Australian Politics
The Sydney suburb YIMBYs love to hate, where nothing is allowed to change
I am rather sympathetic to the NIMBYs here. Amid a housing shortage, tearing down existing houses for ANY reason would seem to need justification. By all means build blocks of units but do so where no significant demolition is required -- eg. farms and gardens
I realize the issue is the land value in older suburbs, which makes it profitable to tear down and rebuild, but facilitating that is not a local counil priority
Vincent Crow remembers the exact date – December 8, 1974 – he wrote to the National Trust asking it to consider heritage listings in his home suburb of Haberfield, in Sydney’s inner west.
“I said, ‘The houses here are being destroyed’. Modernised, you might say,” he recalls. A few years later, the Trust began listing parts of Haberfield, and in the mid-1980s, the Haberfield heritage conservation area was gazetted in the local environmental plan.
Today, all of Haberfield – a suburb of 6500 people about 6.5 kilometres from the CBD – remains a heritage conservation area (HCA), where development is strictly limited to preserve its form and character.
That makes it enemy number one for so-called YIMBY (yes-in-my-backyard) housing advocates, who want to see greater density around the city, especially in areas well-connected to transport.
Sydney YIMBY co-founder Justin Simon says the demographics tell the story of a suburb slowly growing older and richer alongside its houses. Census data shows Haberfield’s population barely changed between 2006 and 2021, while the number of dwellings dipped from 2505 to 2388.
In the same period, the median age jumped from 42 to 46, and median weekly household income leapt from $1291 to $2761. Half of Haberfield residents own their home outright, while just 17 per cent are renters – less than half the Greater Sydney average.
“It is a suburb that gets one or two years older in terms of median age every census,” Simon says. Then there is the median price of a three-bedroom house: “The cost of entry to Haberfield is $2.5 million.”
Haberfield is at the pointy end of a debate about whether heritage protection – especially broad heritage conservation areas that span entire streets or suburbs – is unreasonably prohibiting development, pushing up prices and making it harder for young people to buy or pay the rent.
Unlike many parts of the inner west or eastern suburbs, where HCAs contain rows and rows of Victorian terraces, Haberfield is significant as it was Australia’s first planned “garden suburb”.
Starting in 1901, real estate agent and Ashfield alderman Richard Stanton conceived it as an antidote to other parts of Sydney. Haberfield was to be “slum-less, lane-less and pub-less”.
Homes were to be single-storey, with one house per block. The standard lot size was 695 square metres, with setbacks to provide front gardens and brush box street trees out the front. No two houses were to be the same, though most were built in the Federation style.
“With Haberfield, there are hardly any houses that by themselves are outstanding architectural masterpieces,” says Crow. “It’s just the fact that it’s a single-storey garden suburb.”
Crow, 74, has lived at his three-bedroom Dudley Street property since he was eight. He also has a nearby investment property, leased to the same tenant for 15 years. The retired history teacher, who has been president of the Haberfield Association three times, says arguments to sacrifice heritage for more housing density are illogical.
“Heritage areas in the inner west are heritage because they are old. That’s what heritage is,” Crow says. “Obviously, you can’t keep everything. [But] if you are going to bulldoze it, you are going to destroy part of Australia’s heritage.”
He also argues it’s important to preserve family homes with a backyard for those who want one. “If you demolished the houses in Haberfield and built apartments, you’d only be building more of what you’ve already got elsewhere.”
Crow conceded cost was an impost in Haberfield. Asked whether heritage protection had the effect of squeezing out younger people, he said: “I haven’t really given that much thought, actually.”
Crow said the answer to Sydney’s housing woes may lie in decentralisation: people could move to places such as Albury, Bathurst or Orange. “It’s up to the government to provide incentives like jobs to attract people out there,” he said.
Darcy Byrne, the Labor mayor of the inner west, says Haberfield’s heritage value is obvious and ought to be respected. But he notes the large lots and homes set it apart from the municipality’s other heritage areas. “By definition that prices a lot of people out,” he says. “There’s obviously an equity issue in maintaining houses that are that big.”
Byrne says Haberfield suffers from having such little shop-top housing, which has helped other suburbs in the inner west thrive. “It’s a downside to keeping things precisely as they are. I’m not proposing that has to change, but we should be honest about the tradeoffs,” he says.
“I personally think Haberfield could benefit from having a pub or a small bar. I don’t think you can just rip up the heritage conservation zone, but I also don’t think you can just wrap the place up in glad wrap and preserve it indefinitely as it was 100 years ago.”
Haberfield’s heritage controls have come back to the fore this year as Inner West Council grapples with a vacant, 1.9-hectare block of land – a former Army Reserve depot – on Hawthorn Parade. The block was subdivided 20 years ago for new residential development but remains vacant due to flooding concerns.
Four of the 21 lots have been sold, and this month, the Department of Defence said it intended to put the other 17 on the market in early 2024. Due diligence on alternative uses was completed in January 2022 and came up with nothing, the department said.
