having planning guidelines is to guide development. You don't change the guidelines to suit a particular development or particular developer. Urban Growth should comply with the same rules that everyone else has to comply with. These towers are in conflict with the character, scale and skyline of this area.
Paul Rippon
SE 27 – Brian Roberts
Brian L. Roberts 34a Macquarie Street BOLTON POINT 2283 Phone 0419 270139 ______18th September 2015.
SUBMISSION REGARDING THE NEWCASTLE RAIL CORRIDOR I grew up Newcastle at the time trams ran down Hunter Street and continued on to several suburbs. They provided good transport for their day but were limited. They disrupted other traffic, were unable to deviate from their tracks to service other areas which were growing, and posed a hazard for passengers alighting into traffic lanes. The Government eventually decided that trams were old technology, too limiting, and too expensive to keep operating. Buses were deemed to be more flexible, safer and cheaper to operate. The trams were removed and buses became the norm. It was a popular move at the time. The Liberal NSW Government’s decision that trams should replace buses and should again run down Hunter Street and that this will somehow “revitalise” Newcastle, is hard to fathom. I am afraid I just don’t get it. Trams haven’t changed much since my childhood, a bit flashier perhaps, but basically they remain an inflexible form of transport that disrupts other traffic and pose a health hazard to customers hopping off into traffic lanes. If we must have them, please keep them in the old train corridor. They will be safer there, and it will save a huge amount of money and disruption. More confusing is the decision by this same Government to sell off the existing rail corridor into Newcastle. Why? Surely the Government is not so strapped for cash the few dollars it will receive from this ill conceived sale is worth the down side? Transport corridors are gold, and as the city of Newcastle develops it will need more and better transport. Think 100 years from now and what Newcastle will be like then. It will need a fast efficient transport system right into the heart of the city. It won’t have this if the rail corridor goes.
Brian Roberts
In 50 or 100 years time Newcastle will be a very large city. It will need a public transport system then that includes the centre of the city. I believe it is imperative the rail corridor be retained for possible future development as a transport corridor. Transport corridors are gold. A decision to sell even a small part of the corridor now would be stupid. By all means landscape it, make it into public spaces, parks gardens etc. BUT DO NOT SELL IT OFF. Think of future generations.
Brian Roberts
My vote is for option 5 ‐ an integrated light rail and world class cycle way along the existing transport corridor... complimenting a revamped "atrium style" residential and commercial shopping mall.
I can accept that the Government creates a new city ‘hub’ terminus at Wickham, just like the long promised and equally important ‘Glendale Interchange’ and I am extremely positive about the potential for an expanded light rail network throughout the greater Newcastle urban area. (think for example to The Junction / The Uni / Blackbutt reserve / The John Hunter)
Yet I firmly believe the existing corridor is the best route for light rail, which can include a dedicated cycle way. After much debate, I believe our community was almost ready to accept light rail provided it utilised existing public owned tracks and infrastructure because it offered opportunities for safe public transport and good options like bike paths.
Steven Roberts. As a long term transport user from Maitland heavily reliant on Maitland to Newcastle ...rail corridor .I am greatly upset by the rail closure and the service that has been put in place, to replace it .....so much so I HAVE,NT BEEN TO NEWCASTLE ....for months ....School holidays coming up and I would normally take my 6 Grandkids into Newie but to hard now .....Hamilton to Newcastle isn,t to bad, but getting back to Hamilton is where the problems lie .....Sundays are really bad ,and Saturday is catching up ...I along with many, many others just want our rail line restored then Hunter to Newcastle will once again have a streamlined..train service, one we can all use......
Jenny Rooke.
As submission deadline looms large a short note: • The truncation of Newcastle’s rail services is not an equitable solution for most of the lower Hunter population. You have made it difficult for many to access Newcastle. • Please note that car parking in the Newcastle area is crammed. An example of this is Bar Beach Car park which has been noted as full on work days when the beach is near empty. • Lugging baggage on and off trains and buses looks particularly arduous for many of our visitors. This is not going to change with light rail.
• We are not certain we are even going to get light rail. • If we are not going to get light rail please put our train line back. Buses are not an efficient mode of public transport for the heart of Newcastle.
• If we do get light rail can it please stay on the existing rail line. Hunter Street is already crammed.
• Please don’t demolish Civic Station. It is a heritage building and should be treasured. In addition please value Newcastle Train Station. I’d dislike seeing it deteriorate as per our old Post Office which was handed to the Awabakal People in a disgraceful state.
• Last but by all means most important. Please ensure maximum green space in the heart of Newcastle. In addition, please ensure that the centre of town retains its historical building height restrictions in order to maintain heritage integrity. We want Newcastle to remain a beautiful city.
Yours sincerely, Anne Marie Ross
To the Newcastle Council,
As a new resident of Newcastle, I was quick to judge the city; between the beaches, culture, and opportunity, Newcastle has much to offer. Located only two hours North of Sydney, it is destined to be the next big thing and with the increasing population, it is evident that change needs to happen. Newcastle has several historic landmarks and details that define its significance, all of which contribute to the essence of the city. It is understandable that people want to maintain these character traits but ultimately, that would only restrain Newcastle from reaching its full potential as a city. It is possible to revitalize Newcastle in a way that will retain the traditional qualities that people love, yet introduce a fresh and urban vibe. In most cities, the CBD is the main attraction where as in Newcastle, it is extremely limited with little to offer. Hunter Street Mall needs a major makeover; implement local businesses, cafes/restaurants, retail shops, education campuses, and entertainment facilities to bring people back into the city. Restore the buildings, replenish the gardens, and enrich the history to revive the spirit of the city. Additionally, implement a light‐rail system to make the city easily accessible to people. If the CBD is rejuvenated by creating jobs, opportunities, and things to do, it only makes sense to make an easier way for people to get there. The train system is inconvenient, harsh on the environment, and segregates several areas. A light‐rail system would open up and connect the city while promoting public transport. Lastly, Newcastle is one of the few places that possess pristine beaches next door to a city. The only thing missing would be the ease of getting between the two. It is an understatement to say I was less than impressed with the condition of the streets of Newcastle; the majority of the buildings are half empty and unkempt. Parking is a notorious inconvenience and not sufficient for the amount of people that need it. The city centre is close enough to walk to any nearby suburb, but there is no suitable route to take; the options would be to walk through less than desirable run‐down streets or around the outskirts of town. Somehow, there needs to be a connection between the two. Whether it be a parks, trails, pathways, or public transport, there needs to be a way. It is astonishing that the population of Newcastle is half a million; after knowing these stats and then seeing the bare minimum of pedestrians walking through our CBD on any given day should be a huge sign that development and transformation is in demand. Time to embrace the changes and start taking care of the city and the people who live in it.
Kelsey Ross.
As a Newcastle resident I have been dismayed at the potential for the rail corridor land to be sold off to the highest bidder for high density development. This would be a disaster ‐ I oppose it wholeheartedly. Please use this public land for the public good. I am a keen supporter of maintaining the heavy rail into town as I fear cutting it off at Wickham will mean the centre of town becomes even less frequented, a sort of 'dead end'. Rail travel is environmentally sound, efficient, and allows long journeys on a single mode of transport therefore encouraging public transport commuting rather than more cars on the roads. The world's great cities have rail connections between their centre and the wider rail network. The challenge is to create easier access across the rail line, and revitalise various parts of town (which is already happening with so many new businesses and cafes springing up), WITHOUT tearing down such a valuable resource. However, I am a realist, and I see that with so much public money already spent on this very unpopular project, it may well go ahead. In that case, please complete the proposed light rail from Wickham rather than leaving us with buses long term. Light rail has the potential to provide an environmentally sound public transportation option into the city centre, and allow flow of foot traffic across to the foreshore thereby connecting the city with the waterfront, which was the stated purpose of the entire project. The heritage station buildings should be maintained and sensitively converted. Please don't destroy more of our history!
Rebecca Rowe. Revitalisation of the city centre of Newcastle can, I assert, be best fostered by the re‐opening of the CityRail line to Newcastle Station.
I am a business operator in the Dungog area. If I were seeking to establish a business in Newcastle the most appealing locality would be one in the city centre where my staff and clientele could come by train ‐ or bicycle. My experience living and travelling in cities elsewhere in the world (Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Montreal, Glasgow...) convinces me that for a sustainable future the most appropriate urban housing and commercial development is centred around the stations of an efficient railway system.
Every off‐one‐on‐another connection in a public transport system is a disincentive to the use of that system. The simple fact that commuters from as far away as Dungog, but most likely from Maitland or areas on the west side of Lake Macquarie, could have direct services to city stations (Hamilton, Wickham, Civic, Newcastle) encourages not only development of businesses close by those stations but also development of medium‐density housing close to feeder stations.
I would encourage a review of transport and development options for Newcastle from the perspective of our society in twenty years' time. We will be less reliant on the personal car. We will be acutely aware of the recreational value of Newcastle's world‐class beaches ‐ within walking distance of Newcastle Station. We will be proud of the way our city connects to the Hunter River mouth, Nobbys, the Cathedral and Stockton across the water.
Revitalisation needs an artery and the rail line from Hamilton through to Newcastle Station is that artery. It is critical that this pause in the flow of rail traffic be a temporary one. A review might leave the line as is or run it underground or within a corridor with buildings or green spaces above and around. Certainly there is an opportunity to redesign the arterial pathway. But the flow from outer areas uninterrupted to Newcastle Station will be cut at grave loss to the future development of the city.
Ken Rubeli Please do not allow the cutting or truncation of Newcastle's heavy rail line. Nowhere in the world would any government consider selling off such a valuable asset as public transport to benefit property developers. It is short sighted to think that this sell off of public property could enhance Newcastle, instead it will hinder Newcastle's growth. This is high level corruption and it is illegal. The alternative public transport option that has been given is ludicrous and has resulted in heavier traffic heading into Newcastle from Maitland as it is now easier to drive than catch the train. Now more than ever it is imperative that people be encouraged to choose public transport over driving a car.
Please keep our rail line. Thank you
Yania Salitra. The manner in which the New South Wales State Government, Urban Growth, the Hunter Development Corporation have gone about allegedly revitalising the Newcastle city centre has been a classic example of how not to revive a city.
Clearly, the plan invloves building high rise buildings on the rail corridor. Placing high buildings close to the water like this is what was done to the Gold Coast in the nineteen sixties and nineteen seventies. The edifices ruined to look and livibility of the city. This along with a total lack of infrastructure planning, in particular public transport, has made the Gold Coast one of the most chaotic cities on Australia's East Coast. Closing the railway to South Port in 1964 only made matters worse. We do not need this in Newcastle. However the situation was eased in the nineteen nineties and early two thousands when the railway was built to Robina. This clearly illustrates the need for effective urban rail services which is what Newcastle had until the line was closed.
