Skip to main content

State Significant Development

Determination

Pemulwuy 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. Assessment
  6. Recommendation
  7. Determination

.

Consolidated Consent

Consolidated Consent

Archive

Request for SEARs (4)

Amended SEARs request letter.pdf
SEARs Request_ Pemulwuy s75W and SSD.pdf
3DN604F TYPICAL PLANS.pdf
3DN615A RAIL CORRIDOR ELEVATION.pdf

Request for SEARs (5)

3DN611B SECTION.pdf
Pemulwuy Precinct 3_Amended SEARS.pdf
3DN610C TYPICAL PLANS.pdf
3DN614A EVELEIGH ST ELEVATION.pdf
0DN004A EVELEIGH STREET VIEW.pdf

EIS (65)

APPENDIX 7_ Design Review Panel Minutes No.1.pdf
APPENDIX 27_ Part 1_ Access Strategy.pdf
APPENDIX 30_ Stormwater Drainage-Sediment & Erosion ...
APPENDIX 23_ Historical Archaeological Assessment.pdf
APPENDIX 18_ Part 2_ EI Australia_ Preliminary Site ...
APPENDIX 15_ Solar Light Reflectivity Assessment.pdf
APPENDIX 7_ Design Review Panel Minutes No.7.pdf
APPENDIX 5_ Architectural Plans_ Col James Student A...
SEARs_ Pemulwuy_ MP 06_0101 MOD 2 and SSD 8135.pdf
APPENDIX 36_ Part 2_ Email for Ian Dennewald.pdf
APPENDIX 27_ Part 2_ Access Strategy.pdf
APPENDIX 5_ Architectural Plans_ Col James Student A...
APPENDIX 34_ Construction Management Plan_Part2.pdf
APPENDIX 22_ Heritage Impact Assessment.pdf
APPENDIX 11_ Survey Plan.PDF
APPENDIX 26_ Acoustic & Vibration Assessment.pdf
APPENDIX 18_ Part 1_ Ground Water Report.pdf
APPENDIX 1_ Secretary's Environmental Assessment Req...
APPENDIX 5_ Architectural Plans_ Col James Student A...
APPENDIX 5_ Architectural Plans_ Col James Student A...
APPENDIX 34_ Construction Management Plan_Part5.pdf
APPENDIX 10_ Public Domain, Public Art Strategy & La...
APPENDIX 9_ Urban Context Report.pdf
APPENDIX 6_ Architectural Design Statement DRP respo...
APPENDIX 16_ Geotechnical Investigation Report.pdf
APPENDIX 6_ Architectural Design Statement.pdf
APPENDIX 33_ Operational Management Plan.pdf
APPENDIX 24_ Traffic & Parking Impact Assessment Rep...
APPENDIX 8_ Detail Cost Report.PDF
APPENDIX 7_ Design Review Panel Minutes No.6.pdf
APPENDIX 7_ Design Review Panel Minutes No.3.pdf
APPENDIX 2_ Amended Secretary's Environmental Assess...
APPENDIX 27_ Part 3_ Access Strategy.pdf
APPENDIX 34_ Construction Management Plan_Part1.pdf
APPENDIX 5_ Architectural Plans_ Col James Student A...
APPENDIX 5_ Architectural Plans_ Col James Student A...
APPENDIX 5_ Architectural Plans_ Col James Student A...
APPENDIX 34_ Construction Management Plan_Part3.pdf
APPENDIX 34_ Construction Management Plan_Part4.pdf
APPENDIX 21_ Consultation Report.pdf
APPENDIX 19_ Part 2_ Site Investigation Report & Haz...
APPENDIX 36_ Part 1_ 3D Electronic Model.skp
APPENDIX 20_ Structural Report.pdf
APPENDIX 19_ Part 1_ Site Investigation Report & Haz...
APPENDIX 19_ Part 3_ Site Investigation Report & Haz...
APPENDIX 13_ Section JV3 Report.pdf
APPENDIX 12_ ESD Statement.pdf
APPENDIX 35_ Waste Management Plan.pdf
APPENDIX 31_ BCA Report.pdf
APPENDIX 29_ Services & Infastructure Report.pdf
APPENDIX 28_ Social Impact Statement.pdf
APPENDIX 25_ CPTED Report.pdf
APPENDIX 14_ Pedestrian Wind Environmental Statement...
APPENDIX 17_ Acid Sulphate Soil Assessment.pdf
APPENDIX 7_ Design Review Panel Minutes No.4.pdf
APPENDIX 7_ Design Review Panel Minutes No.5.pdf
APPENDIX 7_ Design Review Panel Minutes No.2.pdf
APPENDIX 4_ Statement of Commitments.pdf
APPENDIX 3_ Secretary's Environmental Assessment Req...
APPENDIX 7_ Design Review Panel Final Report.pdf
APPENDIX 32_ Fire Engineering Report.pdf
1. Environmental Assessment-Environmental Impact Sta...
SEARs_ Pemulwuy_ MP 06_0101 MOD 2 and SSD 8135 revis...
SEARs_ Pemulwuy_ MP 06_0101 MOD 2 and SSD 8135 agenc...
APPENDIX 5_ Architectural Plans_ Col James Student A...

