Remember how NSW Premier Chris Minns promised redeveloping Rosehill racecourse would cost taxpayers "zero, nothing"?

Turns out taxpayers will potentially spend $2.2 billion over the next 15 years just to buy the land.

And that's just the start of the issues: https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/the-sydney-housing-plan-we-ll-be-paying-billions-for-until-2041-20250506-p5lwy5.html #nswpol #auspol #planning #parramatta #Sydney

"NSW taxpayers could still be paying billions of dollars in 2041 for the Minns government’s plan to buy Rosehill racecourse, and development of the historic site into 25,000 new homes may take up to 40 years to complete.

"Despite the premier initially saying the deal would cost taxpayers 'zero, nothing,' because the [Australian Turf Club] would sell it to a private developer, the plan changed. In March, the ATC updated its proposal by asking the government to buy the land, a step that allows the racing club to avoid the risk of developing it.

"Before a vote on the [ATC]’s contentious plan to sell Rosehill to the NSW government later this month, a proposal sent to members on Tuesday details a 15-year payment plan for taxpayers to outlay $1.9 bn within five years of a deal being struck.

"Then the government would pay the ATC 'no less than' $100 million a year for a decade, with a potential $2.2 bn payment at the end of the 15-year agreement in 2041."

That $2.2 bn figure is before the added costs and delays for the Sydney Metro West line.

Much of the tunnelling and construction of station boxes at other stations, like Burwood North, is already complete:

https://pixelfed.social/p/ajsadauskas/804223533180374989

https://pixelfed.social/p/ajsadauskas/804258676529499057

Starting design and construction on an additional station at Rosehill will almost inevitably cause significant delays and cost blowouts to the project:

"The 111-page document says a decision on a new metro station at Rosehill is 'due in the coming weeks' and that without it, the 'value and viability' of the track would be 'materially diminished'."

Then there's the matter of how the Rosehill proposal came to be, which has been referred to ICAC following a Parliamentary inquiry:

"The Rosehill redevelopment proposal was first brought to the government’s attention after a meeting between Minns and the ATC's head of corporate affairs, Steve McMahon, in October last year.

"Minns and McMahon served together on Hurstville Council and have been friends for some 25 years, and the committee found the premier 'should have declared' a conflict over the matter."

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/minns-should-have-declared-conflict-over-rosehill-deal-inquiry-20241206-p5kwck.html

The proposal moved from nonexistent to a planning application in just 2 weeks, following the meeting between Minns and McMahon:

"Documents reveal a remarkably short turnaround between an October 25 meeting in which ATC officials told the NSW Planning Department it had no interest in shifting the historic course, and the racing body’s proposal on November 8 to develop the track into a massive 'mini-city' for 25,000 new homes.

"The proposal moved at a rapid pace after the meeting with Minns. The documents show three days later, on November 3, McMahon was discussing a 'potential metro box' in 'Camelia/Rosehill' with an assistant secretary of the NSW Cabinet Office. On the same day, the government was asking Sydney Metro chief executive Peter Regan for his thoughts on the ATC’s proposal.

"By November 8, the ATC had formally lodged its proposal with the government. Emails between the NSW Cabinet Office show that the proposal had already been given a code name – Project Wattle – before the meeting had taken place."

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/the-inside-story-of-how-rosehill-got-on-sydney-s-housing-map-20240416-p5fk9u.html

Still, despite the massive number of new homes, it's still a large number of homes near a new metro station just east of the Parramatta CBD.

Isn't that good?

Well yeah, except it suffers from the same issue I discussed yesterday: https://gts.sadauskas.id.au/@aj/statuses/01JTG9KFNJRXWCAQCTCYJN5DH0

There's a reason why a horse racing track was built at Rosehill, rather than housing, despite its location immediately next to the Parramatta CBD.

It's because the area immediately east of the Parra CBD, and along the Parramatta River, is a floodplain. It's prone to flash flooding.

Significant parts of the site are only 3–4 m above sea level.

By contrast, the area of the Parra CBD around the station, and north of the river, are around 20 m above sea level.

