Oval Car-park and Whistler Street Redevelopment EOIs Comments from

North Harbour Precinct

1. INTRODUCTION
This submission has been prepared by a group of precinct residents who were tasked by
the residents at a precinct meeting on 9 June to review the EOIs on public display and to
report back to the residents.
The following is a copy of the Motion passed at the 9 June meeting:
The North Harbour residents have passed a Motion to have a Resident Group
review the Submissions, prepare comments on them, including an assessment of
the financial risks to ratepayers and the risks of any loss of amenity to the
community if the Council pursues any submissions contained in the Expressions of
Interest. The meeting also authorises the precinct representatives to liaise with
other precincts in this regard and to present its findings to other precincts and to the
community at large.
2. SUMMARY OF THE EOI SUBMISSIONS
2.1 Whistler St Redevelopment:
Three Submissions were received:

A local businessman (Chris Athas) and a contractor

Greenedge a company that builds and operates aged care facilities
A contractor Grocon

None of the submissions addressed the option of refurbishing and upgrading the Whistler
St Car Park.
None of the submissions represent (in the view of the resident group) an overdevelopment of the site . However, the proposal for an Aged Care Facility proposes 5
levels, to be expanded to 7 levels. This would require its own DCP and does represent a
additional loss of amenity.
All proposed keeping or expanding the library though some converted the ground floor to
retail space.
One of the proposals include a car park (for residents or lease holders) under the
development.
No financials provided in the public documents so, we do not know the Lease Revenue
received by the Council. However, it is unlikely that the Lease Revenue will exceed the
Present Value of Net Revenue from the continued operation of the Whistler St Car Park.

2.2 Construction of a Car Park under the Oval:

12 Submissions received:

11 are a direct response to the Council's Brief ie registration of an interest

in building a car park, initially for small car park (approx 450 car spaces) with
the option of expanding to accommodating more cars (approx 760 spaces).
The Council will pay for and operate the car park and carry the financial risk.

Of the above, 2 include retail space as part of the development in the area
currently occupied by the tennis club adjacent to Belgrave Street. It is
assumed the Council will receive rental income from the retail space. The
tennis courts are relocated.

In the public version of the submissions, none of them contained any financial
information that would allow the community to assess the financial risks to
ratepayers.

One (assumed from from Mounties + Woolworths), is radically different from

the above:
It proposes a two level car park for approx 1,300 cars that is mostly above
the current ground level.
The new playing field will be on top of the proposed car park - it will be
7.75 meters above the current level of the oval playing field. A clubhouse
and grandstand will be higher than the surface of the playing fields.
There will be a supermarket + additional retail space that is approx the size
of the current Stocklands/Totem Mall in Balgowlah. This is located on
Belgrave St between Raglan St and Sydney Rd.
The tennis courts are relocated to where the current Bowling Club
Buildings are.
Above the supermarket will be a club with facilities for the current Rugby,
Bowls and Tennis Clubs.
Deliveries to the clubs, the supermarket and the additional retail will be off
Raglan Street.
It is not clear who will own and operate the car park, nor who will bear the
costs and the financial risks, including possibly the ratepayers.
No details are available to the public on the revenue (from rates and
Section 96 contributions) to Council.
The car park will take over part of Ivanhoe Park.
2

 As the total investment exceeds $20 million, the developers will seek to
have the JRPP as the Determining Authority.
2.

PRECINCT INTERACTION WITH COUNCIL AND COUNCILLORS

In response to an approach by Clrs James Griffin and Candy Bingham seeking our
comments on the Submissions prior to a (closed) briefing to Councillors on the
Submissions, we put the following questions for these two Councillors and Steve
Pickering:
For the Oval Car Park:
1. What is the Process and the Timetable (including public accountability) that is
proposed by the Council to review the EOIs, to seek detailed competitive
proposals from selected proponents and to make a decision proceeding with
any of the selected proposals.
2. From the submissions received by Council, what are the indicative capital
costs for each of the proposals? This important information is required by our
group as part of our assessment of the potential financial risks for the
ratepayers. If this information is considered to be "commercially sensitive" we
suggest the Council sets up a Data Room with the complete submissions and
under confidentiality agreements our group reviews each of the submissions.
3. We recognise that the major risks to the ratepayers come not from the capital
costs of the project but from the future cash flows, in which the recurrent
operating costs and the revenue play a major role. Before committing to any
proposal, these risks need to be addressed and resolved publicly to the
satisfaction of ratepayers.
Redevelopment of the Whistler St Site:
1. From the EOI submissions, there is no information on the likely/indicative
lease revenue to Council and the extent to which this revenue can be used to
offset either the capital costs for the new car park or the annual cash flow
shortfalls. This is important information for our group to assess the financial
risks to ratepayers.
2. From the perspective of the residents, the Council cannot proceed with the
construction of the car park under the oval until the funding contribution from
the Whistler St Redevelopment is known with certainty and confidence.

