Skip to main content

State Significant Development


13-23 Gibbons Street - Student Accommodation

City of Sydney

Current Status: Determination

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination

Demolition of existing structures and construction of an 18-storey mixed-use student accommodation development with basement, comprising 488 student accommodation rooms and ground level retail.

Consolidated Consent

Consolidated Consent SSD 9194 MOD 5


Request for SEARs (5)

Appendix C_ Legal Advice
Appendix D_ QS Report
SEARs request_ 13-23 Gibbons Street, Redfern
Appendix B_ Design Excellence Strategy_ Rothelowman
Appendix A_ Urban Design Report_ Rothelowman

SEARs (1)

SSD 9194 Modfied SEARS

EIS (42)

2019-01-18 Appendix O Contamination Assessment Detailed Si
2019-01-18 Appendix V1 Infrastructure Report _1_
2019-01-18 Appendix Q Flood Assessment and Stormwater Mana
2019-01-18 Appendix D1 Design Excellence Report
2019-01-18 Appendix F Visual Impact Assessment Report
2019-01-18 Appendix U2 Construction Noise and Vibration Ma
2019-01-18 Appendix C1 Architectural Plans Part 1 of 3
2019-01-18 Appendix I Acoustic Report _1_
2019-01-18 Appendix H1 Statement of Heritage Impact includ
2019-01-18 Appendix E Landscape Report _1_
2019-01-18 Appendix C1 Architectural Plans Part 2 of 3
2019-01-18 Appendix K Environmental Wind Assessment _1_
2019-01-18 Appendix H3 Heritage Interpretation Strategy _1_
2019-01-18 00 Environmental Impact Statement SSD 9194
2019-01-18 Appendix P Geotechnical Assessment _1_
2019-01-18 Appendix H4 Integration of Aboriginal Cultural
2019-01-18 Appendix U1 Construction Traffic Management Pla
2019-01-18 Appendix C1 Architectural Plans Part 3 of 3
2019-01-18 Appendix L2 Section J Report _1_
2019-01-18 Appendix J1 Transport Impact Assessment _1_
2019-01-18 Appendix L1 ESD Report _1_
2019-01-18 Appendix H2 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Report
2019-01-18 Appendix M1 Qualitative Light Spill Assessment
2019-01-18 Appendix J2 Green Travel Plan _1_
2019-01-18 Appendix X Operational Waste Management _1_
2019-01-18 Appendix M2 Reflectivity Report _1_
2019-01-18 Appendix R BCA Report _1_
2019-01-18 Appendix B Site Survey
2019-01-18 Appendix T Civil Engineering Design Report _1_
2019-01-18 Appendix N Odour and Air Quality Assessment _1_
2019-01-18 Appendix G Community Consultation and Engagemen
2019-01-18 Appendix D2 Design Excellence Strategy
2019-01-18 Appendix Z4 SEPP 1 Objection Motorcycle Parking
2019-01-18 Appendix Z2 SEPP 1 Objection Floor Space Ratio
2019-01-18 Appendix Z3 SEPP 1 Objection Managers Residence
2019-01-18 Appendix Z1 SEPP 1 Objection Building Height _1_
2019-01-18 Appendix W Operations Management Plan _1_
2019-01-18 Appendix Y BDAR waiver _1_
2019-01-18 Appendix U4 Construction Waste Management Plan
2019-01-18 Appendix U3 Demolition Waste Management Plan _1_
2019-01-18 Appendix S Accessibility Assessment _1_

Submissions (1)

13-23 Gibbons St - Markakis RRTS submission

Response to Submissions (26)

Appendix M BASIX Certificate
Appendix R Flood and Stormwater Managem
Appendix D Supplementary Design Report
Appendix C Architectural Drawings Part 1
Appendix I Wind Impact Assessment
Appendix S Updated Stormwater Concept Plan
Appendix E Landscape Report
Appendix C Architectural Drawings Part 2
00 Response to Submissions SSD 9194
Appendix N ESD Report
Appendix H CPTED Assessment
Appendix K Traffic and Swept Path Diagrams
Appendix G Additional Visual Impact Assessment
Appendix W Section J Report
Appendix C Architectural Drawings Part 3
Appendix Q QS Certificate 'Cost of Development'
Appendix O Mechanical Ventilation Statement
Appendix T Student Washer and Dryer Ratio
Appendix J Acoustic Statement of Compliance
Appendix B Response to Public submissions
Appendix F Arborist Report
Appendix P SEPP 1 Objection Floor Space Ratio
Appendix A Response to Agency submissions
Appendix V Accessibility Assessment
Appendix L OLS Approval
Appendix U Owners Consent