Newcastle still has good a collection of heritage buildings. A city as old as Newcastle needs to recognise the value and potential of its heritage. If the buildings are cleaned up, spruced up and not allowed to decay they can go a long way to making the city more attractive to visitors. This has been done successfully in Fremantle, Kalgoolie, Port Adelaide, Hobart, Launceston, Bendigo, Napier and Wanganui but to name a few. All these cities are different, but their heritage has been used successfully to make the cities more prosperous. Newcastle's heritage has the potential to go a long way to revitalising the city. Why have these buildings been allowed to decay?
My biggest concern has been the closure of the railway. Far from improving access, this action has had the reverse affect. People using train services now have to change at Hamilton; something they did not have to do before. This has made using public transport l more difficult, particularly for the disabled and the elderly. The result has been a fall in patronage on the Hunter lines of over fifty percent. This has been accompanied with a rise in private care use which has resulted in more traffic congestion. Lack of parking spaces has become a lot more serious as well.
Before the railway was closed there was a lot of talk about making Hunter Street more accessible to the harbour. However it would seem there was no thought about how accessible the city would be when the railway closed. Closing the Railway Street level crossing has made driving across Newcastle more difficult as it has thrown more traffic onto Beaumont Street and Stewart Avenue thereby increasing congestion during peak hours. During the day, Beaumont Street seems to be in a permanent state of gridlock! Stopping right turns from Stewart Avenue onto Hunter Street has made getting into the city more difficult as it has put more traffic onto King Street. Getting into Hunter Street is harder too.
All of this has made Newcastle less attractive. Those who have felt this have been the business community. On average, businesses in Hunter Street have seen a five percent drop in activity since the railway closed. Some have reported a twenty percent fall with trade still falling. Some businesses have closed.
What is puzzling is why the railway was closed before the terminus at Wickham and the light rail were completed. Many have asked why the railway was closed when it was. All of this defies logic.
Clearly little if any thought has been put into the planning associated with the closure of the railway. Revitalisation was beginning to take place before the railway was closed. Indications are the reverse is now taking place.
Closure of the railway has achieved nothing. Many said this would be the case during information and consultation sessions but they were ignored. Submissions calling for the railway to remain in operation were also ignored. It is now obvious that train services need to be reinstated to Newcastle as soon as possible. This will be essential if revitalisation is to succeed. Failure to do so will condemn Newcastle to a slow death.
Peter Sansom. While I remain in favour of the revitalisation of Newcastle and the opportunities it will offer the city, I remain sceptical of specific outcomes that have been promised by a conga‐line of NSW transport and planning ministers in an attempt to convince the public of the project’s merits. This scepticism is fuelled by the recent litany of broken promises offered by those ministers and a readily apparent lack of same page vision and co‐ordination between government departments and their agencies, an absence of a business case, a lack of compelling economic or financial modelling and a regrettable deficiency of evidence‐based decision‐making processes. If there is any recognisable consistency to the Newcastle revitalisation strategy, it is in the vague approach to specifics. This keeps the citizenry uninformed of intention, timeframes and budgets. Whether this is a deliberate tactic or a result of uncoordinated planning on the run is not determinable.
Just yesterday, the SMH reported the NSW Acting Auditor‐General’s finding regarding a shameful waste of tens of millions of dollars on the white elephant Tibby Cotter walkway at the SCG. That report points out government haste has resulted in a cost of the project blowing out to $38 million. The report points out the NSW government could have saved $25 million if it followed proper procurement processes. NSW taxpayers have a right to fear such wastage may be chicken‐feed compared to what the Auditor‐General may find when it is revealed the savings that could have been made if the planned light rail used the existing, heavy rail corridor.
It is likely, given support in the NSW Upper House, the infrastructure associated with the heavy rail will soon be removed. There has long been a belief held by many in Newcastle that the rail corridor land would be sold by the government to developers. But there was a concerted government effort to convince Novocastrians that would not be the case. And that concerted effort convinced many Novocastrians that the closing of the rail line was to create connectivity between the city and its foreshore and that the corridor dwoul forever remain in public hands. Development on the corridor was specifically ruled out by then State Planning Minister Brad Hazzard in 2012, as this excerpt from an ABC news story demonstrated:
Mr Hazzard is assuring the people of Newcastle it will not allow developers to move into the city's rail corridor.
"I can make it very clear, 100 per cent, that our intent is that it stays in public ownership for the long haul," he said.
"There's no intent whatsoever to go handing it over to developers.
"What we're really talking about here is a guaranteed, no doubt about it, it stays in public ownership, and must remain as a potential corridor." (ABC, 14 December, 2012, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012‐12‐ 14/going2c‐going2c‐gonenewcastle27s‐rail‐line‐to‐be‐cut/4427350).
While the NSW government has shown a strong aptitude for the employment of cunning language by claiming 99‐year “leases” rather than a “sale,” sit wa never the
1 intention of Mr Hazzard to allow developers to move into that corridor. And that’s how the project gathered support.
Less than 12 months ago, the Hunter chapter of the Property Council supported the position put forward by Minister Hazzard back in 2012. The Property Council claimed in its submission to the NSW Legislative Council Select Committee inquiry into the planning process in Newcastle and the broader Hunter region that “the heavy corridor must be preserved as public domain and should be transformed into green space …”
I am confident that there will be no change of view by the Hunter chapter of the Property Council after so vociferously arguing their point that developing the corridor “would be akin to building in Sydney’s Pitt Street Mall.” They convinced Novocastrians they were on side with the corridor being maintained and remaining free from development. To change their view would not only be treacherous, it would forever position them as a group to never, ever to be trusted when it comes to being committed to their word.
Recommendations:
1. Maintain the corridor as a green space. Bike paths and pedestrian friendly access must be provided. I am wedded to this idea only because the NSW Government is too obstinate to admit the cost of moving the rail 30 metres to the south is a financial and planning blunder of gigantic proportion. We will have to wait for the Auditor–General’s report to have the obvious route of the existing corridor and associated cost savings revealed to the taxpayers of NSW. By that time, as with the Tibby Cotter walkway mentioned in the introduction to this submission, blame will be shifted elsewhere.
2. Ensure corridor retention and no development on the corridor, as put forward by the Hunter chapter of the Property Council and promised by Minister Hazzard. Any development on the corridor – and, despite the “100 per cent” assurance of Minister Hazzard there would be no development, I have little doubt that the final plan will recommend the building of apartments – must be no higher than four stories in line with most other residential buildings on Wharf Road east of Merewether Street.
3. Understand that Wharf Road is going to become a de facto highway if the light rail runs down Hunter and Scott Street. Wharf Road will become the new “Berlin Wall”. The promise of connectivity will be an epic fail. It is already a rat run for those seeking to get to Industrial Drive from the city and vice‐versa. Planners need to get the private cars out of Wharf Road.
4. Be true to the NSW Premier’s undertaking to the people of Newcastle that this is “the people’s project.” I take that to mean that those making the decisions will be responsible with taxpayer funds, operate openly and in a
2 coordinated fashion, admit errors and operate within a model of transparent governance.
Paul Scott
3 My family wish to strongly voice our concerns to the greedy selfish proposal of removing the direct rail connection to inner Newcastle without consultation to those who use this valuable transport infrastructure and without any satisfactory alternative in place
We residents of outlying areas depend on the rail line for easy access to work and medical appointments. Current transport to & from Hamilton is far from satisfactory or reliable
We will NOT drive due to lack of access to parking and costs
We need direct and easy access to the CBD not changing from one mode of transport to another in all weather conditions. This has been experienced with toddlers & having to stand in pouring rain as there was no shelter waiting over 30mins for the bus to Hamilton
Please have consideration for the residents that live outside the Newcastle CBD eg Lake Macquarie Maitland, Singleton Muswellbrook, Dungog etc that use & want direct access to Newcastle
Please consider our concerns.
Lyn Shafer.
I proffer that the transport corridor should be for light rail to travel along the existing heavy rail corridor rather than down Hunter and Scott Streets. The rail corridor is for transport and not just a saleable item for development. It was always intended to allow easy quick access to the city and in itself plays a part in revitalising Newcastle City. This is especially important now with the development of the new Newcastle Campus of the University of Newcastle being built. Parking and transport already are at breaking point.
Without an adequate transport and parking plan in place, transport and parking difficulties that have escalated in the CBD since the truncation of the heavy rail should be addressed. Light rail will provide this access and allow for traffic and people within the CBD to move more freely as their will be no further burdens to the Streets in the CBD.
Furthermore I support restricting building heights in the city centre heritage area, the Newcastle East End, to a maximum of 24metres (approximately 8 storeys) as was agreed in the LEP 2012 prior to the amendments in 2014 were approved.
We should not see overshadowing of buildings on the southern side of Hunter Street, King Street or Scott Street by any new building developments on the northern side of these streets. Any development in this precinct needs be appropriate (respectful, harmonious and sympathetic) to existing heritage buildings. Any new development should respect the natural topography and the scale of the existing low‐rise buildings.
I am extremely disappointed that the Revitalise Newcastle 'Community Engagement Program' does NOT include GPT/Urban Growth's Newcastle East End Project, despite it being a fundamental aspect of any future plan for the city.
As the LEP 2012 was extensively supported by residents and the business community, after an exhaustive, legitimate and inclusive consultation process it should act as a guide for future planning for Newcastle.
Joan Shanley. Revitalising Newcastle, 18/09/15 Urban Growth NSW PO Box 33 Newcastle NSW 2300 [email protected]
Re: Revitalising Newcastle community submission
Dear Urban Growth,
Resiliency whilst revitalising Newcastle is paramount to the success of the revitalisation and driving Newcastle to future sustainable growth. The feedback provided discusses the options, precincts, and the Wickham Interchange.
Options Feedback
These presuppose traffic feasibility and better integration of other transport modes into Wickham Interchange.
My preference is a mix of option 2 and 4 elements.
Option 2 with option 4 entertainment precinct adaptively reusing Newcastle Station. The downside is the relocation of the bus terminal to accommodate greenspace, but maintain additional buildings by market street.
In addition, closing part of Wharf road to traffic creating a vibrant space with entertainment, greenery, and access to light rail or buses, as well as, parking should be investigated (see image below.) I believe this would great a worldclass harbour precinct and really show off our assets. Tourism and cruise ships would thrive, daily activity from the markets and employment would generate stability and human places.