3. CONCLUSIONS ON THE FINANCIAL RISKS FOR RATEPAYERS AND THE

POTENTIAL FOR AMENITY LOSS FOR THE COMMUNITY
3.1 Redevelopment of the Whistler St Site:
None of the three submissions for the redevelopment of the Whistler St Site appear to
involve a high rise option.
However, none of the submissions would appear to deliver any significant community
benefit. However, there is major loss of amenity through:

loss of the Whistler St Car Park with its proximity to the Library, shops and
services provided in the Manly CBD.
the provision of parking for disabled drivers the Triangle off Market Lane.

While it would appear that the submissions expose the ratepayers to financial risk,
because it is unlikely that the Lease Revenue from the Developers would be high enough
to replace the current $1 million per year net revenue from the continued operation of the
Whistler St Car Park nor would it cover the shortfall in cash flows from the operation (and
loan repayment) of the Car Park under the Oval.
3.2 Construction of a New Car Park under the Oval:
The proposal from Mounties+Woolworths will be treated separately from the other eleven
proposals to construct a car park in two phases (450 car spaces, expandable to 760 car
spaces).
3.2.1 Financial Risks:
All the proposals would appear to be for construction-only not construct and operate.
The Council would own and operate the car park (and any retail space), would need to
finance the construction and the ratepayers would carry any cash shortfalls.
The financials for the Council and the ratepayers of these options are essentially the same
as the financials for the original 760 space car park proposed by Council. This is despite
the phasing of the construction. The reason is that the capital cost for the initial phase for a
smaller car park is the same as the capital cost assumed by the Council (and KPMG in
their report for Council) for the 760 space car park.
The financial analysis undertaken by the precinct of the original car park proposal of
Council concluded that after 20 years of operating a new car park under the oval, the
impact on Council finances of the closure of the Whistler St Car Park and the construction
of a new car park under the oval was:

A loss of more than $20 million to the consolidated revenue of the Council as a
consequence of the closure of the Whistler St Car Park over the 20 year period.

The outstanding debt on the loan for the construction of the car park under the oval
4

was more than $20 million at the end of 20 years.

The accumulated cash losses from the operation of the new car park under the oval
was more than $20 million.

This represents a major financial risk to ratepayers.

3.2.2 Loss of Amenity Risks:

The new car park is not built under the oval because of the geotechnical challenges. The
car park will intrude above the current level by up to 2 meters depending on the design.
Strangely, none of the released EOIs show detailed height elevations of the car park.
This represents a loss of amenity as it will change the village-like appearance of the
current oval.

3.3 Mounties+Woolworths Proposal for a 1,300+ Car Park, a Supermarket and Club:
3.3.1 Financial Risks:
There would appear to be no financial risk to ratepayers, if it is assumed that the Council
does not own and operate the car park. However, this does no take into account the loss
of $1 million per year from the closure of the Whistler St Car Park.
There could be a financial benefit to the ratepayers from the rates and Section 96
contributions to Council.
3.3.2 Loss of Amenity Risks:
The sheer size and intrusive nature of this large development on a site that currently gives
a green space village-like character to Manly will result in a loss of amenity. It needs to be
remembered that the land on which the oval is situated was historically designated for
common use.
The level of the playing field on the oval will be almost 8 meters higher than it currently is.
This will have a major impact on the character of the area and on the sight-lines as one
travels down Sydney Road towards the Manly CBD. A grandstand and clubhouse will be
higher again, above the playing field level and will dominate the area.
The deliveries by trucks and service vehicles to serve the supermarket, the retail shops
and the club will be off Raglan Street, close to the intersection with Belgrave Street. At
present, the intersection of Raglan and Belgrave Streets is busy and the resultant
congestion represents a massive loss of amenity and potential traffic issues.
There are no demonstrable community benefits to the community and residents from the
development. The opportunity to shop in a different supermarket to the ones that are
currently serving residents close to the CBD is not seen as a community benefit.
There will be the loss of public green space, parkland and openness because of the height
5

and bulk and the development (appears to) intrude into Ivanhoe Park.
The development represents a privatisation and commercialisation of what is a public
community asset.
The addition of so much new retail space in the Manly CBD goes counter to one of the
objectives of the Manly2015 Masterplan which was to rejuvenate and revitalise retail in
the Manly CBD. It goes contrary to global trends to reduce excessive retail and
commercial real estate and to increase common open space.
As much of the land that will be involved in the development is Crown Land, the Consent
Authority for the development is likely to be the JRPP or the PAC. This represents a major
risk to the residents and the community because (in the experience of residents with
recent decisions of both Authorities), they do not give sufficient weight or consideration to
community concerns in their determinations.