Agency Advice (12)

Agency submission - RMS
Agency submission_ Sydney Airport
Agency submission - Sydney Metro
Council RTS submission to DPIE - SSD 9194
CoS Response to DPIE - Further RTS SSD 9194
Agency Submission_ Heritage
GANSW Submission
Agency submission - OEH
Agency Submission - EPA
GANSW RRTS comments
Agency Submission - TfNSW
Agency Submission - UGDC

Amendments (1)

Scoping Meeting Request_20190306232803

Additional Information (25)

SSD 9194 Additional information
18029_DA2002_LEVEL 2 3 PLAN_011
00 Supplementary Response to Submissions
Appendix B Amended Architectural Drawings Part 3
Appendix C Updated Supplementary design report P2
Appendix C Updated Supplementary design report P7
Appendix K Revised Wind Impact Assessment
Appendix B Amended Architectural Drawings Part 1
Appendix B Amended Architectural Drawings Part 2
Appendix C Updated Supplementary design report P5
Appendix E Amended Landscape Plans and Report
BASIX Certificate- 13-23 Gibbons St Redfern NSW
Appendix C Updated Supplementary design report P6
Appendix C Updated Supplementary design report P4
Appendix C Updated Supplementary design report P3
Appendix H ESD Report
Appendix C Updated Supplementary design report P1
Appendix J Revised QS Certificate
Appendix G BASIX Certificate
Appendix D Urban Design Advice
Appendix A Table Response to RTS submissions
Appendix I SEPP 1 Objection Floor Space Ratio
Appendix F Access Advice

Recommendation (2)

Recommendation-Instrument of Determination
Recommendation-Assessment Report

Determination (5)

SSD 9194 Stamped Landscape Plans
SSD 9194 Stamped Architectural Plans
SSD 9194 Notice Of Decision
SSD 9194 Instrument of Determination
SSD 9194 Assessment report

Approved Documents

Management Plans and Strategies (18)

Community Consultation Strategy
C14. CEMP Rev 0
1235 WHGS AQOMP Rev 0
1235 WHGS - Construction Waste Management Plan
1235 WHGS UFP Rev 0
1235 WHGS CNVMP Rev 1
C16_2019.01.18 CNVMP_rev C 14dec2018
2020.11.18_C14_SSD9194 CEMP Issue 2
1235 WHGS _ Structural Cert B32
C15 2021.02.10 SSD9194_Demo CPTMP
1235 CPTMP Rev 3
C15 2021.02.22 CPTMP endorsement_CBD Coordinator
2020.10.015 SSD9194 Post Approval Lodgement_CCS 06
2021.02.22 SSD9194 Post Approval Lodgement_C15
C15 2021.02.10 CPTMPendorsement_Council

Notifications (4)

2021.02.02 SSD9194 Post Approval Lodgement_C1
SSD9194 CC2 C2 Commencement Statement
SSDA 9194 Public Domain Commencement Letter
SSD9194 - Tower Crane Out of Hours D

Other Documents (3)

SSD9194 A9693 Internal Materials Schedule
SSD9194 A9700 External Materials Schedule
SSD9194 B4 External Walls and Cladding Information

Note: Only documents approved by the Department after November 2019 will be published above. Any documents approved before this time can be viewed on the Applicant's website.


Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?

Make a Complaint


There are no enforcements for this project.


There are no inspections for this project.

Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.


Showing 1 - 20 of 21 submissions
Name Withheld
Redfern , New South Wales
I object to this submission as there is a brand new student accommodation
on Regent St with another one currently under construction right next
to it. Redfern needs more supply to meet the high demand for housing
from would-be home owners, having a third 18-storey high density
student accommodation in a 100m radius will only act as another
barrier to home owners.
Additionally, 18 storeys is excessively high in a vacinity of Redfern
that otherwise only reaches 4. This is a suburb close to the city, it
is NOT the CBD.
Name Withheld
Redfern , New South Wales
The Block is proposed to have around 500 students. This is proposing
around 500. There is another student housing proposal for Regent St.
Surely there is enough student housing in the area already with the
Iglu project on Regent just recently built.

How does this demonstrate a mix of residents for the area?