The Perkins Street paved pedestrian area would shift to Wolf Street and, instead be a potential access point to Scott Street. I understand the potential traffic implications, however I think they good be mitigated, particularly if the public transport is working well, cycling lanes are provided into the city, and parking garages and car parks remain but on the fringe.
In lieu of this, option number 4 with less buildings and more greenery, but maintain the thoroughfare.
1 of 3
Precincts
Civic Station Link
Civic station’s historical bridge should be kept as a remembrance, arts walk, or even hold a band on a warm summer night while people watch from the park below. In the daytime, tourists would visit, some might lazy stroll over the bridge. It could tell the story of the Newcastle’s past from into the future.
The park connecting Wheelers Place to the foreshore should consider the following features:
. bubblers . way finding signage . end of trip facilities (cycle racks and toilets) . seating (grass and benches/urban lounges) . flora and grass . fauna habitat boxes (birds or microbats)
Neighbouring concrete walls should be hidden with green vertical walls and art displays. A lung for the city. Rainwater tanks can be hidden underground when retrofitting the area for neighbouring buildings.
The community could be allowed to take parts of the Civic Station platform to remember or make into art. Some elements should be kept such as the sign and placed for public art.
Hunter Street Activation
The Hunter Street activation associated development should consider integrating building services across the whole site to promote resources efficiency and resiliency. Mechanical services, solar generation and battery systems, grey water and recycling , waste services to produce , and other city and building system services are a few of the ideas that could work to make a sustainable precinct.
Planning controls should be reviewed to require bicycle end of trip facilities that are accessible and convenient for the building users to promote active travel and city living.
Newcastle Station Entertainment Precinct
Newcastle Station can become a vibrant 24 hour space. Markets, galleries, fresh food, event space, public seating and regional play park.
Two event spaces would allow both private and public owned spaces. The public space would be open during the day, could be booked by community groups, have pop up food, or public gallery space. This space would be owned by council. The private space could hold corporate events, artists in residences, and high profile cultural and arts events.
Transport Interchange
There are two issues I see with the Wickham Transport Interchange. The first is the current design lack of integrated transport facilities. The interchange requires integration to support:
. pedestrians, . cyclists (end of trip facilities including secure changes, and lockers) o Ideally these people would cycle to the interchange the take the train to Sydney or central coast.
2 of 3
. buses, o Express buses, coaches, and other should be able to use it to connect to Sydney or the west. . driver drop off zones o i.e. taxes, handicap, or other requirement for private vehicle use.
Integrated into the design for functionality these elements would assist in truly improving the cities public transit system and liveability.
Second is the current location.
The current location seems to only future proof Newcastle 20 -30 years, rather than say 50 – 100 year infrastructure vision and capabilities like most world class cities. The proposed location for a ‘future proof’ Newcastle Interchange would makes sense at the intersection of the Newcastle and Hunter Lines (see map) or closer to Hamilton. The light rail potential from here could go into the city as planned but split at the proposed Wickham Station and divert a second link to the Junciton and Merewhether Beach. Or an light rail route from the interchange to Mayfield through Tighes Hill providing future growth and revitalisation opportunities in an area starting to gentrify.
Either way, additional light rail lines should be considered to connect the inner suburbs and promote mixed used development. Cycleways should be considered as part of any of these developments.
Conclusion
I look forward to viewing the rest of the community’s consultation and the exciting ideas that will be produced. To revitalising Newcastle!
Sincerely,
Megan Sharkey (BSc, MPlan, MSusD)
3 of 3
SE 31 – Geoffrey Sharrock
Subject: Submission on Revitalising Newcastle Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 11:47:45 +1000
I attended an Urban Growth Workshop in Newcastle on Saturday 12 September.
It was explained at the commencement, that the workshop would be limited to the rail corridor only. This was a disappointment to me any many other participants. I fully understand Urban Growth's reasons for this.
The best use for the heavy rail corridor is a light rail corridor. Although Urban Growth representatives we annoyed at this being raised I, and others, asked for this feedback to be given to the NSW Government. I did not hear anyone, in the two groups in which I participated, agree with a Hunter Street route for light rail.
I wish to register my objection to the Cabinet decision to locate the light rail in Hunter Street (east of Worth Place). I attended the consultation on this some time ago. There were a small number of pre‐determined options put. I proposed a compromise route where a loop line would use the existing rail corridor in one direction and Hunter Street in the other. It seems that the options presented were the only options to be considered and no alterations were made. It was a textbook example of 'we want to listen to you views but we do not want them to influence our decision.'
It is a scandalous waste of money to move the route from the existing infrastructure to a route, in places, less than 20 metres away. I understand that it is around $120 million extra to do this . Removing valuable and usable infrastructure to replace it with almost identical infrastructure is absurd. This valuable money could be better spent on other urban improvements in Newcastle.
One has only to make a trip to Melbourne to see the former St Kilda railway line converted to a light rail route to see how existing infrastructure has been used, including previous railway stations used as light rail stops . This is what Civic and Newcastle stations should be used for: not a market(as there are already existing markets in the city) or demolished.
Why trash more infrastructure? For what reason, and for whose benefit is the light rail going along Hunter Street?
It seems to me that the NSW Government has only listened to three groups: HDC, Hunter Business Chamber and the Property Council. These are not the only groups in Newcastle with knowledge and they all have vested interests to promote. Newcastle citizens, that is, those who will be the main users, views have been listened to but have not been taken into account when decisions have been made.
I live in the city and I use public transport. It is now time to reconsider this irrational and extravagant decision to relocate light rail to Hunter Street.
Yours sincerely
Geoffrey Sharrock 50 Wolfe Street Newcastle Tel: 0427 671878 [email protected]
Bring back heavy rail. You do not revitalize a city by making transport to the city slower and more inconvenient. You've now blown out the train trip to Newcastle from Sydney to over 3 hours. Great work!
This city was judged to be one of the best 10 cities in the world to visit by the Lonely Planet guide. Your "revitalization" will ruin tourism. Who wants to see giant concrete boxes? You can go to a third world city and see the same thing.
A farmer's market in the former Newcastle Station? You haven't thought this through at all. Come to the working farmer's market on any Sunday morning and see the massive amount of cars. Where will you park them?
Development on the corridor? That's what it has ALWAYS been about...nothing to do with any revitalization. You lied and told us it would be green space and called anyone suggesting that it was about development of the line for highrise as "looney tunes".
Gregory Shearman.
Submission 1:
There is no great city in the world which does not have a major train terminus in the centre of its city. Newcastle City without a Central Railway Station will become a tourist‐less hub of secondary‐ business bus commuters: A place no‐one will want to spend precious time in.
Submission 2:
There can be no tourist hub without a regular inner city rail network. Without a rail network, Newcastle will become only a Return Bus Day‐Trip for tourists from Cessnock, Maitland and Kurri Kurri, because cheap accommodation will not be found close to the Central Railway Station, as they are everywhere else in the world. Newcastle's attempt to glorify itself as a luxury destination will soon be seen as a fraud and a place to avoid.
Mark Shields. I don't think light rail will ever come to Newcastle,they will just keep running buses,if it does it should come down the existing corridor,the heavy rail should never have stopped ,lots of people from outer areas are now not coming to Newcastle due to extra travel time,and getting on and off trains then buses,also while travelling on the bus from Hamilton to Newcastle, visitors did not have a clue where they were going and the bus drivers not announce where we were, not like train stops.
Susan Slade. As the decision has been made to no longer run the existing rail line to Newcastle station, I think it is very important that the corridor is largely returned to the public. Light rail lends itself very well to a parkland development which could continue to maintain the access from Newcastle city to the foreshore. It is absolutely essential that this land is not used for development of commercial and/or residential property. Newcastle is a beautiful regional city and the low rise of its existing property in the Honeysuckle precinct should be maintained. Newcastle has a vibrant arts community which should be nurtured and allowed to flourish in the railway. Newcastle is already well served by its markets at the showground on Sundays and the monthly markets at Civc and Pacific Parks. An area of the corridor could be used to create a Japanese‐stlye garden which could not only serve as a memorial to the WW2 history of Newcastle as one of the few Australian cities to be attacked by the Japanese, but also as a gesture of reconciliation. I also believe a dedicated skate park would provide a safe environment for the city's many skateboarders and would show a willingness to include the younger generations in the city's planning. The new Anzac Memorial walk is a fine example of great architecture that reflects the history of the area whilst providing the public with access to the headland and is certainly very popular. This is a fantastic opportunity for Newcastle to create a legacy for the future of all the residents of Newcastle and should not be squandered by turning the land over to private development.
Jennifer Smart
My concerns are around the proposed multi‐storey buildings on the rail corridor. The rail corridor should be used for the light rail ONLY and any extra land should be left for use as urban space for ratepayers and visitors to our city. Beautifying this area with parkland and open space would invigorate Newcastle. Use of the existing rail corridor in this way would be cost effective as rail stops are already in place e.g. Civic station, and of course the beautiful Newcastle station, both of which could and should be utilised. Movement between the Newcastle (Hunter street side) and Honeysuckle for pedestrians and light rail users would be easier and more flexible. If the multi‐ storey buildings are on the rail corridor then it is still effectively cutting Newcastle in half...which has been the argument for truncating the rail line to open up the area but now with the proposed multi storey buildings you are effectively closing it off again. I am against multi‐storey buildings along the rail corridor so would like to submit my protest against this proposal.
Loraine Smith. My main concerns regarding the revitalising of Newcastle are listed below.
1. The damage to the city skyline and look of the city by tall towers being built within the CBD would change our city for the worst. Newcastle, because of its heritage buildings, is an incredibly interesting city and gives current and future generations a glimpse into the past. Why change the character of such a place? Modern buildings will not attract backpackers and tourists. 2. I am very happy with the prospect of light rail as it works extremely well in Sydney. However, I find it incomprehensible that the State Government is possibly going to spend an exorbitant amount of money to have the line mainly run down Hunter Street when the current rail corridor exists. It would be a disgusting and unforgivable waste of money. 3. With light rail, the current new crossings to the foreshore will not be a problem and more could be opened. 4. From previous articles in the Newcastle Herald, it would seem that having a farmers market at the old Newcastle rail terminal would not be feasible owing to parking problems for the stall holders in particular. This concept seems to be somewhat 'pie in the sky' without enough thought having been put in to it.
(I did send this submission by email however I had a note that it was not a proper email address so I have lodged my submission here.)
Margaret Smith. Basically, this is a nonsense survey and submission process because, what is probably the single most preferred of all the alternatives is not being offered as a choice.
