Frustrated by 'eyesores' and 'massive boat sheds', John Stamolis, an independently elected member of Leichhardt Council, tells Architecture & Design why the community is wound up about White Bay.

Kristina Keneally, the NSW planning minister recently announced an ‘innovative’ consultation process for the planning of the Bays Precinct on the inner-city foreshores of Sydney Harbour, fulfilling a commitment made by the NSW premier two years before.

Instead of elaborating on the consultation process, however, Keneally talked about commercial, industrial and residential development, as well as a passenger cruise terminal, industrial and refueling facilities, and a working harbour.

To make sure that we all clearly understood her focus, the minister ended her announcement by approving the Baileys industrial and refueling development at White Bay and also proclaiming that the passenger cruise terminal is a candidate for White Bay. I was left wondering why the minister had bothered to announce a consultation and planning process.

In order to convince us that the consultation process is real, we were told that the lease for the Baileys development will expire in 2020 and the passenger cruise terminal will be temporary — that is, about 5 years. If these developments are ‘temporary’, with the possibility that both will be removed or relocated within 10 years, it seems pointless to let them proceed now. Let’s move forward with proper planning before any development occurs.

Just over a year ago the passenger cruise terminal was a feature of the widely acclaimed Barangaroo plan where it will stay in the tourist precinct and be integrated appropriately within the new environment. What planning logic would see it transferred to White Bay?

Just imagine Baileys seeking approval from the WA government to set up on the inner-city foreshores of the Swan River, or for that matter, less than 10 metres from medium-density housing. Yet, its approval on Sydney Harbour, in such a location, was probably one of their easiest ever. Also, for those who don’t know White Bay, Baileys will be located at the residential end of the bay not the industrial and commercial end.

The minister's plan for White Bay — an area that many people do not realize has been transformed into a high-density residential suburb — will re-create 1960s-style working harbour, with its 24/7 operations, restriction of public access, large built structures, fences topped with barbed wire, security guards and cameras, hazardous materials, heavy fines for trespass, increased road and harbour traffic, noise, and void of trees or green. Surely, this is not the planning criteria that should be used for our inner-city foreshores?

We are often frustrated by poor development on our foreshores along with eyesores that remain for decades. In fact, a massive boat storage shed is currently being built at Rozelle Bay. Clearly, this is not the best use of inner-city foreshores.

Opening up our foreshores has added immeasurably to the quality of life in Sydney, it gives Sydney Harbour an international reputation and it gains billions of dollars for the NSW economy.

At some point in the future, the planning of our harbour foreshores must be handled by a much broader authority rather than the narrow focused departments and agencies of state government. If there is any land that deserves special planning status in NSW, or in Australia, the foreshores of the Sydney Harbour would have to rank amongst the highest.

This letter was written in response to an article previously reported by Architecture & Design.