The foot paths walking down Lawson street towards USyd or UTS are
unbearable with the amount of people walking along them. There are NOT
well established pedestrian facilities in the area. The assessment of
the numbers in conjunction with other proposed student accom projects
needs to be considered. And this should be undertaken during class and
not in holidays.

The community consultation appears significantly underwhelming.

The wind tunnels are terrible. It is not clear how this will "improve"
Spider Redgold
Redfern , New South Wales
No part of the development should not be higher on the skyline than
channel 7 as viewed from Wilson St or the Eastern side of Redfern
Station on Little Eveleigh ST.
Brad Campbell
Redfern Sydney , New South Wales
I object to this proposal on the following grounds:
1. Population density in the area has increased dramatically over the
last few years, particularly due to the rise in student accommodation.
Given other proposed developments in the immediate area this new
building will further increase density and place added strain on all
local amenities and infrastructure.
2. If the building is to go ahead, the height should be adjusted down
to perhaps 12 storeys to be more in keeping with the buildings further
along Gibbons Street. This would provide a staged decrease in height
and allow the building to fit in with the surroundings.
3. More student accommodation is not required in Redfern. In close
proximity, on Regent Street, there is an 18 storey Iglu building and
another currently under construction. The two buildings provide
approximately 1,000 student beds, not to mention the proposed student
accommodation in The Block redevelopment. This would take available
student accommodation to well over 1,500 beds.
4. Is there a market for this or are developers creating a market?
Over the last two years there is a current downturn in the numbers of
international students travelling to Australia for education, another
building is probably unnecessary and could lead to an oversupply of
Name Withheld
Alexandria , New South Wales
Please do not disclose personal identifying information.

Dear Sirs

I write as a residential neighbour to this application's location in
Redfern (less than 300m).

At the time of writing, there are already 6 high density buildings (up
to 18 storeys each) in the block between Marian Street and Lawson Sq
in Redfern - adjacent to this applicant's property - comprising about
775 units, with annother approved development at 80-88 Regent Street
(also in the same block) to be built comprising commercial and 185
residential units. This brings the current total number of residential
units alone in one block to 960!

None of them however are near the numbers of SSD 9194 - seeking 488
student units in an area a quarter of the size of the block referred
above. I doubt there are even 500 units between Margaret St, Redfern
down to McEvoy Street, Alexandria along Wyndham Street.

To put it in persepective, all other neighbouring units are between
3-5 storeys. The 18 storeys proposed encroaches on the lower density
side of the street (split between Gibbons St, Redfern and Wyndham St,
Alexandria). The height of the building will cast a large and forever
morning shadow across the road to the Gibbon St Reserve adversely
impacting what little fauna there is.

If this application is approved, the increase in resident numbers will
adversely impact the quiet of the neighbourhood and also the look of
the street. I fear this is merely a creep of higher density buildings
into an area that does not need it. Why not build closer to the metro
on Botany Road or even on Redfern Street? Gibbons St is a major and
very busy artery for transport heading into the city/north. Redfern
station is already overpacked. The closest uni is 1km away, not
exactly next door. In summer, during the uni semester break, we feel
this building may be an AirBnB for visitors, increasing the transient
traffic in our neighbourhood.

We hope you will reconsider the density of this development.

Sally Irvine-Smith
REDFERN , New South Wales
As the owner of 16/1 Margaret Street Redfern, a rooftop property
immediately adjacent to the proposed development, I strenuously object
to this development on the following grounds:

1. Privacy: this 18-storey development will completely overlook my
property which includes a significant outdoor area which is the chief
recreation space in the property. My loss of privacy and amenity will
be absolute.

2. Over-development: this 18 storey building on a very small footprint
comprising 488 apartments is an over-development for the area. The
area is unable to accommodate a further 488 persons: the sidewalks are
too narrow, there is not enough parking space, and the facilities at
Redfern Station and the shopping precinct simply cannot handle this
growth in conjunctions with the remainder of development going ahead
in the immediate vicinity.

3. Over-supply: there is clearly an over-supply of student housing in
the vicinity with similar developments approved in Regent Street,
Everleigh Street and Sussex Street. Iglu and Urbanest service the area
closer to the city with even more student accommodation in Abercrombie
Street, Darlington Road and Central Park. Already other student
accommodation buildings in the area have been approved as short-term
tourist rentals which will result in significant noise and social
problems in the area.

4. Blocking natural light: The projections for natural light
distributed by the developer demonstrate a significant decrease in the
winter months, which will occur two-fold in other parts of the year.
Our property will receive around 60% less natural light and sunlight
if this proposal is allowed to proceed.