Even if the heavy rail is to be discontinued, the corridor should be retained, free of development, in case of future transport needs. However this is not to be mentioned!
Recently I heard an officer of Infrastructure NSW say in a radio interview, that the place to resolve such issues is the ballot box; perhaps he missed it, but last year there was a state election, and every seat along the rail corridor, from Newcastle to Maitland along the Hunter line, and from Newcastle to Fassifern along the Newcastle/ Sydney line returned non‐Coalition members with, I think, one Independent. We don’t need people from outside of our area deciding our future development. In our local region, the ballot box shouted! Perhaps this particular public servant didn’t hear, or wasn’t listening.
The place for the light rail, if we are ever to get it, is along the existing corridor. The cost and difficulties experienced in Sydney with light rail development is well known. Traffic disruption and the expense of digging up and relocating gas, electricity, sewage and water services has been excessive in terms of financial costs, as well as inconvenience to the public. Infrastructure NSW doesn’t want to hear and doesn't seem to be listening. The leaked cabinet paper which so recently created a furore about its source, clearly set out the rail corridor as the preferred option. Why then was this ignored?
Paul Broad who had a firm grasp of revitalising in his role at Honeysuckle understood development options and believed in preserving the heavy rail corridor and resigned over the manner in which Infrastructure NSW was heading. Why was this man, with all of his experience not listened to? Again, Infrastructure NSW doesn’t want to hear and doesn't seem to be listening.
We are left to wonder why these decisions are being made.
After being told that that the rail corridor will block access between the CBD and the harbour, are we to be blocked by a wall of building development and wind corridors, complicated by overshadowing. There will b e enough of this with the ridiculously tall towers on the other side of the CBD. I’m hoping that ICAC hasn’t finished with this!
You only have to look at the decisions, note who was listened to and who was ignored and consider the better options to start to get suspicious. I am not in a position to allege anything but I do have doubts. Has this process been corrupted? I don’t know, but I do think that if it waddles like a duck, swims like a duck, flies like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck! In my opinion, this process is quacked!
Mark Smith
My submission to the urban planning consultation by Newcastle City Council-
Greetings, I am a resident of It is full of garbage. Lounge suites, wardrobes and mattresses on the street, dirty nappies, litter, clothes dumped in piles, vacant lots filled with the detritus of urban life, broken glass, and rotting piles of unidentifiable stuff. The Main Street is a mish mash of cheap orange planter boxes, undernourished pots of old plants and rubbish. So much money gets spent on the City area and its beaches and lovely sculptures on medium strips in the city. But I live in my suburb everyday and have to dodge crap when I walk to the shops or stroll with the dogs. I am sick of my rates going to beaches and fancy walkways on foreshores. How about paying a little attention to and surrounds. It is a highly populated suburb with many young children and families and older people with not much money. They need pleasant places to go without navigating garbage. What 'destinations' do we have apart from the bus seat outside the mega chemist? What! not glamorous enough for urban planners and place makers! Well that's where real people live so it's time some thought and money was spent there. Regard Erica Southgate,
Bolton Street Post Office Conversion
The old Post Office could be utilised to create a world class Indiginous Cultural Centre. This could incorporate: an aboriginal art gallery; an interactive languages station; maps of aboriginal tribal areas; video display of aboroginal contemporary and traditional dance; bush tucker cafe with Indignous trainees learning hospitality, mosaic floors depicting dreamtime stories; workshops on Indigenous culture e.g basket weaving. Outside plantings of bush tucker trees e.g lemon myrtle. Possibly apply to Indigenous Advancement Strategy for joint funding.
Serena Spencer. Why has everybody ignored the real solution, which would be accepted by the vast majority.
You have an open space developers want & a Railway dating to the 1850s. (My Great Great Grandfather was a navvy who helped build this railway line, until he died in the New England tablelands). Alle th street names were changed to celebrate the railway. How convenient for those in Sydney to 'not know' the history. Nor do they care about Newcastle City
Build a trench. Give Newcastle a Metro. Water is NOT a problem. The same as water will not be a problem when constructing basements.
Give us a pedestrian access near the University, Civic Theatre precinct, & another in the City. Bolton Street, or Brown Street. Both
With the railway out of sight, noise reduced, free and unrestricted access to the Harbour, the, the Developers can build, provided they to not block or destroy the heritage Edwardian architecture.
Please, there is no excuse for not constructing a Metro in Newcastle ‐ give us a loop to Broadmeadow, Adamstown, The Junction.
How many basement levels do Urban Growth GPT plan for the development of the David Jones site on Hunter & Brown Street. There is no reason to not place Newcastle's railway underground. There are many very good reasons why a tram/light rail in obscenity along a busy CBD artery.
Christina Steel. One of the objectives is to "unite the city centre and the harbour"....to improve the experience of being in and moving around the city.Further to return Hunter and Scott Streets to thriving main streets.The intended placement of 'Mixed use development" within the Newcastle East"precinct from Darby St down to the railway station(in significant parts of that area) detracts in my submission,from the intended objective.It is proposed to place some form of multi storey development no doubt in this area.By placing further development past the existing line of buildings along Wharf Road provides a further barrier to open the harbour to the city.It is increasing traffic volume in an already crowded area‐particularly on Wharf Rd near Scratchley's on weekends.It does not in my submission lend itself to increasing a return to "thriving" streets either unless you call an increase in traffic along Scott St as "thriving".People go to an area because there are shops they want to use or cafes/restaurants they want to eat in.That can happen by spending money on doing up and improving those existing buildings we already have in those specific streets,not by adding further residential development to an already crowded area .
Robert Stone. SUBMISSION
Revitalising Newcastle Newcastle Urban Transformation & Transport Program
Hearty Congratulations to Urban Growth on their magnificent efforts in the many ways they have connected with the community and compiling the community’s suggestions. Unfortunately Urban Growth’s employers, the Premier and NSW State Government did not start with this method of community consultation 5 years ago with the question of Public Transport and the Inter‐City rail line, upon which the whole of the revitalising of Newcastle depends. If this process had been followed, stress, anxiety, wasted money & time, to name a few, could have been avoided & all those concerned would be fairly treated. The Premier, the Ministers of Transport & the Hunter have not been transparent or “up front” with the community. It now appears to Novocastrians, that the Premier’s No. 1 priority is to sell the rail corridor to developers to build on the land, so the Government can pay for Newcastle’s Revitalisation, because more of Newcastle’s Port sale proceeds can be spent on Sydney.
High Priorities • Tourism, including backpackers & Conventions. • Organise regular day &/or night events or festivals etc for the Civic precinct & the Foreshore, especially from September to May. • Heritage Buildings & Indigenous sites to be preserved & buildings re‐used. • All travellers (including workers, students, surfers, the disabled, aged, bike riders, non car drivers, tourists, backpackers) & CBD Residents deserve quick direct access to & from the CBD of Newcastle along the rail corridor, especially involving Sydney. • More road & pedestrian crossings can be built across the rail corridor. • Stewart Ave must have an under or overpass across the rail corridor & Hunter St. (this has been on‐going for over 30 years.)
Elaine Street
18 September, 2015
I do not agree with the recent cut to the rail into newcastle as i have a panic disorder i can not catch a bus i have to walk from hamilton into newcastle which is difficult to do as i have two young children.
Lorraine Stuart. To Whom it may concern, i am a retired person who lives in NSW and in accordance with the Terms & Conditions, I have included my personal details at the end of this email.
I support the revitalisation of the CBD of Newcastle - particularly along Hunter Street and King Street and its surrounding area. Over the years, I have observed a decline in my need to go into the Newcastle CBD. To purchase clothing, furniture, or special items or services that I cannot procure in Maitland, I must now travel to other locations in Newcastle, Lake Macquarie, or further a field.
However, as a retiree, I still have occasional need to go to the Newcastle CBD for business requirements such as a specialist doctor in Bolton Street, the Public Trustee Office in King Street, to name two requirements. Notwithstanding the population growth in Maitland, there are still some services which are located in the Newcastle CBD and not in Maitland. Then there are other business offices that once were located in the Newcastle CBD, which are now located in one or other of the regional shopping centres, Kotara and Charlestown.
The other reason to go to Newcastle CBD is for leisure, such as a visit to the beach, one of the various museums, the Civic theatre, a restaurant, the movie theatre, the Art Gallery, etc. or a walk along the harbour foreshore.
For the revitalisation of Newcastle CBD to be successful, firstly there must be sufficient reason for people to go there, in addition to the core group of people who reside in the area, or the transient tourist population. It is unlikely that the clock can be wound back, so the Newcastle CBD will not be the regional centre of commerce, and must re-invent itself, expanding on its civic and entertainment facilities, and promoting its history.
The second requirement is accessibility. To travel into Newcastle by car necessitates finding somewhere to park, preferably somewhere relatively close to one’s ultimate destination, hence there is often an advantage or need for good public transport. There are many qualities that are used to judge the quality of public transport, one of which is its timeliness. I preferably use public transport if travel can be accomplished at the required times and the waiting period is not excessive. Every time it is necessary to change transport during a journey, the travel period is lengthened considerably. To move from a train to a bus, from one train to another, or from one bus to another, increases the travel time disproportionally to the time of travel if one service could be used for the total journey.
Light rail in the CBD of Newcastle sounds a wonderful solution to travelling within the immediate area of Newcastle CBD. I started life in the era of trams and my parents found them very convenient for short journeys. However light rail is not a solution for travel between Maitland and Newcastle, and terminating the heavy railway at Wickham has increased my travel time into the Newcastle CBD.
The revitalising of Newcastle should include adapting and beautification of the existing heavy rail corridor, and restoring direct travel by heavy rail to the Newcastle Station. Newcastle was almost unique in having intercity heavy rail services into the core of its CBD. Most cities seem to be intent on expanding their rail network, not removing them.
I do not agree that this rail corridor separates Newcastle CBD from the harbour foreshore. With modern construction, it is possible to build road overpasses to eliminate the level crossings of the rail line. Some re-arrangement of real estate may be needed to achieve that at Stewart Street, and near Civic, and perhaps the addition of another road crossing between Civic and Newcastle Station. Pedestrian over bridges and underpasses, with commercial shops, can achieve the requisite connectivity of the two areas. Surely a railway line is less an obstacle than a water way that many cities contend with and use to their advantage.
An alternate solution is to raise the heavy rail line for part of the distance between Wickham and Civic, thus facilitating road traffic under the rail line.
In summary, I see the key to re-vitalising Newcastle CBD is creating reason to visit and a means to visit.