Submissions (2)

Submission Form.pdf
Frequently Asked Questions.pdf

Response to Submissions (31)

2018-05-10 Attachment 18_ Land-Bridge Authority Advi...
2018-05-10 Attachment 05_ Summary of Public Submissi...
2018-05-10 Attachment 14_ Visual Impact Assessment.pdf
2018-05-10 Attachment 04_ Summary of Public Submissi...
2018-05-10 Attachment 12_ Access Response.pdf
2018-05-10 Attachment 02_Revised Architectural Drawi...
2018-05-10 Attachment 19_ Revised Statement of Commi...
2018-05-10 Attachment 02_Revised Architectural Drawi...
2018-05-10 Attachment 02_Revised Architectural Drawi...
2018-05-10 Attachment 03_ Response to Public Authori...
2018-05-10 Attachment 01_ Department of Planning & E...
2018-05-10 Attachment 06_ Public Feedback Report.pdf
2018-05-10 Attachment 24_ Social Impact Statement.pdf
2018-05-10 Attachment 09_ Public Domain Dedication P...
2018-05-10 Attachment 02_Revised Architectural Drawi...
2018-05-10 Attachment 17_ Concept Plan Modification.pdf
2018-05-10 Attachment 23_ Consultation Report.pdf
2018-05-10 Attachment 16_ UrbanGrowth Advice.pdf
2018-05-10 Attachment 22_ DRP Final Report.pdf
2018-05-10 Attachment 02_Revised Architectural Drawi...
2018-05-10 Attachment 07_ AHC Letter.pdf
2018-05-10 Attachment 02_Revised Architectural Drawi...
2018-05-10 Attachment 11_ Pedestrian Wind Enviroment...
2018-05-10 Attachment 15_ Operational Management Pla...
2018-05-10 Attachment 21_ Detailed Facade Sections.pdf
2018-05-10 Attachment 08_ Heritage Report.pdf
2018-05-10 Response to Submissions_ Preferred Projec...
2018-05-10 Attachment 13_ Footpath Capacity Study.pdf
2018-05-10 Attachment 10_ Revised Public Domain Plan...
2018-05-10 Attachment 20_ Computer Generated Image.pdf
2018-05-10 Attachment 02_Revised Architectural Drawi...

Additional Information (10)

Updated Overshadowing Diagrams DA851-010-040_ 04_09_...
Email from Greg Colbran dated 12 July 2018 and revis...
Response Letter Update_ Revised Architectural Drawin...
Response Letter Update_ Resident Complaints Process.pdf
Response Letter Update_ External Complaints Process.pdf
Response Letter - AHC LETTER_ Affordable Accomodatio...
Response Letter - AHC Letter_ Reduction in Gallery s...
Response Letter - Operational Management Plan.pdf
Response Letter - Detailed Facade Sections.pdf
Response Letter.pdf

Recommendation (8)

1.Pemulwuy Project Redfern_ Statement from the Depar...
SSD 8135_ Drawings.pdf
MP06_0101 MOD2_ Drawings.pdf
MP11_0093 MOD1_ Drawings.pdf
MP11_0093 MOD1_ Recommended Modification Instrument.pdf
MP06_0101 MOD2_ Recommended Modification Instrument.pdf
MP06_0101 MOD2, MP11_0093 MOD1 & SSD 8135_ Assessmen...
SSD 8135_ Recommended Development Consent.pdf

Determination (2)

Statement of Reasons.pdf
SSD 8135 - Development Consent

Approved Documents

Management Plans and Strategies (5)

B4 - Letter - Summary of Curatorial Services
B4 - Public Art Approval Letter
B4 - Pemulwuy Public Art Strategy
E6 and E7 - Operational Management Plan Letter
E6 and E7 - Operational Management Plan

Other Documents (12)

B2 - Electrical Drawings - Marked Up
B2 - Drawings - Electrical Binder.
B2 - Drawings - Landscape Binder.
B2 CPTED and Wind Assessment Approval Letter
B2 - Report - Crime Prevention (Rev 4).
B2 - Council concurrence with condition
B2 - Report - Pedestrian Wind (Rev 3)
B2 - Drawings - Arch Binder (Part 2)
B2 - Drawings - Arch Binder (Part 1)
B2 - Spec Sheets - Lights
B2 - Design Certificate - Public Domain Lighting
B2 Response - 14.01.20