5. Loss of value: This development will cause a significant loss of
value to our property which it completely overshadows, especially
giving the complete and total loss of privacy we will suffer.

6. Loss of income: This development will cause me significant loss of
income in relation to this property which is currently lease. The loss
of amenity and privacy ensuing from the development will mean I have
to reduce the current rent by a significant amount.

7. Inequitable: this development is proposed for a site where an
existing 5-story building stood. This building was in good condition
and I could not have imagined it would be torn down to be replaced by
an 18-storey megalith when I purchased my property.

8. Design impact: this 18 storey building will be opposite an area of
5 storey buildings. It will give that area of Gibbons Street a
cliff-like appearance going abruptly from 18 storeys to 5 with no
graduation. In addition, the building is unattractive and poorly

9. Access: access to our Margaret Street property will be
significantly impeded during construction. It has a single narrow
entrance-way via Margaret Street. Unimpeded 24-hour access while
construction, while absolutely necessary, will be difficult to

10. Water pressure: the water pressure in the area is low - another
488 unit will put severe strain on already limited resources and

11. Construction concerns: the area on which our property is built
already suffers foundation issues due, possibly, to the adjacent
underground rail line. Construction of a major 18-storey building in
very close proximity will only exacerbate these issues.

12: Proximity: Margaret Street is very narrow, and the design will
mean that 18 storeys of small, unattractive apartments will be only a
scant few metres away overlooking our property with all the noise and
privacy problems that occasions.
Anthony Irvine-Smith
Redfern , New South Wales
As one of the owners of Unit 16/1 Margaret Street Redfern, which is a
rooftop property and is situated virtually next door to the proposed
development, I strongly object to this development on these grounds:

1.Loss of Privacy: This development fully overlooks the large
recreation outdoor area of the unit, and causes privacy and personal
amenity and benefit to be lost and compromised.

2.The size of the development is far too large for the size of the
site. At 488 apartments the number of persons is too many given the
lack of space around the proposal, skinny footpaths, no parking,
overcrowding at Redfern station and local facilities,
especially as Redfern is becoming overdeveloped.

3. Supply: Given the numbers of student housing proposed and being
developed, there is clearly a glut and oversupply developing in the
area.E.G Similar proposals in Regent Street, Sussex and Everleigh
Streets, plus Iglu and Urbanest covering closer to the city, As well
as further student accommodation for Central Park, plus Darlington
Street and Abercrombie Road.

4.This development will cause the following problems for our unit:
a) Loss of Natural Light, on projections of a decrease of up to 60%
during winter.
b) Loss of Value, due to overshadowing and loss of
c) Reduced income; Currently leased, with the building and
construction noise, plus general inconvenience, will require a
significant rental reduction to keep tenants.
d)Tenants will be subjected to noise, dust and dirt.
e) The proximity of this proposal means that with Margaret Street
being so narrow, there will be a large 18 storeys tall building only
several metres away causing a loss of privacy, plus extra noise.

5. The unit block slated to be demolished for this development
appeared to be well maintained and in good condition, and we certainly
did not consider that such a proposal would be made when we purchased
our unit.

6.Design. Shows a large building on a small footprint overshadowing
and dominating our building.

7.Access to Margaret Street: This is a narrow street and the only
access to 1 Margaret Street. During demolition and construction there
is no possible way access will not be impeded or blocked for the

8. Water pressure: has been reduced in the area over some years to
cater for other developments. Another 488 units will cause further
loss of pressure.

9. Building issues:1 Margaret Street has already suffered from
foundation issues, possibly due to other constructions and railway
tunnel vibrations. Constructing an 18 storey building next door , may
not only create further problems, but also cause issues for any new

10. Another recent objection pointed out another major issue with
student accommodation (Urbanest) being used for tourist accommodation
when out of term. This is an extremely valid point especially when the
DA disallowed this in the first place. Will this set a precedent for
unused student accommodation?
" Quote: I note that City of Sydney has approved use of Urbanest on
Abercrombie Street as tourist and visitor accommodation outside term
time (in spite of their original DA having an explicit condition that
this would not happen). I have very serious concerns about student
accommodation intended for full-time occupancy being used for tourist
accommodation with its frequent arrivals and departures. I note that
none of the current or planned buildings have any provision for
off-street vehicle access. So all the arrivals, departures, luggage,
tour groups etc happens on the street (often double-parked). This is
both inconvenient and unsafe. And it's happening right now with
Urbanest on Abercrombie".Unquote.