My details are: Name: Thomas J Stubbs
I am a private citizen.
Yours sincerely TJ Stubbs
I think that the revitalisation should be done while keeping the existing rail access. With some imagination, the rail corridor could be readily transformed to provide easy access between the city and harbour and with proper planning, the trains could operate within new safety guidelines etc ‐ or at the very least run the light rail on the existing corridor. But to stop the rail and replace it with light rail along Hunter St is complete madness when the existing corridor is available. It is a total waste of money and will cause chaos in the construction stage. It is against all recommendations and at a time when the new court and university developments are happening with little or no parking, fast public transport is required. The existing railway should be made a showcase of the city, not denigrated.
Bill Sutherland Newcastle is growing into a more livable city as people move back with new residential developments, educational development (uni), new work developments (law courts) and improved harbour and coastal walking paths. But what is needed is transport infrastructure that takes into account all modes of transport that is public transport, taxis, cars, bikes and walking that would promote an active living city as well as a tourist destination.
Newcastle has the solution to become a more active living city by creating a safer environment for bike riders and walkers right under its nose by having a separated transport corridor. If the truth be known I think Newcastle is the envy of other cities because we can eliminate the congestion when incorporating another mode of transport (light rail) into roads that have cars and bike riders using the same lanes . Light rail can run along the current rail corridor which would allow for the development of Hunter Street into a safer, less congested and more vibrant street with separated bike lanes (same as what council originally wanted) and improving the streetscape through art, seating, greenery and kerb ramps to encourage people to walk and safely ride their bikes for either recreation or transport. They'll see Newcastle from a different perspective as they move their bodies while at the same time supporting local businesses because people spend more money while walking compared to driving or busing.
Keeping the separated transport corridor (rail line) and running light rail on it will help to deliver people closer to their destinations because it conveniently services both the foreshore and city when people can alight at well placed stops and walk similar distances in either direction, especially from Worth Place to Newcastle East. It would not act as a barrier because of slower speeds in favour of pedestrians walking across the corridor walkways, beautification of the corridor as part of installing light rail, would help to connect the city CBD to the open spaces of the foreshore by removing fences and adding greenery.
The Newcastle Station gives commuters an end point to their travels with amenities and by refurbishing and opening up all the building there is no reason why attractions cannot be added to its function as a station such as markets, bike hire, walking tours, scenic mini bus shuttle around coastline and an outreach library or Tourist Information Centre. With modern day technology and know how the discrepancy of heights between station platforms and light rail can be resolved. In researching the type of light rail to run along the corridor it would also be beneficial to consider if heavy rail could be used in conjunction because special excursion and steam train visits from Sydney could be arranged to increase tourists visiting the city. Newcastle's revitalisation is not only about the connectivity between the foreshore and the CBD but on a bigger picture it's about incorporating connectivity between all modes of transport that will make for safer bike riding as well as encouraging people to change their habit of relying on the car to.
If only Newcastle Council advocated more strongly for their renewal plans to be implemented of the beautification of Hunter Street which included separated cycle lanes. If only the State Government stuck to their original decision to run light rail down the corridor as the best option (no reason to date has been given why decision was changed to run it down Hunter Street!).
Melbourne was voted as one of the most livable cities this year as a result of it being a very walkable city. Newcastle has the potential to become a very walkable city too if only the focus of revitalisation wasn't all about the rail corridor and connectivity between CBD and foreshore. The bigger picture is about connectivity with all modes of transport with a well thought out transport infrastructure plan. There was minimal mention of bike riding and walking in the transport impact study for the new Wickham Transport Interchange. What is needed is a transport impact study on the whole of Newcastle that includes all modes of transport that may take into account bike riding and walking more for a less congested and cleaner city. Especially now that more people are living in Newcastle with so much residential development happening. Yes it is once in a lifetime opportunity for Newcastle to be revitalised but an active living approach needs to be incorporated into the process too and provide people with the infrastructure that will encourage them out of their cars. If Melbourne can do it then why can't we. We've got a head start already by having a separated transport corridor that provides safer travel on our roads by keeping light rail away from bikes (in Hunter Street) and still allow people to safely walk across the corridor.
Denise Sweeney
SE 36 – Ian Thomas
UrbanGrowth NSW - Please find below, my submission for Revitalising Newcastle
The basis of my submission is to run the Light Rail on the existing rail corridor.
This option has the following advantages (to the proposed route along Hunter/Scott streets) and was recommended by the NSW Government’s own experts.
1 - Less expensive - Up to $100M. 2 - Most efficient Public Transport route - quickest and most direct connection to the CBD and beaches. 3 - Far less disruptive to CBD businesses during construction. 4 - Can be completed in less time. 5 - Allows greater flexibility for Hunter Street transport - such as the implementation of the 2013 bicycle draft plan - details below.
Details extracted from Newcastle Herald article by PENELOPE GREEN Aug. 30, 2013
TRANSFORMED: An artist’s impression of what Hunter Street would look like with an extended footpath, bike racks, parklets and cycle lanes.
PARKLETS and cycle lanes are set to add new life to Hunter Street as early as next year if council approves the trial.
The proposed trial by Newcastle City Council draws on similar projects in the UK, New York and San Francisco, the latter having played a pioneering role in the use of parklets, an extension of the footpath that typically includes seating, landscaping and bike racks.
Cycleways will be built on both sides of a 1.6-kilometre stretch of Hunter Street, between Bellevue Street in the West End to Perkins Street, at the start of the mall, while the parklets will sprout between Auckland and Crown streets.
Under the scheme, the four travel lanes in Hunter Street will be reduced to two, with the current parking lanes remaining intact.
Council’s city centre program manager Tim Askew said the small changes would not affect parking or public transport use in Hunter Street and council research indicated reducing the travel lanes was feasible.
He said the scheme, which will be placed on public exhibition on Monday, would build on the council’s recent facade improvement and placemaking initiatives to breathe life into the central business district.
‘‘It’s really the first step in reactivating Hunter Street with a focus on bringing people back into the city,’’ he said.
‘’Research shows that separating pedestrians further from the traffic creates a feeling of comfort and safety.’’
Mr Askew said the parklet and cycleway proposals were included in the Hunter Street masterplan developed by council in 2010, which in turn had been recommended for trial in the state government’s Newcastle Urban Renewal Strategy last year.
He said council did not have a final costing on the plan but it was designed to be low-cost, with materials used able to be easily removed, pending the government releasing more detail on the urban renewal strategy.
‘’There are still many unknowns with the light rail and where the exact location of interchange will be, there are still studies to come,’’ he said.
‘‘Until we know where we are going and what the public transport system will be, we want to trial things and get things happening on the ground.’’
If the option to run the light rail down the existing corridor was adapted it would still allow easy access by pedestrians to the Harbour; this being one of the main selling points in any proposal.
The significant dollar savings gained from using the rail corridor option could then be utilised to implement long overdue infrastructure in Newcastle such as the Adamstown Rail Overpass and Newcastle Cycleways Strategy.
Ian Thomas 9/23 Church Street The Hill 2300 0400 495 485
I did not complete the online 4 options survey as none express my opinion. I believe the rail corridor should be left free of development for future transport use (light rail, foot, bicycle). No buildings on the corridor as this will negate the "opening up" of the corridor to the harbor. Also 1. No high rise in the east end heritage precinct 2. Regional based committee for Newcastle/Hunter transport plan 3. Major transport interchange for Woodville Junction.
Peter Thomson. 12TH September 2015
Michael Cassel Program Director Urban Growth NSW Revitalising Newcastle Community Engagement program Level 16, 227 Elizabeth St SYDNEY NSW 2000
Dear Mr Cassel
RE: SUBMISSION FOR REVITALISING NEWCASTLE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROGRAM
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make a submission to the Revitalising Newcastle Community Engagement Program being conducted by Urban Growth
Firstly I would like to comment on the rail corridor itself. If the rail line is to be truncated I would like to see the light rail going along the old railway corridor, instead of down Hunter and Scott St. I don’t think there will be enough room for parking, cars, bikes and trams along those fairly narrow streets. If however the light rail does go down Hunter and Scott St I would like to see a green corridor, no development but instead something like the High Line in New York and Newcastle Railway Station developed into an Art Precinct with artists studios and galleries.
The heritage city centre (Newcastle East End Project) needs to be restricted to a maximum height of 24 metres, (approximately 8 stories) as agreed to in the LEP 2012. Any development in this precinct should be appropriate i.e. sympathetic and respectful to 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/Mall should not overshadow buildings on the southern side of Hunter Street.
I was disappointed that the Revitalise Newcastle ‘Community Consultation’ process does not include the Newcastle East End Project, despite it being a fundamental aspect of any future plan for the city.
The LEP2012 should guide future planning for Newcastle as it was a planning document agreed to and accepted by all stakeholders after an exhaustive, legitimate and inclusive consultation process.
Thank you for considering my submission Yours faithfully
Elizabeth Thwaites
Dear Urban Growth,
Although I did attend one of the public forums, I felt I didn't really get the opportunity to submit all my ideas in detail. I have worked in the travel and tourism industry for a number of years, and for a time worked as a tour guide driving inbound visitors around Australia. I would always drop in to show off my hometown, even though the official itinerary designers from Sydney never deemed it worth a stop. So I know first‐hand both the Sydney bias against Newcastle, and the way inbound visitors react. A common feedback was that visitors love our beaches, however Hunter Street was a sorry and embarrassing ghetto.
I have travelled around the world numerous times and have spent a great deal of time (7 months) exploring cities in USA and around 5 months in the UK, as well as 7 trips to New Zealand, 3 to mainland Europe, 2 to Singapore, as well as travels to Indonesia, Canada and the Philippines. I have explored many cities by foot, exploring and finding their hidden places and wonderful urban spaces.
What is apparent is that successful open spaces always have a couple of things in common:
1. They link major attractions
2. They all have a regular programs of events and entertainment, year round.
In planning for Newcastle's future, the glaring omission is that we have very few major attractions or events. Yes our beaches are wonderful, but almost every coastal town in Australia has a wonderful beach, so this is not all that unique. What we need is more manmade attractions that compete globally with other world's best practice attractions.
A good example is Balboa Park in San Diego. The park is organised around a system of internal paths, leading to numerous high profile cultural attractions. The park stages cultural and entertainment events throughout the year, such as weekly concerts, astronomy classes, lectures, Pop‐up galleries and inviting gardens.
