Skip to main content

State Significant Development

Determination

90-102 Regent Street, Redfern - 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

Construction of an 18-storey building comprising of student accommodation

Consolidated Consent

SSD 10382 MOD 1 - Consolidated Consent

Modifications

Archive

Notice of Exhibition (1)

Notice of Exhibition

Request for SEARs (16)

Appendix M - CPTED Advice
Appendix F - Stormwater and Civil Advice
Appendix B (1) - Traffic and Parking Assessment
Scoping Report
Appendix K (2)- Visual Impact Advice
Appendix H - Air and Odour Advice
Appendix C - Preliminary Heritage Assessment
Issued SEARs
Building Services Statement
Appendix L - Wind and Reflectivity Advice
Appendix K (1) - Visual Impact Advice
Appendix I - Geotechnical and Contamination Advice
Appendix G - Acoustic Advice
Appendix E - Engagement Advice
Appendix B (2) - CTMP
Appendix A and D - Preliminary Architectural Plans

EIS (46)

Appendix DD - Photomontages
Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix A - CIV
Appendix B - SEARs
Apdx C - Aboriginal Cultural Heritage - exhibition
Appendix D - Statement of Heritage Impact
Appendix E - SEARs Response
Appendix F - Site Survey
Appendix G - Architectural Drawings
Appendix H - Design Report_low res
Appendix I - Waste Management Plan - Demolition
Appendix J - Detailed Site Investigation Part 1
Appendix J - Detailed Site Investigation Part 2
Appendix K - Landscape
Appendix L - Operations Management Plan
Appendix M - Waste Management Plan - Operational
Appendix N - Transport Impact Assessment
Appendix O - Acoustic
Appendix P - Air Quality and Odour
Appendix Q - Visual Impact
Appendix R - ESD Report
Appendix S - BDAR Waiver
Appendix T - BCA
Appendix U - Accessibility
Appendix V - Community Consultation
Appendix W - Infrastructure
Appendix X - Light Spill
Appendix Y - Arboricultural Impact
Appendix Z - BASIX
Appendix AA - Flooding Part 1
Appendix AA - Flooding Part 2
Appendix AA - Flooding Part 3
Apdx BB - Stormwater Report
Appendix CC - Wind
Appendix EE - Framework CTMP
Appendix FF - Green Travel Plan
Appendix GG - Glare and Reflectivity
Appendix HH - CPTED
Appendix II - Stormwater and Soil Drawings
Appendix JJ - Geotechnical
Appendix KK - Building Services
Appendix OO - Clause 16A Variation Request
Materials Board
Appendix NN - Remediation Action Plan
Appendix MM - Sydney Airport Advice
Appendix LL - Sydney Metro Drawings

Response to Submissions (26)

Response to Submissions Report Final
Appendix Y - Elton Response to Submissions
Appendix X - Non-Aboriginal Archaeological
Appendix W - Remediation Assessment
Appendix V - Technical Memo Arborist
Appendix U - Vipac Solar Panels Specification
Appendix T - Wind Impact Assessment
Appendix S - Technical Memo Transport Planning
Appendix R - Rail Risk Management Plan
Appendix Q - Electrolysis Report
Appendix P - Metro Tunnel Vibration MP
Appendix O - Preliminary Numerical Modelling
Appendix N - Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix M - Site Survey
Appendix L - Submission to Sydney Metro
Appendix K - Flood Assessment Report
Appendix J - Vibration Impact Assessment
Appendix I - Train Tunnel Vibration Assessment
Appendix H - Acoustic Report
Appendix G - Structural Design (26 02 21)
Appendix F - Statement of Heritage Impact
Appendix E - Amended Landscape Plans
Appendix D - Amended Architectural Design Report
Appendix C - Amended Architectural Plans
Appendix B - Updated Mitigation Measures
Appendix A - Submissions Register

Agency Advice (6)

Public Submission on RtS - 1 Margaret St
Public Submission on RtS - St Luke's Church
Sydney Metro Advice on RtS
Council Advice on RRtS
EESG Advice on RtS
Council Advice on RtS

Additional Information (22)

Appendix J - Addendum to AIA
BASIX Certificate
Response to Request for Information
Appendix I - Community Engagement Response
Appendix H - Operational Waste Management Plan
Appendix G - Ground & Vertical Clearance
Appendix F - Wind Memo
Appendix E - Amended Flood Study
Appendix D - Existing Floor Space Calculations
Appendix C - Landscape Report
Appendix B - Supplementary Design Report
Appendix A - Amended Architectural Drawings
Response to RFI - 90-102 Regent St
Appendix I - Waste Management Response
Appendix H - Turf Response to City of Sydney
Appendix G - Amended Arborist Report
Appendix F - TTPP Response
Appendix E - Elton CPTED Response
Appendix D - JHA Response and Swept Path Analysis
Appendix C - Flood Study and Assessment Report
Appendix B - Amended Landscape Report
Appendix A - Amended Architectural Drawings

Recommendation (2)