Because the current rules do not contemplate the construction of new homes in Haberfield, Inner West Council is currently exhibiting site-specific development controls to ensure any new homes constructed on the site match the surrounding Queen Anne-style Federation houses, including a requirement that at least 50 per cent of each block is landscaped area.
Many controls are much more specific, such as mandating garage doors to be “simple timber or metal cladding in a recessive dark colour”.
YIMBYs, however, want those rules ripped up. Simon says the federal government, which wants the country to build 1.2 million homes in the next five years, should just gift the site to the NSW government for public housing units.
Labor councillor Philippa Scott said the council had advocated that exact position to Defence, but was rebuffed. “It’s a done deal,” she said. “We don’t live in a perfect world.”
Crow and the Haberfield Association want the block converted to a public park, not housing. A life member of the ALP, Crow is upset his federal MP – Prime Minister Anthony Albanese – has not yet met with the Haberfield Association’s army land subcommittee about the issue. “We’d only be too happy for him to come down and talk to us,” Crow said.
**********************************************
Long-awaited judgment upholds open justice in whistleblower Collaery case
Prosecuting a lawyer for fcr defending his client was always going to smell. Fortunately the case fell over. Now we know the final reasoning
A heavily redacted document, relating to the now discontinued case against Canberra lawyer and whistleblower Bernard Collaery, has finally been made public after more than two years.
The ACT Court of Appeal judgment reveals it is likely a judge "gave too much weight" to national security and "too little weight" to the administration of justice when determining if certain matters would be heard in open court.
Mr Collaery and his client, the ex-Australian Secret Intelligence Service spy known as Witness K, were charged over allegedly leaking classified information about an alleged Australian spying operation in Timor-Leste.
Charges against Mr Collaery were discontinued by the federal government in 2022, following protracted legal proceedings.
Mr Collaery had been set to stand trial in October 2022, charged with four counts of unlawfully communicating classified information in media interviews and a single conspiracy charge.
The charges related to Mr Collaery revealing Australian spies had bugged a government building in the nation during negotiations to carve up lucrative oil and gas reserves in the Timor Sea.
Much of the now vacated trial was set to be held behind closed doors, after Justice David Mossop made a ruling under national security legislation to ban public disclosure of certain information.
This order had been sought by then-federal attorney-general Christian Porter, with the effect being that significant parts of Mr Collaery's trial would be held in closed court.
Mr Collaery subsequently challenged the ruling in the ACT Court of Appeal, which unanimously allowed his appeal in October 2021.
While Mr Collaery and his team agreed some sensitive information should not be made public, they had argued material relating to "the truth of six specific matters" should be dealt with in open court.
However, the published reasons behind this decision were not made public until Tuesday, due to a bid to take the matter to the High Court and the retirement of two of the appeal judges on the case.
In the published judgment, former Chief Justice Helen Murrell, Justice John Burns and Justice Michael Wigney found it was likely Justice Mossop "gave too much weight to the risk of prejudice to national security and too little weight to the interests of the administration of justice in the circumstances of this case."
They also found that evidence led by the attorney-general was "replete with speculation and devoid of any specific basis for concluding that significant risks to national security would materialise" if the matters were heard in open court.
"The open court principle stands as a bulwark against the possibility of political prosecutions by allowing public scrutiny and assessment."
****************************************************
Nurses in Queensland who were stood down during the pandemic for refusing to get a Covid vaccine are being sacked despite the lifting of mandates
Nurses in Queensland who were stood down during the pandemic for refusing to get a Covid vaccine are being sacked despite the lifting of mandates months ago.
Ella Leach, secretary of the Nurses Professional Association QLD, was one of those who was recently notified through a letter she had been fired, even though she is seven months pregnant.
'I should be focused on the joys of becoming a first time mum but it has been overshadowed by this whole process,' Ms Leach told Sky News Australia.
When asked why the Queensland Health Department would continue pursuing employees who are no longer in breach of any vaccine rule, Ms Leach said she felt the authority was 'doubling down' on its position during the pandemic.
In September 2021 all Queensland Health staff working in facilities where healthcare was provided were told they must be vaccinated for Covid, however, this directive was repealed in September 2023 by new director-general Michael Walsh.
'They're just trying to prove a point with us,' Ms Leach said. 'There's no sensible reason why they would continue with this action.'
'We know that our hospitals are screaming out for staff. We're seeing ambulances ramped outside hospitals, people dying in ambulances, our rural areas are suffering.'
Ms Leach said she was one of at least 50 staff she knew of that had been fired since September 25 last year.
Ms Leach's former employer Children's Health Queensland said in a statement it is 'unable to comment publicly on the employment situation, including disciplinary action, of individual staff'.
'Employee disciplinary matters are handled on a case by case basis and governed by robust and equitable processes.'
Ms Leach said she was aware some staff had been told they could reapply for their old jobs. 'In my role as the secretary I've seen hundreds of letters sent to staff about this matter.'
'They say they've been looked at on a case by case basis but they are templated letters and they insert what you've written back to them and say ''even if we haven't addressed your concern don't think we haven't taken it into account'',' she claimed. 'Then they just terminate you, it's disgraceful'.
'I've spoken to nurses who have lost their homes over this'.
