State Significant Development
90-102 Regent Street, Redfern - Student Accommodation
City of Sydney
Current Status: Determination
Interact with the stages for their names
- SEARs
- Prepare EIS
- Exhibition
- Collate Submissions
- Response to Submissions
- Assessment
- Recommendation
- Determination
Construction of an 18-storey building comprising of student accommodation
Consolidated Consent
Modifications
Archive
Notice of Exhibition (1)
Request for SEARs (16)
EIS (46)
Response to Submissions (26)
Agency Advice (6)
Additional Information (22)
Recommendation (2)
Determination (4)
Post-determination Notices (1)
Approved Documents
Management Plans and Strategies (6)
Independent Reviews and Audits (3)
Notifications (1)
Other Documents (9)
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 ComplaintEnforcements
There are no enforcements for this project.
Inspections
06/10/2023
Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.
Submissions
SYDNEY TRAINS
Comment
SYDNEY TRAINS
Message
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
Sydney Airport
Comment
Sydney Airport
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
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
Biodiversity and Conservation Division
Message
Attachments
Heritage NSW – HERITAGE COUNCIL OF NSW
Comment
Heritage NSW – HERITAGE COUNCIL OF NSW
Message
Attachments
Sydney Metro
Comment
Sydney Metro
NSW EPA
Comment
NSW EPA
Ausgrid
Support
Ausgrid
Message
D&A Markakis Pty Ltd
Object
D&A Markakis Pty Ltd
Message
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
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
Iglu No.209 Pty Ltd
Message
Attachments
Raymon So
Object
Raymon So
Message
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