Channel 7 Former Epping Site Protection Bill 2007

Debate resumed, by consent, from an earlier hour.

Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [10.23 a.m.]: The need for this bill goes back some little time and the antecedents go back to late 2005. I refer to part of a letter dated 16 December 2005 from a constituent, Mr R. N. Burwood, 6 Marook Street, Carlingford, addressed to the Acting Director, Department of Planning, which was written in response to a letter he had received in his letterbox. Mr Burwood writes:

I am writing in regard to your letter dated 17 November, 2005 covering the above matter—

that is, the site development concept proposal plan for Channel 7, 61 Mobbs Lane, Epping—

It was with some amazement that I should receive a letter from your department about a development on this site as one would think that this should be first processed through Parramatta City Council. This site falls in the Parramatta City Council zone and one would think that the local Council would have a better insight into this area than a centralised department in the city. Parramatta City Council would also know the impact on the local area, which would be made by such a large development on this site.

That interesting letter expresses surprise that the Department of Planning has jumped into this matter from day one. From day one the department has not given a toss about Parramatta council. Looking back on this matter with hindsight, I expect the department always had the express intention of taking over this site and leaving Parramatta City Council completely out of the picture. On 7 November 2005 Mr Tink wrote a lengthy letter to the Minister for Planning. In that letter he said that he understood there were rumours that the Minister was considering the former Channel 7 site as a potential State significant site under the State environmental planning policy for major projects and that there was a proposal to put 900 residential dwellings on the site. In the letter Mr Tink asked the Minister to determine that the site is not of State and regional importance and to allow Parramatta City Council to undertake its normal decision-making in relation to development applications.

In the reply Mr Tink received in December 2005 the Minister said that following an approach from Channel 7 he had agreed to consider the potential to declare the site a State significant site and to consider a concept plan. In the letter he indicated that he had not made a decision, and that he had forwarded Mr Tink's letter to the department for its information. After further pressing, in January last year Mr Tink received a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary. Apparently the Minister did not seem to think that it was important to continue direct correspondence, so he replied through his Parliamentary Secretary. With no disrespect to that office holder, that indicated to Mr Tink that in the Minister's mind the matter mind was being downgraded and pushed aside as an irritant. It is more than an irritant to the residents of Mobbs Lane and surrounding streets. Mr Tink was advised by the Parliamentary Secretary that the Minister had agreed to consider a concept plan for the site and that public submissions were being reviewed. That was where the matter stood: the Minister had not made a decision.

The Minister has advised me in answer to a question on notice that 208 written submissions were received in response to the public exhibition. From my reading of the written submissions of which I have copies, the vast majority—which were from local people affected by this decision—were in opposition. Apart from a large number of letters in similar or identical terms that had been sent as responses to constituents, Mr Tink heard nothing more from the Minister. In addition to writing to the Minister he raised the matter in a private member's statement in the House on 17 November 2005. At that time he outlined a number of issues of concern, apart from the bulk of this development. Mr Tink said that the site had a history of major life-threatening flooding down into the Eastwood area, which was under the control of Ryde City Council, that there had been two massive flood events and that run-off from the high ground that the Channel 7 site occupies acts as a natural accelerator during major flooding to create problems.

Mr Tink believes, as I do, that the problems attendant on the development of a largely open greenfield site, which would be substantially covered by dwellings that act as mini-accelerators during heavy rain events, would be better considered by councils rather than by a department in the central business district, or wherever it may be located these days. Another major issue is traffic generation, especially along Mobbs Lane. The development site has a street address of 61 Mobbs Lane. The street—by which I mean the actual road paving—is well described as a lane and has not developed much from when it was originally laid some time around 1900 as access to a dairy. The road is barely coping with current traffic volumes, let alone the volume that would be generated by a development of many hundreds of units. A number of other issues also need to be taken into account.

The Epping Civic Trust, under the leadership of its president, Graham Lovell, and with assistance from Alan Swales and Graham Wyber, has taken a very active part in this issue, as have John Blair of the Northern District Times and John Booth of the Weekly Times. The civic trust first raised the matter in its October 2002 newsletter under the heading, "What Type Residential Development for the Channel 7 Site?" It has followed through pretty assiduously ever since. A meeting organised by the trust was held on 27 June 2006. A large number of people attended that significant meeting and a number of resolutions were passed. In July 2006 Mr Tink received a letter from constituents, Barbara and John Buzio, who live in Valley Road, Epping, near this development. They said that they had attended the public meeting organised by the Epic Civic Trust. The letter stated:

As the Parramatta Council can no longer successfully represent the concerns of the community in this matter, I ask you to take up the battle on our behalf and use the strength of the opposition ...

Pursuant to standing orders business interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a future day.