Please find below reasons why I am opposed to the privatisation of the Sydenham to Bankstown line and the proposed urban renewal as outlined in the Sydenham to Bankstown urban renewal corridor1 I live a short walk to Canterbury station and I am highly concerned about the proposed development along my closest rail corridor and in my local area. Lazy solution without proper consultation or a business case It appears to me that this proposal has been pitched to Planning NSW as an easy solution without any issues or drawbacks to future population growth. It is a solution aimed at increasing rails costs, breaking up the rail system and creating wealth for a small number of developers. I understand that this system is common in Singapore and Hong Kong. However, that does not immediately mean that it applies in Sydney and that it is the best solution to a problem that has not been clearly articulated. The Metro appears to have been a knee jerk embrace to a perceived opportunity brought by an outside interest. I am concerned that the exact intentions of the Planning changes proposed by Planning NSW (and with the support of the private sector) for the Bankstown line are shrouded in secrecy. No business case has been released to support the Metro.2 By converting the Bankstown line, NSW is squandering windfall gains from the sale of the State’s electricity assets. As a resident on the Bankstown line and based on the information that has been presented to the public, one can reasonably conclude that the Sydney Metro, including the City & Southwest section, is not really about providing improved public transport. It is about providing development opportunities to developers, including MTR Corporation, and turning large tracts of Sydney into MTR’s version of Hong Kong. The Metro line is being used as an excuse to push dramatic over-development on communities along the corridor. It seems spatially and geographically unequal. The push is from developers and, much of what is being built is investor driven flats built to attract the burgeoning investment market.3 This does nothing to address affordability4 or housing disadvantage. Destruction of a heritage listed suburb Ashbury and Canterbury and much of the whole Bankstown Corridor have significant heritage value that should be retained such as that of the Mary MacKillop convent5. I am concerned about every suburb along the corridor and the impact of the plans. I have worked in Erskineville, Bankstown and Riverwood and appreciate the communities living along the whole line and those that will lose their stations or are at threat of losing their stations. Erskineville Marrickville Campsie St Peters. Dulwich Hill Belmore Hurlstone Park Wiley Park-Lakemba 1 http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Plans-for-your-area/Priority-Growth-Areas-and-Precincts/Sydenham-to-Bankstown- Urban-Renewal-Corridor 2 http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/secrecy-shrouds-multibilliondollar-sydney-rail-projects-20160613-gphm3g.html 3 https://theconversation.com/why-investor-driven-urban-density-is-inevitably-linked-to-disadvantage-82073 4 https://theconversation.com/housing-policy-is-captive-to-property-politics-so-dont-expect-politicians-to- tackle-affordability-55384 5 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-08/st-mary-mackillops-convent-faces-rezoning-proposal/8427100 1 Canterbury Punchbowl-Bankstown Hurlstone Park for example has low-density character and historic homes that could be under significant threat from urban renewal plans. Currently, nearly 60 per cent of dwellings in the suburb are separate homes. Like other suburbs on the Bankstown line, Hurlstone Park began to be developed following the completion of the railway line in the mid-1890s. This gives the area a distinctive Federation housing feel. This should be retained. Belmore’s character will undergo dramatic change if the urban renewal plans are adopted. The change in character will be particularly apparent at Acacia and Myall Sts, which were first subdivided in 1922 as part of Redman’s Estate and are lined with single-storey character homes. These streets are proposed to be redeveloped for skyscrapers up to 25 storeys, overlooking adjacent Terry Lamb Reserve. It would seem likely the towers will destroy the ambience and peace of the reserve, which also contains Belmore Sportsground. To transition from low density to 25 stories seems a complete conflict to the idea of community integration. The Canterbury precinct has to date already experienced significant redevelopment of its industrial areas and commercial sites along New Canterbury Rd, however residential areas have been spared significant change. There are now 1000s of new dwellings in the immediate vicinity of Canterbury station and the area is experiencing congestion, crowded street parking and long shadows from the high-rise development. Along Canterbury Road the developments go all the way to the footpath with no set back at all. The community has lost historic hotels, single story homes and now has a corridor of buildings for hundreds of metres. Under the urban renewal plans, many hundreds of the precinct’s homes are to be demolished under the plans. Streets clustered around the now redeveloped industrial areas and village centre north of the Cooks River will see the most significant change, including current family home low-density streets such as Tincombe and Robert Streets, where streets currently containing single-storey homes are now proposed to be lined with unit blocks between 19-25 storeys high. To put this into perspective - this is the equivalent of putting a series of skyscrapers as high as the Blues Point Tower into what are currently low-scale family home streets. It is questionable whether this level of high rise appartment development of low-density areas has previously been attempted in Sydney – even in the 1960s and 1970s. Low-density John St, which is opposite Canterbury racecourse, will also have towers up to 18 storeys while streets to the east of the railway station will be transformed into canyons of eight-storey unit blocks. What’s more, high-density development will jump the Cooks River and transform currently untouched low-density streets in the southern part of the suburb, including streets such as Emu, Waratah and Berna Streets where five-storey unit blocks are now proposed. Subdivision plans show these streets were first subdivided in 1889 – before the railway line was even constructed in 1895. The area at the time was listed as Silver Park. These five-storey unit blocks are also proposed in Fore St, threatening two heritage-listed homes designed by famous 19th century architect Varney Parkes. One of these homes is a State heritage-listed former convent – which was purchased by Australian’s only Catholic Saint Mary MacKillop in 1901. 2 Heritage and character Canterbury also has an historic cemetery, a primary school building built in the 19th Century (1879 is still inscribed on the original building) and an historic high school building. Canterbury Council prior to amalgamation has erected historic information signs around the suburb explaining its rich past as a food bowl to Sydney and the original subdivisions. Separately, a significant number of heritage items – including State heritage items – are now under threat because they have been placed in redevelopment areas. Housing in the corridor dates back to the 1890s, when the line to Belmore was first constructed. The corridor is also the spiritual home of the iconic War Services Home Commission scheme, which provided homes to soldiers returning home from World War I. The former Sugar Works at Canterbury, built in 1841, is a stunning State heritage item. It has been converted into housing. The proposed urban renewal plans released in October 2015 make this a high-rise site, threatening the future of the Sugar Works. Maps released in May 2016 showed that this proposal had been removed, but the site will still be surrounded by intense development undermining its setting. This is not in keeping with the intent and spirit of heritage. Learn from West Connex Haberfield was created as a garden suburb in the early twentieth century and represented an ideal environment for people to live, work, raise and spend time with their family. The suburb has remained substantially intact but has had development through roads and Westconnex ruin its character, destroy tree canopies and divide communities. Those residents who have lost their homes cannot remain in the area due to inadequate compensation and rising housing cost. It has fragmented the community and created a landscape with a constant reminder of development at catastrophic social cost. Tree canopy is lost, heritage is lost and traffic congestion intensified. Disruption to the social cohesion through compulsory acquisition Residents in the development corridor (including Ashbury and Canterbury) will have their houses compulsorily acquired by developers, the NSW State Government or road projects such as Westconnex6 and be forced to move from the area. Already real estate agents and developers are knocking door to door in a predatory manner pressuring people to sell. This would be a disruption to the social cohesion that is present in the older established area. What people want is security of tenure. Ordinary people appreciate and rely on the Torrens title system as a way of feeling like they can stay somewhere and that they own their home. Westconnex has shown that this is completely undermined. The new strata title legislation7 also undermines confidence in being able to really own something or know that you can stay in your home for as long as you choose. If residents don’t have this sense of security it undermines the long-term links that are established. As an example where I live a number of households have been away on holidays together for a weekend on a number of occasions.