Granville Island Market in Vancouver is open 7 days. It hosts 50 merchants with a mix of rotating vendors that change every week. Tours are offered by Edible Canada, exploring the diversity of produce and international food offerings. Thereby making this a mecca for foodies. The market includes a Farmers' Market, restaurants and bars, as well as a Kid's Market featuring toy, craft and candy stalls and a 4‐level play space.
High Park Children's Garden in Toronto, Canada educates Toronto’s children, youth, and community members about environmental, physical, and social health. The Children’s Garden provides a variety of environmental education opportunities including curriculum based school programs, summer Eco Camps, youth cooking programs, free family drop‐ins, and free community events. Myriad Gardens in Oklahoma City attracts 1 million visitors per year with year‐round events and activities for all ages and for diverse audiences. Included is a children's garden, playground, performance stages, interactive water features, seasonal ice rink, outdoor seating and tables, native plants and ornamental gardens.
Millennium Park in Chicago attracts 5 million visitors per year, with 25 acres of landscaped gardens, amazing architecture and an impressive collection of public art. The park features many free events and programs including art installations, outdoor concerts, films screenings, alfresco exercise workouts and more. 'Millennium Park Presents' is a series of one‐night‐only performances to showcase symphonic music, dance, opera, Broadway hits, etc, performed by some of Chicago’s best‐loved cultural institutions such as Chicago Children's Choir and two Northwestern University ensembles; live performances from the Chicago Mariachi and Folklórico Festival as well as the Chicago Dancing Festival; and showcases from Broadway in Chicago and Lyric Opera of Chicago.
Parc Jean‐Drapeau in Montreal contains a vast array of attractions, including a filtered water beach, outdoor pools, museums, flower gardens and a theme park. A major attraction is the Biosphere, a geodesic dome housing a museum which offers educational exhibits and activities so that visitors can gain a better understanding of major environmental issues. The park also contains a motor racing circuit which hosts the Canadian F1 Grand Prix. It also hosts an annual international fireworks competition. I have attended it. It is awesome and attracts massive crowds.
Tivoli Gardens is a famous amusement park and pleasure garden in Copenhagen, Denmark. The park is the second oldest amusement park in the world. With around 4 million visitors per year, Tivoli is the second most popular seasonal theme park in the world, the most visited theme park in Scandinavia and the fourth most visited in Europe. Besides the rides, Tivoli Gardens also serve as a venue for various performing arts and plays an active part in the cultural scene in Copenhagen.
We have much to learn from these and many other public spaces around the world. There are never‐ending opportunities for man‐made attractions in Newcastle. Here are a few ideas:
‐ Imax theatre
‐ Planetarium running astronomy presentations and laser light shows set to music
‐ A 'Save the Bilby' reserve, breeding centre and attraction. These little Aussies are extremely endangered, with an estimated 600 only remaining in the wild. Newcastle could carry on the good work done by Devil Ark, and lend a hand to the bilbies.
‐ A sunken performance piazza in the style of the one that was built for World Expo 88 in Brisbane. This could host a large array of events, performances, cooking shows, dance demonstrations, dance lessons, cultural festivals, big name concerts, pre‐auditioned street performers, etc. I imagine this beside the Newcastle train station markets, in the area currently taken by the bus depot.
‐ Bars, restaurants and cafes, featuring international cuisines, such as authentic French patisseries and boulangeries, perhaps invite some popular favourites such as Adriano Zumbo or Gelato Messina to open outlets. Also cupcake shops such as Cupcake Espresso or London's Primrose or Hummingbird Bakeries. Perhaps Cadbury and Lindt cafes. Or how about an ice cream super store featuring all of the world's best ice cream brands, available all under one roof? This has never been done before. It would be great to have some gourmet food outlets such as the UK's Whole Foods Market. The point is we need not just bog standard food outlets, but places of international standing and repute, or some that offer unique and currently unavailable food offerings to the Newcastle public.
‐ Flowing on from the suggestion above, the idea of Newcastle train station becoming a market is a great idea, but it needs to be done well. I personally am tired of so called markets in which anyone can set up and flog never ending arrays of cheap jewelry, tatty t‐shirts and stall after stall of rubbish that I could never thing of a reason to buy. And this sadly describes most markets. The focus should be on the train station markets being primarily produce, such as the excellent Adelaide Central Market. It could be a centre that highlights locally grown produce, gourmet foods and healthy eating. We could run foodie tours and regular celebrity chef demonstrations, and make it a real foodie haven.
‐ How great would it be to install a theme park in the style of Tivoli Gardens, with classy ride attractions, performance venues, beautiful gardens, garden tours, night time amazing and magical light shows using the latest high tech lighting effects, with maybe a laser light show projecting onto a water screen, and of course regular fireworks displays over the harbour. Some rides and attractions could include a serious roller coaster, a Coney Island style retro fun house with giant slides, moving floors, walk through spinning barrels, and all kinds of fun things. Or in a similar vein, a great attraction would be Infinity from the Gold Coast. This is a series of dark rooms containing spooky light effects and mirror illusions. The object is to find your way to the exit of each room. The one at Surfers Paradise has only one major drawback ... it is too short and the fun is over too quickly. It is meant for kids, but I am over 50 and still love it! We could make one similar to the one in the Gold Coast, but much bigger. The park could include a classic carousel in the centre of the public space, or maybe even a retro style Helter Skelter spiral slide such as was once popular in British amusement parks. There is a new one of these at the recently opened Dreamland in Margate, Kent. The park could contain a 'Discover Australia' boat ride attraction, similar to a World Expo pavilion, that combines motion with 3D glasses technology to transport visitors around Australia in a 15 minute ride. We could also install a mirror maze ‐ not the rubbishy type that you find at regional shows. I mean one done properly, with multiple mirrors that create infinite hall illusions in every direction. One such mirror maze exists in Frankenmuth, Michigan. It is loads of fun for all ages. This could even be improved by making it multi story, with trap door floors that turn into slides without notice, delivering patrons into the level below, and walls that move to close and open regularly, so that the maze path is always changing. ‐ A Children's Museum would be a great attraction and one that does not yet have any competition within Australia. Parent blogs in USA are forever raving about how they drop their kids at a Children's Museum for hours on end. They are fantastic as a tool to promote fun learning, being active and inquisitive. One of the best is the Children's Museum of Houston. Their slogan is, "A Playground for Your Mind". Some of the things kids can engage in are birthday bashes, make your own costume, science lab, watch superhero movies, free vaccinations program, TV studio, 'Amazingly Immature' interactive exhibit, 'Flow Works' hydro education exhibit, Eco Station to learn about the environment, Invention Convention, Kidtropolis (mini city), and Cyberchase. And the mums are not forgotten with an organized 'Mother's Mingle' (maybe we could include dads too?)
‐ A hologram gallery with full sized holograms, such as the amazing ones at Perth Science Museum.
‐ Or how about a proper science, innovation and technology museum? I still remember fondly the old Science and Technology Museum in Ultimo. It was the precursor to the current Power House Museum. The problem with Power House Museum is it has lost the charm and awe that I remembered about that dingy multi story science museum. Power House is a massive open building with not much very interesting to see, exhibits that haven't changed in 30 years, and interactive science displays that are mostly all broken. I would love to see a new science museum that recaptures the awe of learning about science in an interesting and educational way, for all ages.
‐ Illusions Hall, similar to Puzzling World at Wanaka New Zealand, but of course bigger and better.
‐ Galleries with pop up art installations and unique artworks to interest even the non art aficionados.
‐ Art house cinema screening the classics and rare films that the big chains don't screen.
‐ Giant playground such as at Speers Point Park, but needs to be much bigger. The LMCC one is so popular that our little girl can never get onto anything. It needs much more playground equipment, and stuff that one year olds can also explore and crawl around in safety. You could also add some giant playground equipment for adults, such as used to exist at the original Monash Adventure Park in Berri, South Australia. It had oversized slides, flying foxes, multiple person see‐saws for up to 6 people at a time ‐ all connected with unique gearing and springs, a people‐powered roller coaster and crazy spinning cages.
‐ Splash Park with giant water tipping bucket.
‐ Children's Garden ‐ Movie Museum with regularly changing displays of movie memorabilia. For example, the movie museum in Covent Gardens, London is currently displaying cars and vehicles from all the Bond Films.
‐ Clock tower in the centre that does something entertaining and unique on the hour, like the one in Munich, Germany.
‐ Circus and trapeze school
‐ Puppet Theatre
‐ Radio controlled motor and sail boat hire on a pond.
Complementing the attractions should be a regular program of events and activities. Here are some that Newcastle could host:
‐ Regular street performers that have been auditioned for quality and entertainment value.
‐ Cultural festivals (Italian, Chinese New Year, USA, Brazil, African dance, etc)
‐ Food and wine fair
‐ Chocolate Festival (not like the rubbishy one they hold in Darby Street ‐ a proper one featuring many of the world's chocolate producers, pastry chefs and chocolatiers, tempering displays, chocolate art competitions, and of course lots of free tastings).
‐ Pop up restaurants
‐ Host tapings of Masterchef episodes.
‐ Big name concerts
‐ Regular little name concerts
‐ Circus like Cirque du Soleil
‐ Newcastle could host a V8 Supercar street race. This would provide an enormous economic boost and visitor draw card. Townsville can do it so why not Newcastle? We have the potential for the most spectacular street circuit in the world, although much of the recently completed Bathers Way work would need to be converted to drop in / pull out paths, roundabouts, traffic signs, etc. We could also incorporate drop in/pull out grass parklands to create a pit area on the southern side of Wharf Road, in the vicinity of Foreshore Park. My track dream would be starting line on Wharf Road, going clockwise, onto Shortland Esplanade, left at Watt Street, right at Ordnance Street, left into King Edward Park on York Drive ‐ a nice nod to the history of the Mattara Hillclimb and including some of that track, right onto The Terrace, right onto Reserve Rd, left onto Newcomen Street with a Streets of San Francisco style series of dips and jumps, then hard right into Church Street and left into Watt Street, and right again into Wharf Road to return to the foreshore straight. This circuit would be about the same length of Bathurst, with a similar driver and car testing elevation rise and fall, with the added roller coaster straight in Newcomen Street, right angle turns like the Adelaide Street circuit, and spectacular television scenery thrown it. It would have it all, and has the potential to be good enough to snatch the F1 grand prix from Melbourne.
‐ Queens Birthday Weekend return of cracker night
‐ Host an international fireworks competition such as the one held annually in Montreal.
‐ Big band concerts
‐ Dance shows and demonstrations (and lessons)
‐ Flower Show
‐ Magic Convention
‐ Displays of amazing photography, such as news photojournalism best of, or aerial photographs from around the world, which people can walk over.