Marietta Krimotat
Redfern , New South Wales
As the owner of 9/1 Margaret st Redfern, I object to this development
on the following ground

This 18 storey building will cause a significant loss of value to our
property and privacy.

This development is proposed for a side where an existing 5 storey
building stands .There's not near the amount a recreational space for
any more than already here.

There are already several hundreds units been completed and approved
in Regent street, Sussex street and Everleigh street.

This area is unable to accommodate 18 storey building with 488
students, there are not enough parking space.

Already existing students accommodation building in our area ,over
supply as short term rent,will result in significant noise and
problems in the area.
Name Withheld
redfern , New South Wales
I object to the development application on the following grounds:
* it relies on obtaining a GFA uplift pursuant to the State
Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (SEPP),
but has not established that the accommodation to be provided within
the development satisfies the definition of `Affordable Housing'
contained in clause 6 of the SEPP;
* the development, should it be deemed affordable housing governed by
the terms of the SEPP, breaches the SEPP in the following respects:
o It proposes boarding rooms (noting that the definition of boarding
room in clause 4 of the SEPP means `a room or suite of rooms') of
greater than 25sqm (see clause 30(1)(b) of the SEPP and the proposed
terrace style accommodation);
o the terrace style accommodation will accommodate more than 2 adult
lodgers, contrary to clause 30(1)(c) of the SEPP;
o it proposes residential accommodation on the ground floor of the
development, in breach of clause 30(1)(g) of the SEPP; and
o it does not demonstrate compliance with the parking requirements in
clause 30(1)(h) of the SEPP;
* it is proposed that the development will provide no on-site parking,
such that significant additional burden will be imposed on surrounding
roads and lanes, with concomitant traffic impacts (and no current
proposal as to how these impacts will be addressed or minimised);
* there is no demonstrated need for additional student accommodation
within the area given the significant number of approved student
accommodation premises within the vicinity of the proposed
development; and
* whilst not a prohibited development, the proposed development does
not advance the objectives of the Business Zone - Commercial Core
zoning of the land on which it is to be constructed under Schedule 3
of the State Environmental Planning Policy (State Significant
Precincts) 2005.
David Glover
Darlington , New South Wales
As a nearby resident, I'm concerned at the dramatic increase in
population with all the student accommodation that's been built or
There are several hundred units completed and hundreds more already
approved. So we simply don't yet know their full impact.
While I'm certainly not opposed in principle, I feel we should pause
on further approvals until those already approved are complete,
occupied and we have a better understanding of their impact on the
local area.
I'm also concerned at what may happen if there turns out to be an
oversupply of student accommodation and its use changes.
I note that City of Sydney has approved use of Urbanest on Abercrombie
Street as tourist and visitor accommodation outside term time (in
spite of their original DA having an explicit condition that this
would not happen). I have very serious concerns about student
accommodation intended for full-time occupancy being used for tourist
accommodation with its frequent arrivals and departures. I note that
none of the current or planned buildings have any provision for
off-street vehicle access. So all the arrivals, departures, luggage,
tour groups etc happens on the street (often double-parked). This is
both inconvenient and unsafe. And it's happening right now with
Urbanest on Abercrombie.
Ideally, let's pause before approving yet more of this type of use to
give us time to properly understand its impact.
If not, I would strongly recommend this and all plans include
provision for loading and unloading passengers on the site rather than
on the road to at least reduce the disruption and improve the safety
of this.
Deidre Gai Mitchell
Redfern , New South Wales
There needs to be a maximum number of student accommodatin in this area
because the traffic and pedestrian flow will be impacted. There is
already Iglu in Regent Street; a proposal for Eveleigh Street of 24
storeys. There are enough student accomm in Abercrombie and Darlington
Road and also Central Park. Enough is enough. The community village
atmosphere is disappearing and we are Isolating our low socio economic
group. Its not always about money but good taste.
Jane Seldon
Chippendale , New South Wales
Good gracious, enough already, there is an overwhelming amount of student
accommodation in this area, much to the detriment of long term
residents and families.
There is not near the amount a recreational space for any more than