Assessment Report Recommendation
Instrument of Determination Recommendation

Determination (4)

Instrument of Determination SSD.10382
Approved Plans SSD 10382
Assessment Report SSD 10382
Notice Of Decision SSD 10382

Post-determination Notices (1)

SSD-10382 - Notice of Determination

Approved Documents

Management Plans and Strategies (4)

CEMP Regent st final r2
Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan
SSD 10382 Community Communication Strategy_Final
Artefact Heritage Consultant

Independent Reviews and Audits (3)

Remediation Works Plan January 2022
Interim Audit Advice February 2022
Remediation Action Plan October 2020

Notifications (1)

WHRS Condition C1 C2 compliance certificate

Other Documents (6)

CPTMP
Heritage Interpretation Strategy_
Geotechnical Monitoring Plan Pt 2
Geotechnical Monitoring Plan Pt 1
Heritage Interpretation Plan
Loading management plan

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.

Complaints

Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?

Make a Complaint

Enforcements

There are no enforcements for this project.

Inspections

There are no inspections for this project.

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

Submissions

Filters
Showing 1 - 19 of 19 submissions
SYDNEY TRAINS
Comment
BURWOOD , New South Wales
Message
Sydney Trains has no comment on this proposal as it is some distance from it rail corridor/assets.
Name Withheld
Object
REDFERN , New South Wales
Message
I am writing to submit my concerns regarding the 90-102 Regent Street development. The proposed building will be built in front of the newly built affordable housing building effectively blocking half of the occupants of the affordable housing views. Making their appartments looking out into the adjacent building. I am concerned at the over development of Redfern with no plan for recreational areas for occupants. Covid social restrictions have highlighted the need for such infrastructure in the area. Also the densely build area has created unsafe laneways behind and between the five current buildings. I see no need for more student housing given the current opportunities on Regent street and at the block. There are currently 7 high rise appartments buildings on two blocks of land and this will create a ghetto in the coming years. I have had to suffer through two construction sites during Covid and it has been a major struggle. I don't know if I can suffer more construction on an already crowded and under resourced site. Where are the greening spaces. This smells like over development of a once liveable suburb. Many thanks.
Sydney Airport
Comment
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
REDFERN , New South Wales
Message
I object to this project for the below reasons:

There is an existing student accomodation building (Iglu) at 66 Redfern St which houses 370 students. Iglu is building a second building next door at 80 Regent St which will house another 295 students. This proposed building (to house 408 students) is directly across the other side of Marian Street from these buildings. Across these three student accomodation buildings that are all within a 50 metre span of each other, the student population will be 1073.

With so many students within such a small place, the area has the potential to turn into a party zone with increased alcohol and drug usage (which may lead to violence or other things requiring police or medical intervention), as well as increases in late night noise which awakens other residents in the area.

There is another building being built at 11 Gibbons St (so this will be the third building to be built across these two blocks) comprising of 160 apartments (which could house another 480 people, or more).

These two buildings being built and this additional proposed building will bring approximately 1183 new people to this area (across two blocks, and all the buildings are within a 50 metre walk of each other).

Parking is already a huge issue in this area and this additional building will not help that.

Many will also use the train station which is already crowded in the mornings during peak hour (in non-COVID times). There are not enough trains to handle this increase in population in Redfern, and it will become a Green Square situation.
Biodiversity and Conservation Division
Comment
PARRAMATTA , New South Wales
Message
Please find attached EES response
Attachments
Heritage NSW – HERITAGE COUNCIL OF NSW
Comment
PARRAMATTA , New South Wales
Message
Please refer to response letter.
Attachments
Sydney Metro
Comment
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
NSW EPA
Comment
Parramatta , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Ausgrid
Support
HOMEBUSH , New South Wales
Message
Ausgrid notes the requirement for additional load to the development and recommends the proponent make the necessary connection application to Ausgrid as soon as practical.
D&A Markakis Pty Ltd
Object
Newtown , New South Wales
Message
Please find attached submission of objection to the proposal.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
CHATSWOOD , New South Wales
Message
SUMMARY
The community consultation has been deficient and the proposed development proposal is therefore inconsistent with the objects and general terms of the EP&A Act.

The EIS is also inadequate in that it considers the proposal in isolation but does not consider the cumulative impacts that the proposal adds to the large number of projects already completed, under construction or planned for the immediate precinct between Regent and Gibbons Streets.

BACKGROUND

I am the owner of an apartment in Katia residential complex, 1 Margaret St. The apartment is a family residence.


STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

The Elton Community Consultation and Engagement Report (Elton) states in Section 2.1(p5)

“Key stakeholder groups and individuals identified were owners and/or residents of the following properties” which included “ Strata management and residents of the ‘Katia’ residential complex, 1 Margaret St”

However, no direct community engagement that I am aware of was attempted with the residents of 1 Margaret Street.

Elton state in Table 1 (p6) “Email was sent to each of these stakeholders”. I certainly received no email from Elton although the proponent apparently did contact the property manager via email.