‐ Free art exhibitions
‐ Summer free outdoor movie screenings.
In order to accommodate all this, I propose we make the open space much bigger than just the rail line. You could close Wharf Road from Merewether Street to Watt Street, thereby still allowing road access to Nobbys Beach via King Street. You could also close Scott Street between Hunter and Watt Streets. Turn all this into open paved areas, using many existing old buildings to house new attractions, galleries, cafes, restaurants and museums.
And finally, why stop with the centre of town? The entire CBD could become part of this major open space. And why not go "overseas" to the old BHP steelworks site? That whole site is crying out to be not a container terminal, but the biggest and best theme park in the Southern Hemisphere (or the world?). Anmar Khan claims he has a billion dollars in funding for a revamp of Australia's Wonderland. The only problem is finding a site for it. Why not attempt to lure Mr Khan away from Western Sydney and instead to a parcel of land that is doing nothing and is desperately crying out for something awesome? We could have a ferry connection from close to the new Wickham Transport Interchange. Incidentally, you could also run ferries from here down the harbour eastwards, to compliment the light rail at times of large events.
One final suggestion for Urban Growth. Please purchase the old Store building and use the land for a really world‐class transport interchange. This is a much more sensible location for a bus depot than the prime real estate currently being occupied near the old train station.
Kind regards,
Gary Topic
I would like light rail down Hunter Street and also to stop at every Newcastle beaches and both ocean baths.
Janice Trotter. Please consider another Ferry terminal at the new transport interchange hub. This would assist not only Stockton and Nelson bay people but would offer another choice to go up town apart from the new services that would be available but also more profitable for the ferry service too.
Leonie Turner. SE 22 – Stephen Albin (UDIA)
UDIA NSW appreciates this opportunity to offer comment on the opportunities presented for the future use of Newcastle’s heavy rail corridor. Our submission is attached.
If you have any queries, please contact me via the details below.
Kind regards, Elizabeth
Elizabeth York Regional Manager, Hunter Chapter ______
UDIA NSW - Urban Development Institute of Australia
17 September 2015
Revitalising Newcastle PO Box 33 Newcastle NSW 2300 Via email: [email protected]
Re: UDIA NSW Response to the Heavy Rail Corridor Concepts
The Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA) NSW appreciates this opportunity to offer comment on Revitalising Newcastle’s Heavy Rail Corridor Concept Opportunities as published in the Newcastle Herald on 10 August 2015.
UDIA NSW is the State’s leading representative body of the development industry, advocating for responsible growth in NSW. With over 500 member companies and more than 3,000 active individuals, UDIA NSW represents the full spectrum of the development industry.
We take this opportunity to offer comment on transportation within the CBD as well as on the future use of the heavy rail corridor.
CBD Transportation UDIA NSW stands by our position as stated in our March 2014 submission to Revitalising Newcastle, which underscores our strong support for the construction of a light rail transport system within the Newcastle CBD, and the removal of the heavy rail line. We commend the State Government, UrbanGrowth and Newcastle City Council for moving forward with these plans, and applaud the robust community consultation process now underway to establish the direction for the future use of the heavy rail corridor.
UDIAW NS is firmly convinced that the key to Newcastle’s redevelopment is the establishment of new patterns of transport and pedestrian connectivity through the CBD. As such, we support the construction of a new transport interchange, as this will further support connectivity within the city.
However, we are concerned that the current proposed plans for the Wickham interchange will not achieve the potential benefits of a true integrated transportation hub. There does not appear to be sufficient space for buses and drop off/waiting zones, particularly during peak periods.
UDIA NSW understands that the link between Newcastle East and Wickham may be all that can be achieved under the current funding; however, it is logical that the ideal location for a transport interchange is situated back towards Broadmeadow incorporating Woodville Junction. In this location there is sufficient space to establish an interchange that integrates heavy rail, light rail, cars and pedestrian/cycle modes. UDIA NSW believes that a pedestrian and cycle focus should be maintained in the rail corridor and that the proposed bus lay-by is not an appropriate use. This function would be better located in a more central location adjacent to Broadmeadow Station or Woodville Junction.
Urban Development PO Box Q402, Institute of Australia QVB Post Office NSW 1230 NEW SOUTH WALES Suite 2, Level 11, 66 King Street Sydney NSW 2000 e [email protected] t 02 9262 1214 w www.udia-nsw.com.au abn 43 001 172 363 If Wickham must be the location of the transportation interchange hub, then we encourage the acquisition of additional space surrounding the Wickham Interchange to establish an interchange that integrates all modes of transportation.
As Newcastle West is being touted as the future CBD of the city, and considering the scale of development proposed in the immediate surrounds, consideration should also be given to provision of a civic space associated with the interchange.
UDIA NSW also strongly encourages authorities to develop a plan for future extensions of the light rail system in order to maximise Newcastle’s current opportunity for responsible growth.
Heavy Rail Corridor The truncation of the heavy rail line offers unique opportunities to plan for our future city, as demonstrated by the concepts currently being considered.
Revitalising Newcastle has stated that these four concepts are merely meant to “start the conversation” and as such, UDIA NSW does not have a preference of one specific concept over the other three. Rather, UDIA NSW encourages the ultimate design to allow for appropriate levels of development while incorporating these principles:
1. Open Space The rail corridor should incorporate significant open spaces that offer amenity in their own right.
UDIA NSW supports establishing significant open space areas along the corridor and in particular surrounding the Museum Precinct and Newcastle Station. The scale and intensity of the amenity proposed in these locations is likely to attract significant numbers of people into the city as visitation numbers at the few existing facilities such as these in the region (namely Speers Point Park and Blackbutt Reserve) provide an indication of their popularity and the lack of alternative destinations.
These spaces should be well tree-lined to encourage use even in the heat of summer, and should cater for all generations. For example, consideration could be given to both a stage area with AV and cover as well as a children’s play area, possibly incorporating a splash play area, recognising the play needs of families living in our higher density urban environment.
These spaces will draw us out of our houses to create community again. We should seek opportunities to connect to the future economy by considering the use of electric buses, solar bike paths, kinetic soccer fields, photovoltaic film on civic windows, etc.
It should be considered that people will be drawn to these attractions not only from the city but also from throughout the region. It is essential to cater for that access, with links from rail, buses, bicycles and cars. An off-road cycling/pedestrian corridor is important to connect these attractions with parking and the more densely populated areas of the city. Consideration should also be given to allowing for additional above or underground parking along the rail corridor where the visual impact could be minimized.
2. Pedestrian/Cycleways UDIA NSW acknowledges that this is a unique opportunity to set the transport and open space structure of the City for the next century and therefore projected increases in population and the trends of how
2 people may move between the established and future city, local and regional precincts should be a key consideration.
In this case it is not adequate to say that cycleways along Hunter Street are sufficient as they replicate what occurs in Sydney and Melbourne. In reality there is significant conflict in both these cities between commuting and recreational cyclist and traffic. In Newcastle the opportunity exists to establish a true commuting cyclists’ connection between the city, education and commercial precincts and urban centres. If the light rail is expanded through to the Newcastle University Callaghan campus and on to Maitland and the airport, cycleways can be incorporated into these corridors and connected to the city centre via the rail corridor. As an active transport corridor this will activate the ground level areas of any development that may occur within or adjacent to the rail corridor. This would ensure that the zone between the harbour foreshore and Hunter Street does not exist as a “deadzone” outside of peak periods.
In essence it is important that the final proposal does not sterilise any opportunities to establish a complete commuting off-road cycle/pedestrian connection from the city through to Belmont evia th rail corridor, Fernleigh track and beyond. A minimum pedestrian/cycle link corridor width of 6m should be considered.
Ultimately UDIA NSW stands in strong support of the introduction of light rail into the city and the reuse of the railway corridor to enhance connectivity and promote cultural, economic and social activity. The final proposal should fully capitalise on the opportunity to retain an open space corridor that will provide for a future city with increased population density and demand for open space and freedom of movement.
UDIA NSW commends the State Government on its current urban renewal strategies, and we look forward to continued participation in the discussions. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact UDIA NSW’s Hunter Regional Manager Elizabeth York on or
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Albin Chief Executive
3 In regards to the Urban Growth plans, I am bitterly disappointed. I feel strongly about the corridor being a public space that belongs to the people of Newcastle. As a resident of Newcastle I attended many information sessions over the last few years. At these sessions I would voice my concernt tha the corridor would become open to developers and cease to be a transport corridor. Every person I spoke to said that was not true and would never happen. It would be a public space.
I am so angry that I am no longer using pubic transport since the closure. The shuttle buses are not really suitable to me as I have a double pram and yes it fits but in peak hour traffic its a nightmare. It adds to my journey time and is just to difficult to do with four small children. I used to catch the train several times a week and now I drive everywhere.
More than anything I feel that I had no voice. I actively look into the plans and tried to find out where it was all heading and I was fobbed off every time even made to feel that I was way out of line suggesting such plans as development. Ultimately I want it to remain a transport corridor and not be developed with buildings.
Sarah Vautier
I believe that cutting the train line at Wickham has only been a good thing for the beautiful city of Newcastle we have so much to offer tourists to the area. Having said that the transport links must be there to make the journey to work/Uni/TAFE satisfactory for all users. I believe that if housing is to replace the old train line that new businesses and current businesses will prosper and flourish. And the whole city of Newcastle will benefit from new residents and visitors. Parklands are an essential part of this development and a cruise ship terminal will enable a link for visitors to the main part of town. The only other thing that would make Newcastle more awesome is for the old Post Office to be completely revamped and developed as ?accommodation/entertainment. I currently live on property but my husband and I are seriously considering retiring to an apartment in the CBD, a wonderful new 'connected' Newcastle would be more of an incentive for us to do this.
Wendy Wales. Country people need easy access to your city and beautiful beaches. Reopen the heavy rail line into Newcastle Station, and scrap plans for light rail. Don't fix what ain't broke!
As is the practice in water‐front European cities, restrict the height of buildings in the heritage postcode of Newcastle 2300 to eight storeys.
Jan Walsh. Dear Sir/Madam,
I am formally submitting that the heavy rail line from Hamilton to Newcastle Station be reopened, and plans for the light rail on this route be scrapped.
The Revitalising Newcastle Engagement Program is a sham because the heavy rail truncation is being presented as a fait accompli, and is not on the list of options for consideration in your process. This is despite this initiative being arguably the most expensive component of your foreshadowed plans, and the termination decision being made originally without any genuine community consultation.