already here.
And if the this greedy governments totally overwhelming concept of
what they think is appropriate for Waterloo we shall be the most
overcrowded area in Sydney.
I also see no plans here for either sustainable or low cost housing.
This to me is another greedy grab by developers to not consider the
area but to squeeze every dollar they can for the cheapest possible
No matter what you chose to believe there will be extra parking needed
and we have no need for more retail. The cafes that are here are more
than adequate.
Just another grab for high rentals.
Look after the current community, people who have been paying your
rates for years, consider the impact of yet another few hundred
students and if every second one becomes a food courier we are in
Students themselves are lovely but we have no facilities left.
Dear Planning Minister, I would like to know what you have learnt
about planning, human factors, demolition, sustainability,
conservation, community needs, recycling, utilities access and over
Just imagine if your home was inundated in this way how would you
Kath Waples
Redfern , New South Wales
I have concerns over the following points:
- number of residents - it is a significant increase on the local area
- security issues given that it is proposed for short term student
rentals who are generally not community minded like apartment owners
- hours of operation of the exterior cafe/business proposed for
William Lane
- substantial reduction in light on my apartment given the proposed 18
- impact on local environment & infrastructure including Policing,
waste management etc
- proximity of building works and disruption to the foundations of our
building (massive issues in the past for our building)
- traffic management of the building site during demolition and
construction phase
- general cleanliness of area and our building during construction
phase given that our building is only a matter of metres away from the
our boundary.
I am happy to provide more information and discuss at any time.
Kelly O'Brien
Redfern , New South Wales
I have concerns relating to the following:
- The dormitory rooms planned for the podium mean high density
bedrooms looking directly into our properties at 1 Margaret st
- The podium height is higher than planning standards
- There is already another property at 80-88 regent st being assesed
for student housing in addition to the newly completed Iglu at 66
regent st. This is already a huge increase in student housing within a
very small area. I agree with Donald Glover's comment that the impact
of current plans should be measured before any more are approved.
- The planning documents show the Podium on Margaret st side being up
to the boundary. Does this mean the building will be even closer to 1
Margaret st than the current building
- This seems to be premium priced student accommodation. How does this
address housing affordability in inner sydney?
- what measures are in place to minimise disruption and noise for the
residents in 1 margaret st?
- what measures can be made to allow sunlight for the residents at 1
margaret st? Is something like the heliostat at central park
chippendale feasible? Based on the plans it seems we will have a
significant decrease in light into our building.
- how will additional parking requirements be met?
- the laneway seems to be only optional at this stage, will there be
an increase to the building size if the laneway is not approved?
- overall it seems to be a very large building proposed for a small
Stephanie Almgren
Redfern , New South Wales
As resident that has just seen yet another approval go ahead with the
Iglu on regent st and now this coming up for approval, enough with the
student housing and affordable housing.
I have concerns with the numbers that will be the bedrooms - fire
hazards, how is this regulated?
What about the height of the building, this will block views that I
currently have and also have "new residents" looking into the
building. Another investor cashing in when the height should remain
the same as the original building and no higher!
The parking situation is already bad, with the stripping of 10 spots
last year on Gibbons st and now the closure of Marian St near the
station - thats a considerable loss, will there be more parking thats
untimed? what are the measures in place?
I wholeheartedly agree with Kelly her concerns are also mine;
- proximity of building works and disruption to the foundations of our
building (massive issues in the past for the street, with already
traffic jams)
- traffic management of the building site during demolition and
construction phase
- general cleanliness of area and buildings during construction phase
given that other buildings have done the same and caused bugs and
rodents to come out of the demo.
- there is already a considerable amount of noise along Gibbons St,
how are you going to reduce this and the impact made on all the
buildings in street.
Beryl Ford
Redfern , New South Wales
I do not support this proposal.