When there's a downpour, a lot of the water that lands on hand surfaces will want to run downhill, towards the river and the race track.
https://en-au.topographic-map.com/map-wwbmt/Parramatta/?center=-33.82479%2C151.02695&zoom=16&popup=-33.82558%2C151.02721

Sure, those new homes may flood. But at least the premier's mate got a great deal for the ATC from taxpayers.

The Daily Telegraph (which is owned by Rupert Murdoch) is talking up a new mixed-use development in the Parramatta CBD. And normally, I'd be all for developments of this kind.

Except for one small issue.

It's in a floodplain.

"Parramatta CBD is set to have a “ground breaking” 45-level twin tower featuring modern apartments, three levels of retail and eateries within a uniquely designed building.

"Construction of ‘Cosmopolitan,’ the latest project by Sydney development company Deicorp, has begun and is said to be unlike anything currently within the suburb.

"Located at 34 Hassall St, the twin buildings will deliver 604 new apartments into the community by 2027."

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/real-estate/development/ground-breaking-development-coming-to-western-sydney/news-story/e81864dd4853a95df521b032e1f749a4

The Tele's article fails to mention the drawn-out approvals process for a neighbouring apartment tower at 39 to 43 Hassall St.

It was knocked back by Parramatta City Council (possibly the most pro-development council in Australia). The Council shared concerns with the State Emergency Services and a State Government agency about flood risk.

(That decision was overturned by the NSW Planning Department.)

That's because it's right next to a creek bed.

"[The NSW Planning Department] noted the Environment and Heritage Group, and the NSW State Emergency Service, opposed the development on flooding grounds. The site, which is adjacent to Clay Cliff Creek and close to the Parramatta River, is considered “flood affected”.

“[The Environment and Heritage Group] raised concern that the proposal has potential to seriously increase flood risk to life and is not compatible with the flood risk of the land,” the department said.

"The developer tweaked an earlier proposal, reconfiguring the block and increasing the number of car spaces, in response to negative feedback in public submissions. But the City of Parramatta maintained its opposition on grounds the project did not meet the council’s design excellence standards, particularly as there was no clear setback between the tower and the podium level."

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sydney-council-rejects-build-to-rent-tower-plan-over-flood-risk-20240108-p5evsm.html

"Water engineering and hydrology firm GRC Hydro … noted the proposal included flood gates and doors to provide safe evacuation or a place to shelter during a flood emergency, and to protect the basement car park from inundation."

"The [NSW Planning Department] said the flooding concerns could be mitigated with conditions. Those included a requirement a construction certificate not be issued until the certifier had evidence the building was “suitably designed to ensure the building does not fail due to floodwater forces, debris and buoyancy effects from flooding in events up to the [probable maximum flood] level as certified by a registered structural engineer.”"

"Structural failure" in this context is an engineering term that means "the building collapses".

And why this all matters is because the Parramatta River can be a little floodprone:

"A senior SES official has warned that Parramatta's CBD could be overwhelmed by a flash flood in as little as nine minutes, giving residents little time to evacuate.

"George Jeoffreys, senior manager for risk reduction and avoidance at the NSW State Emergency Service, cited the difficulty of predicting flash floods.
…
"Parramatta is a low-lying catchment area fed by 39 tributary creeks, any of which can cause flooding. But another expert said the risks seemed to have been ignored as the government and council continued with strategies to turn Parramatta into Sydney's second city centre.

"SES senior planning coordinator Marcus Morgan said the agency should have been involved earlier in the planning process."

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/nine-minutes-to-flee-parramatta-s-catastrophic-flash-flooding-warning-20190214-p50xtv.html

Now, I want to stress again that I'm usually all for higher-density housing and mixed-use developments close to public transport.

Parramatta is the second biggest CBD in NSW, and there's a strong demand for new housing as office towers go up.

And there are plenty of sites around Parramatta, especially in Parramatta North, which are close to the new light rail and would be ideal for more density.

At the same time, because of global warming from fossil fuel pollution, floods are going to become more frequent and severe.

I don't think putting tall apartment blocks next to creek beds in flood plains near the Parramatta ferry wharf is a great idea, from the point of view of climate resiliency.

And at the very least, reporters writing about new developments built on floodplains should at least mention the fact.

#Climate #ClimateChange #GlobalWarming #Parramatta #Urbanism #UrbanPlanning #NSW #NSWPol #Auspol #Australia