Yours faithfully, Dr. Raoul Walsh
Clean up the soils along the rail using phyto remediation techniques and beautiful plants which remove toxins while being a public garden. Connect Honeysuckle back to the city using pedestrian and waterway (drainage) links. Upgrade the public landscapes and streets capes in west and east Newcastle. Involve the UON school of architecture and built environment in a range of activities that urban growth and the city of Newcastle are undertaking.
SueAnne Ware. The truncation of the heavy rail line at Wickham will have a negative impact upon the efficient movement of people into and out of the Newcastle CBD. This has clearly been demonstrated by the present truncation at Hamilton, it has created an absolute traffic gridlock and increased danger to pedestrians. The proposed interchange at Wickham will no doubt emulate the complete chaos demonstrated at Hamilton. The proposed light rail will not cope well when there are heavy movement of people into and out of the Newcastle CBD. The heavy rail line allows for cyclist including families to travel with their bicycles and also allows for surfers to bring their boards into the centre of Newcastle. If there are options on light rail for the cyclist and surfers they will not match the capacity of the heavy rail. The heavy rail has precedent over vehicle traffic and is not affected by traffic lights and vehicle traffic congestion, therefore it is more time efficient in moving people about Newcastle. A light rail which travels along Hunter Steet will be affected by traffic lights and will be slowed by both vehicle congestion and pedestrian traffic. The light rail option will increase congestion in Hunter Street. There will be increased risks to pedestrians who are crossing the roadway and those entering and leaving the the light rail in that they must cross the roadway to reach the pedestrian footpaths. There would have to a reduction in the number of lanes in Hunter Street or the removal of parking outside of business in Hunter Street. The Government was advised by the Departement of Transport that the best option for a light rail would be in the present heavy rail corridor. The best option for Newcastle is to retain the heavy rail and consideration given to road over passes to reduce any perceived traffic congestion. The use of the rail corridor for development would not open access to the waterfront as they would block the view of the harbour from Hunter Street. The rail line at present does not obstruct the view or access to the harbour, it enhances and is part of the history of Newcastle. The best use of the Newcastle Railway Station is as a functioning rail stop at the heart of the city. If there has to be development then perhaps consideration could be given to having limited development above the rail line as has occurred in Sydney.
George Webb. The truncation of the heavy rail line at Wickham will have a negative impact upon the efficient movement of people into and out of the Newcastle CBD. This has clearly been demonstrated by the present truncation at Hamilton, it has created an absolute traffic gridlock and increased danger to pedestrians. The proposed interchange at Wickham will no doubt emulate the complete chaos demonstrated at Hamilton. The proposed light rail will not cope well when there are heavy movement of people into and out of the Newcastle CBD. The heavy rail line allows for cyclist including families to travel with their bicycles and also allows for surfers to bring their boards into the centre of Newcastle. If there are options on light rail for the cyclist and surfers they will not match the capacity of the heavy rail. The heavy rail has precedent over vehicle traffic and is not affected by traffic lights and vehicle traffic congestion, therefore it is more time efficient in moving people about Newcastle. A light rail which travels along Hunter Street will be affected by traffic lights and will be slowed by both vehicle congestion and pedestrian traffic. The light rail option will increase congestion in Hunter Street. There will be increased risks to pedestrians who are crossing the roadway and those entering and leaving the the light rail in that they must cross the roadway to reach the pedestrian footpaths. There would have to a reduction in the number of lanes in Hunter Street or the removal of parking outside of business in Hunter Street. The Government was advised by the Department of Transport that the best option for a light rail would be in the present heavy rail corridor. The best option for Newcastle is to retain the heavy rail and consideration given to road over passes to reduce any perceived traffic congestion. The use of the rail corridor for development would not open access to the waterfront as they would block the view of the harbour from Hunter Street. The rail line at present does not obstruct the view or access to the harbour, it enhances and is part of the history of Newcastle. The best use of the Newcastle Railway Station is as a functioning rail stop at the heart of the city. If there has to be development then perhaps consideration could be given to having limited development above the rail line as has occurred in Sydney.
Patricia Webb. The Newcastle railway line should not have been cut at Wickham because it causes inconvenience for commuters by having to get off the train and then onto a bus. After going on a YouTube cab ride on one of the trains from Rotterdam to Amsterdam in Holland, the electric trains travel over suburbs and roads which could be applied to the Newcastle railway line, which was not thought of in the beginning. I enjoyed travelling direct to the Newcastle railway station in the past with ease and comfort. I have not ventured into Newcastle by train since it was chopped off at Wickham.
Re‐open the railway line into Newcastle until all options are considered, including a fly‐over system which would not affect traffic. The train ride into Newcastle railway station was quicker than travelling by bus.
Phillip Webb As a resident of Stockton for many decades, I feel strongly about the following matters. I reject all the four options provided by the Government.
1. Retain the heavy rail into Newcastle station People from Stockton, Fern Bay, Fullerton Cove and Port Stephens (many of whom parked at the Stockton ferry wharf) are now greatly inconvenienced by having to catch a bus to Hamilton station and back, rather than take a seamless journey from Newcastle station. The elderly, infirm and parents with prams, strollers etc are particularly inconvenienced. Members of the Stockton and District Probus Club are among those many local residents who have complained about the changes.
In two recent state elections, the seat of Newcastle was won by Mr Tim Crakanthorp who clearly articulated his support for the retention of the rail line into Newcastle. This was indeed a mandate for the heavy rail, a fact ignored by the Government.
2. If the retention of heavy rail into Newcastle station is not possible, then light rail should run along the rail corridor, without any buildings constructed on the corridor. I support environmental improvements to the corridor including green space and shrubs and crossings for pedestrians and cars.
I am opposed to the useless waste of money if the light rail goes down Hunter Street. This idea only surfaced as a suggestion by the former Lord Mayor Jeff McCloy who owns a hotel in Hunter Street and other property. Surprisingly, this suggestion was taken seriously by the Government against the very advice it had issued previously. The leaking of confidential document 71 clearly illustrated how the Government's planning and transport agencies did not support the Hunter Street option. This additional $100 million dollars could be better used for a variety of infrastructure or maintenance projects that are desperately needed by the city of Newcastle.
Not only is the Hunter Street option a huge waste of money; it will cause major disruption in the city for a lengthy period and reduce the parking and footpath spaces currently available, as well as disallow adequate space for cycle ways. The construction of new overhead wires and poles, as well as the relaying of under road service networks, will be among the disrupting features. Local businesses will subsequently suffer during this extended time and the overall effect will heavily go against the revitalisation of Newcastle centre.
I understand that Mr Paul Broad, the highly respected, recently resigned chairman of the Hunter Development Corporation, is steadfastly opposed to building on the truncated rail line. If the rail corridor is built upon, then present and future generations will hold this Government to account. As Mr Broad recently stated: You never give up a corridor.
In addition, the official position of the Newcastle City Council is in favour of retention of the rail corridor. Both the Lord Mayor, Nuatali Nelmes, and the newest councillor, Declan Clausen, were elected on this platform.
Barbara Whitcher. I want the rail services reinstated back to the way they were.
James White. How can any progressive city anywhere in the world think ripping up railway lines is the way forward? Public transport is the way forward to revitalise a city. Like Melbourne, Newcastle could have maintained light rail to Newcastle Station and build above it. Of course, restricted in height so that buildings behind the rail‐line don't block out historic icons, such as Christ Church Cathedral, as well as other homes won't lose their views owners paid a premium for. And buildings not so modern that the history of Newcastle is lost, like the appalling building approved next door to The Great Northern Hotel in historic Watt Street. It seems Baird has sold out to developers, listening only to them, and not the people of Newcastle. This could have been done so much better, with greater consultation, and a win‐win for all. Now it feels like a loss and we're all grieving. Sad days ahead for Newcastle.
Dorothy Wilkinson.
If you look at other european citys you see modern buildings with light rail connecting the harbour to the city. This could be the same situation in Newcastle. We must be very proud of the NSW government who are putting all there money, time and energy into transforming newcastle. The Labor gov. never does anything, fancy supporting the heavy rail corridor. How ridiculous. All Novocastrians are in support of the government especially the light rail which will boost residents/ visitors into the city. the wickham transport interchange is the best design ever, imagine coming into newcastle from a train and end at a A grade transport interchange where you can hop off a train and go on the light rail, taxis or buses. just like other european citys. We need to support the NSW Government and NOT support the Save Our Rail (SOS) group who are a minority of old people who are stuck in there way and dont like change.
Charles Winsor. Ideally I would like to see the Newcastle Light Rail if it is to go ahead to be run along the existing heavy rail corridor. It would make more sense to the revitalisation of the city and would still allow the CBD and the harbour to be connected as well as preventing further congestion on the already busy Hunter Street. Also keep high rise developments out of the East End and Civic areas.
Aaron Witcom. My wife and I consider that the removal of the heavy rail in Newcastle is a retrograde step, if anything it should be extended. I was born in Newcastle and lived through the tram era, when the traffic levels were light. Light rail in Hunter street would be a motor vehicle drivers worst nightmare. Let the people of Newcastle and the Hunter Valley make the decision, as they have to live with the result.
Neville Wynn. Living in East Maitland we have used the train to commute to Newcastle for events and it was a very convenient and efficient way to get around. since the rail line has been cut we now drive or do not attend large events as parking is an issue.
If there is to be change I would prefer the light rail to run along the existing line, less disruption to Hunter Street and there will be good access to the foreshore, beaches and the law precinct and Hunter Street. Maybe the money saved could go towards extending the line.
Gaye Young. Option 4 I generally prefer and support Option 4 with the following changes:
1. Civic Station – support extension of museum and build to Hunter Street. Locate light rail stop immediately west of station forecourt/ Wheeler Place. Relocate Honeysuckle Dr to west and south of ‘square about’ to connect green park area to the Maritime Museum area. This would improve pedestrian safety,, and allow for more event space.
2. Dangar Grid to Foreshore: Create an open vista between the old city centre (Dangar grid) from Brown St to Watt St and the harbour foreshore. Remove development proposed in front of Brown‐ Perkins section of Hunter St which would block views to Dyke Point.
3. Vehicle circulation: Provide vehicle link N‐S at Perkins or Wolfe Street to reduce vehicles travelling an extended loop from Merewether St to Watt St..
4. Newcastle Station : Add a broad paved forecourt to Newcastle Station to provide a generous public plaza/ event space/ water play area running to the Foreshore. Include low speed shared zone at Wharf Road. Signalise Watt and Wharf intersection to send clear messages about pedestrian priority.
5. Restrict small development shown west of Newcastle Station to a single storey building with rectangular footprint that provides an active edge to Newcomen St. regards Susie Young