Educating international students is big business in Sydney as
evidenced by the number of buildings for student accommodating, and
the expansion of buildings within Sydney University grounds and

The increased services that need to accompany high ride development
are never forth coming, indeed funding to health, police, emergency
services is constantly being reduced. City dwellers are already
experiencing increased waiting times in hospital emergency
departments. Much higher levels of people on public transport.

City dwellings have already had large amounts of high rise buildings
in Redfern and surrounds. Again we have seen more foot traffic,
heavier road traffic, congestion on trains and buses.

If there is to be ever increasing numbers of students coming to Sydney
the needs of the university will override the living conditions of
city dwellers who will have heir landscape altered by ever increasing
high rise apartments. The face of Sydney will change not by well
planned, service supported dwellings, but by the profit margins of
universities and developers.

We share the space in Sydney with plant and wildlife so much of this
is being destroyed by concrete and glass.

Perhaps there are other Australian cities that can better accommodate
these students, with the same high level of learning.
Name Withheld
Alexandria , New South Wales

1. Size of units and accommodation planning
2. Lack of environmental efforts
3. Reluctance to pay development contributions
4. Overshadowing of current buildings
5. Impact of increased pedestrians crossing Gibbons St

1. Size of units and accommodation planning:
The standard regulated size for single occupancy rooms is 12m sq. Just
because rooms in other developments are less than this does not make
it acceptable. Standards are set for a reason, so one questions why
the proposed private space is so mean - perhaps to allow more bodies
to be squeezed in to increase profits?
While the inference is that each unit will have a single occupant, it
is also stated that each unit is restricted to a maximum of 2
occupants. Is this acceptable?
Stating that " smaller rooms translate to provision of greater housing
supply as well as more affordable housing" does not address the
various impacts of overcrowding. The people who are likely to occupy
these units are students, probably on visas, and thus unlikely to
complain. It is unrealistic to anticipate that everyone in the units
will get on, be sociable and utilise the common areas happily.
In boarding houses, which essentially what this development is, 30% of
units are required to have private open space. It is projected that
there will be no balconies, so will the "lost" private open space be
added to the required communal space?
With regard to the communal kitchens, the documentation does not
appear to reflect the stated standard requirements. The information
presented is non specific and ambiguous, and thus one suspects that
the requirements will not be "exactly" met. Recirculating range hoods
are not nearly as effective as those that vent externally. The
communal kitchens should have an automatic external ventilation duct.
For those units with kitchenettes, it is imperative that if external
venting is unavailable, that the filters are easily replaceable.
It is critical the ventilation, acoustic and insulation proposals be
implemented in full.
The planning of the laundry facilities is intriguing. The number of
washing machines per unit has been reduced from the standard as the
size of the washing machine has been increased. Students/single people
usually have small loads, so a large washing machine, even if weight
adjusted, would appear to be a waste of water and energy. It is
unlikely the charge for the usage would be weight adjusted. It is also
unlikely that those living in the units would do a communal wash to
take advantage of the larger sized machine.
Wouldn't it make sense to have more smaller machines that are both
time, energy and water efficient ?
While it is stated that there would be a short time cycled wash as an
option, this could also be an option on smaller machines. Having a
reduced number of machines also potentially increases the wait time to
use a machine.
Will there be a time out for use of washing machines during peak
energy use periods?
Traditionally blocks of flats had a series of clothes lines available
for the occupiers to dry their clothes at no cost to themselves or the
environment. While it is acknowledged that this is difficult in tower
blocks why are other options not sought? A drying room with through
ventilation, a north facing glassed room, clothes lines in each
apartment ? Why is it now acceptable for driers to be the only option
? An environmental and financial cost.
It is stated that 19 units will be provided for those with
disabilities. Unfortunately, there is no information as to what this
entails. Larger? Different design? Variable bench heights? Wider
doorways? Wheelchair accessible showers and bathrooms? Will these
occupants also be able to utilise the laundry facilities, communal
kitchens, outdoor spaces or lifts easily?
It is stated that vibration and noise transmission from the underlying
rail tracks will be ameliorated due to improved design factors that
will be implemented during the construction phase. Consideration also
needs to be given to the fact that State Rail is neglecting its
obligations with regard to the frequency of its maintenance schedule,
thus increasing the likelihood of an increased impact from noise and
Gibbons St Reserve is the public open space for multiple apartment
buildings in the area. This is yet another, and certainly not the
last, increasing the potential demand past what the capacity of the
area can support. Gibbons St Reserve is a sloping grass area, not
suitable for the playing of any games. While it is appreciated as a
tree lined green open space, it is also on the opposite side of
Gibbons St, a perpetually busy street with very limited pedestrian
access from the proposed development.

