Councillor Justin Li – My Actions Your Benefit

On 18 October, I spoke out against rushing through the Ryde Civic Centre Redevelopment project in the absence of a referendum at the next local council elections.  Unfortunately to the disappointment of almost 100 residents sitting in the gallery, plans for 24 storey towers were rammed through by a narrow vote of 5 v 6. 

The people of Ryde are no fools.  They know that once this Council endorses the changes to the height and floorspace controls, there is no turning back on the development itself. 

We have a lot of developments already going on across the street from the Civic Centre. The full impacts of those developments are still yet to be felt as the new residents have not moved in there yet.  Until those residents move in, it is impossible for us or any planning consultants to be able to accurately assess the full impacts to traffic, transport and amenities in the area.   It would be premature to squeeze in even more people in Top Ryde until those effects can be assessed. 

But there is a more fundamental objection- the current 12 councillors simply do not have a mandate from the people of Ryde to move ahead with this project. I say this because none of the existing councillors campaigned at the last local government election on a platform to put in 24 story buildings in Top Ryde. 

I think it is totally inappropriate for the current Council to make a decision of such wide ramifications less than a year away from the next local council elections.  The right thing to do is to put this issue squarely to the people of Ryde for a decision at the next election. 

It is unfortunate that even before the results of the public consultation were made known, some councillors were already talking about redevelopment and saying “Bring it on”. Whereas a majority of Ryde residents (some 65%) are saying “Not so fast!”.

I wish to thank all of the residents who have reacted very positively in response to my letter in this week’s TWT (extracted below).  Yes, we need to find a sensible middle road solution to the Marsfield student housing issues without the politics, abusive emails, childish name calling and grandstanding.  We need to find a way to move forward.

Dear Sir,

Lodging rows go, on and on…

At the moment, the people of Ryde are living in the worst of all worlds.

Council meetings are dysfunctional because every discussion about boarding houses becomes a drawn out three- to four-hour debate. The same arguments are repeated over and over again by each side with no workable solution proposed.

I accept the research that tells us there is a long waiting list for on-campus accommodation at Macquarie University. So I cannot agree with the extremist view held by some (councillors and groups) that there must be no student accommodation at all in any residential areas in Ryde.

I also reject the other extreme under the current SEPP which forces Council to approve boarding house DAs regardless of the number of bedrooms proposed.

Boarding house DAs proposing 14 bedrooms in a normal sized residential lot is clearly inappropriate for low-density residential zones in Marsfield.

Unfortunately, there are no clear guidelines for residents and property owners as to what defines a boarding house as opposed to shared accommodation.

Ryde City Council was powerless to stop DAs proposing to put in boarding houses with 14 plus bedrooms.

I also oppose the misinformation being spread by certain councillors and groups and I propose a middle of the road approach.

We need to move on with a sensible solution which will see that students have somewhere to live and the residents are not left with unreasonable impacts to their neighbourhood.

The root of the problem is the number of people living in the one house. Most people I speak with have no problems with shared accommodation if a house has five bedrooms and you have no more than five students living there. Such houses if run properly will have no bigger impact on neighbours than normal-sized family homes.

There should be incentives in the DA process to discourage applicants putting too many occupants in the one house. For example, a two-tiered system whereby a more onerous approval process will kick in once an applicant proposes to put in more than five occupants in the one house.

We need to start off with some number (possibly five) that will have a consensus in the community and go from there.

But until the law is changed, the Land and Environment Court will strictly apply the SEPP and nothing else. If the DA satisfies the SEPP, it will be approved by the court, and Council will be out of pocket by tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs.  This is ratepayers’ money that could have gone to local community and sporting groups.

Local and state government policy makers need to come up with a fair “middle road” policy to resolve the current stalemate on the student accommodation issue.

Clr Justin Li