A circular (from the proponent) was forwarded by email by the managing agent. It was not obvious that the intention of this circular may have been to obtain community feedback. In fact the circular concludes in Next steps “The EIS and DA are to be publicly exhibited in late 2020 with community feedback invited during the exhibition period”

Elton state (p6) that a Doorknock was conducted on 11 September to:
“Provide verbal overview of the project
Provide initial opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback
Provide contact details for further information, to ask questions or provide feedback
Hand out written information about the proposal
Letterbox drop ‘sorry we missed you’ cards if not available at time of doorknock”

However Elton make it clear in Doorknock Engagement Section (p8) that the doorknock and letterbox campaign specifically excluded the residents of 1 Margaret St. This exclusion is clearly evident from both the descriptive text and the doorknock catchment plan (p8). Interestingly the majority of the sites included in the doorknock catchment plan are under construction or vacant and would have provided extremely limited capacity for community engagement/feedback.

Elton have identified that the residents of 1 Margaret Street are key stakeholders but then largely excluded them from access to the EIS consultation process. There has been no attempt at direct access to residents or offers of public explanation sessions or meetings. This lack of community involvement is clearly in violation of the EP&A Act “To provide increased opportunity for community participation in environmental planning and assessment”.

The statement in the EIS (p34) of “An inclusive public consultation strategy has been implemented throughout the project design process” is untrue and without basis.

I (and other impacted residents) have not been provided with an adequate opportunity to provide an input to the EIS process and therefore the current application is deficient.




ERRORS OF DEFINITION IN PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Even a cursory overview of the opening pages of the EIS Project Description brings up a number of errors and inconsistencies which creates some doubt about the overall quality of the EIS.

For example in the EIS (P11)
“The site currently comprises a former pub building on the corner of Regent Street and Margaret Street”
This is incorrect unless the proposed project has been relocated south away from Marion St.

Or again (p12) “Further south of Margaret Street comprises a heritage-listed church and two-storey mixed use terraces with commercial uses along the ground floor”. My property on Margaret St is actually a four-storey residential only complex with another four-storey residential only complex immediately to the south. Again the EIS is in error.

This lack of attention to the reality of the situation together with the failings in the Community Consultation process suggests the proponent has only made superficial attempts to understand the local community issues or concerns.


PROJECT CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Although I have a number of concerns with the proposal, my major issue is with the cumulative impacts of the large number of construction projects completed, currently underway, approved and proposed for the small precinct bounded by Gibbons and Regent Streets and immediately to the south of Marion Street.

I do not believe the current EIS takes into account the cumulative impact particularly of construction activities and disruption over many years - the projects are not being implemented concurrently and this disruption to local residents and commercial activities has already taken place and will continue to occur for many years as the pipeline of projects continues to proceed in the immediate area. These disruptions include noise, vibration, transport, traffic, parking, air quality, visual amenity and public access restrictions.

The EIS does not acknowledge that the cumulative duration of disruption and substantial amenity loss for immediate neighbours is not just the ~2 year duration of this proposal but potentially 6-8 years depending on the eventual construction timelines of all the projects in the affected precinct. Given the duration of this timeline, the disruptive impacts on the neighbourhood become substantially greater than if only this proposal project was to occur and no consideration has been given for any ameriolation of this extended disturbance.

This disruption has become even more acute during 2020 in that a higher proportion of the community are currently working from home and therefore subjected to much more pronounced periods of disruption from these construction activities.
Attachments
Iglu No.209 Pty Ltd
Object
SYDNEY , New South Wales
Message
Objection letter is attached.
Attachments
Raymon So
Object
REDFERN , New South Wales
Message
Dear officer,

I write in respect to SSD 10382 at 90-102 Regent St and object on grounds that we are directly impacted by the issue of overshadowing it creates for our units.

As shown in your study, if approved, we will not be able to get the minimum. 3 hours of light during the winter solstice. This will have a direct effect in the enjoyment of the space, not to mention its desirability and value.

Kind regards,
Raymon So
Department of Transport
Comment
Chippendale , New South Wales
Message
A copy of the TfNSW response letter is attached.
Attachments
City of Sydney
Comment
SYDNEY , New South Wales
Message
Please see attached
Attachments
Heritage NSW – Aboriginal cultural heritage (ACH)
Comment
QUEANBEYAN , New South Wales
Message
Heritage NSW comments for Aboriginal cultural heritage matters attached.
Attachments
ROADS AND MARITIME SERVICES DIVISION
Comment
PARRAMATTA , New South Wales
Message
See attached
Attachments
South Sydney Police Area Command
Comment
Rosebery , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Sydney Water
Comment
Parramatta , New South Wales
Message
Attachments

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSD-10382
Assessment Type
State Significant Development
Development Type
Residential & Commercial
Local Government Areas
City of Sydney
Decision
Approved
Determination Date
Decider
Director
Last Modified By
SSD-10382-Mod-1
Last Modified On
07/07/2022

Contact Planner

Name
Rodger Roppolo