4. CONCLUSIONS FROM THE RESIDENT GROUP

The Residents Group concludes that:
1. The Submission/Proposal from the Mounties+Woolworths is non-compliant with the
Brief and it be rejected and a Motion to this effect be passed by the residents.
2. The Brief for the EOIs makes no mention of the criteria to be used by the Council in
selecting or short-listing the submissions on either projects. We would anticipate
that the criteria for selection would need to include:
Financial viability and risk to ratepayers of the proposal
Benefits to the community quantitative and qualitative
The Council should not proceed with making a decision on seeking competitive
tenders from any of the submissions without first seeking community views on the
criteria to be used and applied in selecting or short-listing the submissions.
3. Regarding the EOI Submissions for the Redevelopment of the Whistler St Site, the
Council re-visit the costs and benefits of refurbishing and upgrading the Whistler St
Car Park and Site.
4. Before the residents can form a definitive view on the three Submissions, the
Resident Group be given access to the financial information, as previously
requested from Clrs Pickering and James Griffin.
5. Regarding the EOI Submissions for constructing a new car park under the oval
(initially 450 spaces, expandable to 760 car spaces) these do not have a financial
and amenity risk profile any different to the risk profile for Council's original
proposal. The precinct therefore is not persuaded that the Council should proceed
to tender for a new car park, but rather undertake an evaluation to refurbish and
upgrade the Whistler St Car Park.

5. MOTIONS PASSED BY THE NORTH HARBOUR PRECINCT RESIDENTS AT THE

PRECINCT MEETING ON 14 JULY 2015
Following the presentation to and discussion by the residents at the precinct meeting on
14 July, two Motions were passed unanimously at the meeting.
Motion 1 (le Roux / Sharp):
As EOI Submission A-4 is non-compliant with the Brief from Council and is
contrary to Manly community's interests, it should be rejected.
Noting that the EOIs shed no light on the precinct's concerns about the loss of
amenity and unacceptable financial risks to ratepayers, the precinct endorses
the following questions that were submitted to Clrs Steve Pickering, James
Griffin and Candy Bingham and asks Council for a response before any further
steps are taken:
What is the Process and the Timetable (including public accountability) that
is proposed by the Council to review the EOIs, to seek detailed competitive
proposals from selected proponents and to make a decision proceeding with
any of the selected proposals?
From the submissions received by Council, what are the indicative capital
costs, operating costs and assumptions for future revenue for each of the
proposals ? This important information is required by our group as part of our
assessment of the potential financial risks for the ratepayers. If this
information is considered to be "commercially sensitive" we suggest the
Council sets up a Data Room with the complete submissions and under
confidentiality agreements our group reviews each of the submissions.
We recognise that the major risks to the ratepayers come not from the capital
costs of the project but from the future cash flows, in which the recurrent
operating costs and the revenue play a major role. Before committing to any
proposal, these risks need to be addressed and resolved publicly to the
satisfaction of ratepayers.
If the Council is the trustee for the land on which the major part of the oval is
situated, the Councillors pass a Motion to the effect that:
the powers of the trustee be vested in the Councillors and not the General
Manager
the oval remain in public hands
the oval not be allowed to become part of the large development proposed
by Mounties+Woolworths
The Council evaluate the refurbishment and upgrade of the Whistler St Car Park
and that any proposal to demolish this Car Car park and replace it with a new
car park under the oval be compared with the refurbishment/upgrade option.
7

Proposed: Terry le Roux Seconded: Ian Sharp: Voting: Unanimously accepted

Motion 2 (Rob McLean / Frances le Roux):
A delegation comprised of representatives from each of the Manly Precincts
meet with Mike Baird and the Minister of Local Government to consider to
restate that there has been lack of proper community consultation on the
proposal to build a new car park under the oval.
Proposed: Rob McLean Seconded: Frances le Roux: Voting: Unanimously
accepted.
Terry le Roux, Ian Sharp and Doug Browne
Resident Group tasked to Review the EOIs
22 July 2015