2. Lack of Environmental Efforts:
EFRICIENCY AND THERMAL CONTROL"? Should not the goal be to excel and
be innovative in ways to minimise energy requirements and maximise
thermal control?
Double glazing is more energy efficient than thicker glass, yet this
is not specified. External window coverings or blinds are also omitted
from the proposal. A very effective way of reducing unwanted summer
heat. Why?
Photo voltaic solar power is mentioned as a possibility......should
this not be an essential component of the development?
Are there individual instantaneous hot water units in each unit? This
would reduce the volume of water wasted before the water became hot,
and also reduce the cost of the hot water. I acknowledge that this is
expensive in the first instance, but it would also encourage the
occupiers to reduce their water waste and costs.
There is no mention of water recycling or stored rainwater for use on
the planned garden areas.
Gibbons St becomes a wind tunnel north of Marian St. There is
discussion about reducing the wind impacts due to, and on, the Gibbon
St frontage. Is there no design available for small wind turbines to
take advantage of this phenomenon? Perhaps this could be a challenge
for the architects and environmental planners, or even those with
ideas at UTS, Sydney University or the UNSW?
Efficient recycling will be an ongoing challenge and ongoing education
should be anticipated.
During construction, there will need to be continual prevention of
spoil and rubbish into the gutters. In a vast majority of cases,
containment of contamination is an initial effort only.
And back to the laundry proposal - are larger washing machines and
clothes driers the best option?

3. Reluctance to pay development contributions:
It would appear that the development is considered a SSD, and that the
controls over this development swing between B2 and B4 zoning. My
interpretation is that there are different regulations for "affordable
rental housing" and boarding houses, and that this development is
seeking to reduce the number of regulations it needs to comply with.
Due to the fact that the development will increase the stock of
affordable housing, albeit for students, a 20% increase in capacity is
allowed. This is a commercial development, and with the increased
capacity comes an ongoing increase in profit. This is further
increased with the proposed reduced room size and lack of private open
My opinion is that all required development contributions should be

4. Overshadowing of current buildings:
An increased number of apartments at 1 Margaret St will have no direct
"solar access". The proposed development is to the north of these
apartments, with a narrow road separating them.
While the report was prepared by experts, it is hard to conceive how
an 18 story tower block would not have a greater overshadowing impact
on this building.
It is also likely that the overshadowing will negatively impact the
Gibbons St Reserve, especially during the winter months.

5. Impact of increased pedestrians crossing Gibbons St.
It is postulated that this development is an affordable housing
development, specifically targeting students. It is unlikely that
these students will be attending UNSW, more likely UTS, Notre Dame,
Sydney Uni or private colleges within the Sydney CBD. Consequently,
all these students will need to cross Gibbons St. The pedestrian
crossing at the Redfern St/ Gibbons St intersection is currently
congested, with people crossing between cars as the traffic slows.
With an increased number of people crossing, this hazard is going to
increase, as is the potential for an accident, as the footpath on
Gibbons St is narrow adjacent to the railway station.
The structure of the new entrance to Redfern Station is poor to
substandard. Pedestrians heading for the station from Gibbons St clash
with those leaving the station, all on the narrow very busy corner of
Gibbons St and Lawson St. There are also signalised pedestrian traffic
lights at this point, but those waiting to cross just add to the
Service vehicles for the units or the commercial properties will need
to use either Gibbons St or Regent St, adding to the already busy
traffic flow.

As a SSD, the proposal should be held to the highest standards in
design, energy efficiency and reduced environmental impacts. From my
reading of the proposal, it is significantly lacking in all these
aspects, and there is a degree of ambiguity which does not bode well
for an optimum result. Consequently, I believe that the proposal
should be withdrawn until all standards have been met, and innovative
initiative shown in achieving the highest standards of design, energy
efficiency and reduced environmental impact.
D & A Markakis Pty Ltd
Newtown , New South Wales
Please see submission made via uploaded document.
Brad Campbell
Redfern Sydney , New South Wales
I have just read through the responses to the objections for 13-23 Gibbons Street. It seems to me that there are areas that have been ignored by the developer, one is the actual need for student accommodation in the immediate area. This is something that was mentioned in many of the submissions. The same applies to the height of the building - while they have made adjustments it is still 18 storeys. Many of the submissions question the height of the proposal given the relative height of buildings further down Gibbons Street. At what point does this type of development stop? Is the whole street to become a landscape of 18 storey buildings?

The increase in population density is also a factor that has been glossed over. Minor changes to the proposal are not going to hide the fact that this building, if approved, will bring hundreds more people to an area that is already densely populated and is becoming increasingly moreso with the new 18 storey affordable accommodation building (an excellent idea) on the corner of Marian Street and another Iglu student accommodation building on Regent street.

This proposal should not proceed.

D & A Markakis Pty Ltd
Newtown ,


Project Details

Application Number
Assessment Type
State Significant Development
Development Type
Residential & Commercial
Local Government Areas
City of Sydney
Determination Date
Executive Director
Last Modified By
Last Modified On

Contact Planner

Andy Nixey