In repealing the vaccine mandate, Mr Walsh said wide ranging advice had been submitted that informed the decision. This included employee feedback, expert clinical advice, official immunisation advice, and a 'human rights assessment'.
Similar vaccine mandates for health workers were lifted in NSW at the end of 2022 but the mandate still stands in Victoria.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12941457/Vaccine-mandates-nurses-stood-Queensland.html
********************************************Logging operations to continue between NSW and Queensland after judge rejects environmentalists' court bid
Environmentalists have lost a legal challenge to a forestry agreement between the NSW and Commonwealth governments, meaning logging operations can continue within a vast coastal area between Sydney and the Queensland border.
The North East Regional Forestry Agreement was originally signed in 2000 and renewed in 2018.
The North East Forest Alliance (NEFA) asked the Federal Court to declare that the renewed agreement did not meet the definition of such agreements under relevant laws.
On behalf of the alliance, the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) argued the Commonwealth was required to assess environmental values and principles of ecologically sustainable management when it was renewed, but failed to do so.
These included impacts on endangered species, climate change and old growth forests.
Justice Melissa Perry today rejected that argument and ruled the requirement to assess environmental values applied only when the intergovernmental agreement began, not when it was extended.
Summarising her decision, the judge said the effect of a regional forest agreement was not to leave a "regulatory void" with respect to the regions covered by the agreement.
Rather, it provided an "alternative mechanism" by which the objectives of biodiversity laws could be achieved through intergovernmental agreement.
"The question of whether or not to enter into or vary an intergovernmental agreement of this nature is essentially a political one," Justice Perry said.
"The merits of which are matters for the government parties and not the courts to determine."
The evidence considered by the court
A deed extending the agreement was executed under former prime minister Scott Morrison and former premier Gladys Berejiklian.
As part of the extension, there was an assessment report which relied on published data and formal five-yearly reviews of regional forestry agreements.
But the EDO argued there was no "reasonably contemporaneous" assessment of the projected impacts of climate change on forests.
In her full written judgement, Justice Perry said there was no expert evidence presented to court allowing it to assess whether the information relied on to extend the agreement was out of date.
She also noted all parties agreed the Commonwealth was aware of and had published material recognising Australia's weather and climate were changing.
In relation to endangered species, the EDO argued material relied on at the time of renewal was also not reasonably contemporaneous.
But Justice Perry similarly highlighted a lack of expert evidence that would allow the court to assess that claim, including whether historical information was no longer relevant or whether more recent data on endangered species existed.
'People will take to the front lines'
Greens MP and former Environmental Defenders Office lawyer Sue Higginson said it was a disappointing outcome, although it was always a "very ambitious case" by NEFA.
She said the final words from Justice Perry in the court this morning that the matter was in the hands of politicians sent a "very strong message".
"I do suspect people will take to the front lines again, as they've been doing," Ms Higginson said.
"All eggs will be placed in the basket of pressuring those that have the power to change the direction forest management is taking, and that is squarely on our politicians right now."
North Coast Environment Council volunteer Ashley Love said an end to that type of logging is especially important as work progresses on the Great Koala National Park.
The park will connect 300,000 hectares of state forests and existing national parks between Coffs Harbour and Kempsey on the mid-north coast.
Forestry industry relieved
The case was the first challenge to a regional forestry agreement in NSW.
Prior to the decision, NSW Nationals leader Dugald Saunders raised concerns that if the EDO won, "serious ramifications" would follow, including an "almost immediate shutdown" of the forestry industry.
More than 5,000 workers could have been impacted, Mr Dugald said.
He said NSW had "some of the strictest regulations" in the world when it came to forestry operations.
Andrew Hurford said the forestry industry felt relieved by the court outcome on Wednesday.(ABC North Coast: Leah White)
President of Timber New South Wales Andrew Hurford said the industry was buoyed by the court's ruling today.
Mr Hurford said the Regional Forestry Agreement process was designed to managed the resource comprehensively, and that 87 per cent of forest in the region were reserved from harvesting.
"We just need a bit of balance here," he said.
"We manage 12 per cent of the public estate in a sustainable fashion, very careful of the environment and very careful to ensure that we have timber availability into the future."
'It's not the same forest now as it was then'
North East Forest Alliance president Dailan Pugh disagreed with the reliance on an assessment done three years prior to the original agreement.
"It's extremely disappointing that the federal and state governments can do these regional forest agreements based on an assessment done in 1997, and to continually renew them," he said.
He said the assessment was based on "reasonable information available at the time", but argued that more information was now available.
"We know that climate change ... is having a major impact on our threatened species," he said.
"It's not the same forest now as it was then, and our species have continued to decline despite the regional forest agreement.
"The judge has said it's not a legal issue, it's a political decision, so it's up to the politicians to decide whether that is an acceptable approach."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-10/nsw-forestry-court-decision-logging-nefa/103300986
************************************Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************
Evelyn Rae, a conservative Australian political commentator
Margo Robbie -- a beautiful australian
My son Joe at ANU
One of the happiest pictures ever -- Cleo Smith, aged 4
No comments:
Post a Comment