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

7/12/2020

10/12/2020

18/12/2020

30/4/2021

3/6/2021

29/6/2021

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

Submissions

Filters
Showing 1 - 20 of 121 submissions
Name Withheld
Object
Redfern , New South Wales
Message
Tthank you for the opportunity to comment on the SSD 8135 proposal.
As a local resident I have generally supported the redevelopment of Redfern Waterloo over the past 10 years since the release of the initial RWA BEP in 2006.
I support the intent of the Pemulway proposal in terms of student accommodation close to several universities, close to a major transport hub, and provision of bicycle storage rather than car parking. The proposed public domain and public art is high quality and appropriate for the location and history of the site.
However, I must object to the overall height of the current SSD proposal. It is inappropriate for this site, and the FSR has gone from max 2:1 in RWA 2006 to 7.6:1 in the proposal. I assume this overdevelopment is based on the 99 year lease proposed to a private developer.
The current 24 level proposal is even above the 18 storey RWA town centre maximum adjacent to Redfern station. To propose an increase from 6 storeys to 24 makes a mockery of the planning process. The well designed, by Bates Smart, student housing by Igloo currently under construction, is 18 storeys and complies with the Town Centre limit. The Pemulway site was zoned for 6 storeys and not part of the Town Centre.
The current proposal would overshadow the community open space in the morning and the proposed 522 student rooms, some of which are twin share, would require more public domain. The current proposal is also out of scale with the proposed retail and aboriginal housing of mainly 3 storey and max 6 storey developments on the remainder of the site.
I would support a smaller development on the site. I support the involvement of the Government Architect with this project, but cannot agree with the overall height and scale of the current proposal.
Anna Kypreos
Comment
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
As a local resident of redfern for 17 years, I support the proposed developments. I have deep concerns for the height of the 24 storey student accommodation building. I believe that a residential suburb that is close to the city should keep within the 6 storey building envelope. 24 storeys will open up opportunities for other high rise developments and that is NOT what Redfern is about. The community does not want to Redfern to be OVER developed. The traffic is already at a standstill and the introduction of more vehicle traffic to the surrounding roads will cause chaotic traffic jams.
We are also struggling with sunlight. The higher our buildings the less sunlight to all the terraces and lower story buildings.

I strongly oppose the 24-story height modification. We at redfern do not want to become another Green Square or Zetland.
Name Withheld
Object
REDFERN , New South Wales
Message
Firstly, an increase from 152 students to 596 is going to have a significant detrimental impact on the local residents. Parking is already impossible on Eveleigh Street and Hudson street (and surrounding streets). An increase will lead to increase in number of cars permanently and also visiting and make existing resident parking almost impossible.

Secondly, Redfern station struggles to cope at the moment with a number of people passing through, especially during peak student times. It is unforeseeable to continue to add directly to this by placing student accommodation across the road.

Thirdly, this precinct of Redfern already has a significantly high portion of student-only housing, which limits areas for retail development and students typically live a cheap lifestyle.

Fourthly, needing to increase the number of students simply because of funding is a poor reason. The initial development plans should have provided for sufficient funding to build the project.
Name Withheld
Object
REDFERN , New South Wales
Message
I would like to object to this development as a resident of the surrounding area. I will attempt to keep this brief and succinct, as I think my logic is fairly sound, but please read thoroughly as I have 3 separate objections to discuss.

A 24 storey building is a drastic change to the previous application of 6 storeys. The surrounding area is predominantly 2 storey terraces with some 3-4 storey buildings. I am normally in favour of progress and new developments. I would have supported a 6 storey building, being a moderate increase on the surrounding buildings; however the suggestion of a 24 storey building is absurd. It would be an eyesore, and tower over all existing dwellings and public spaces. It would make the surrounding areas almost constantly in shade and destroy the amenity of the area.

I also object to this development because of the tactic which the developer has taken. First getting a reasonable building approved and then "creeping" the scope by making an amendment. A change of 6 storeys to 24 storeys cannot be considered an amendment, the original approval should be thrown out and the process restarted. The language of the "amendment" notification implies the changes are small, and I'm sure many people would not have read the detail but later be shocked to discover a 24 storey building. If it were challenged in court, I would be surprised if the definition of this development as an "amendment" was upheld.

Finally I believe that the council has itself been duped or bypassed by this change. I am familiar with state and regional planning laws and approval guidelines and this kind of building, being out of touch with the surrounding area, is exactly what the guidelines are designed to prohibit. I would suggest that a combination of the fact that it is an "amendment" and also the political pressure behind the project has caused this application to bypass some of the usual checks. I request that this development is re-assessed against the usual height restriction / surrounding amenity guidelines in a purely objective manner. That is, is a 24 storey building appropriate in an area of 2 storey terraces? Surely the answer is no.
Donald Ellsmore
Object
Emerald , Victoria
Message
This brief submission focusses on the size and style of the proposed development, which is entirely inconsistent with the character and history of the location. Residents in the zone to the southwest of the site and railway are dismayed that such an inappropriate development has been lodged.

We understand and recognise the vexed gestation of this scheme and we lament the lost opportunities along the way. At so many points in the development of this proposal it was possible to take a direction that would have contributed to the amenity of the area and the future of the local and wider indigenous community - yet now we are asked to comment on a proposal that will bring no good to are, the city or the wider community.

How could anyone seriously believe that the site deserves a 24 storey building? How could anyone believe that a statement of heritage impact supporting this proposal can have any credibility?

The Planning process has failed the community very badly. The system is broken. It is time to take stock. Ditch this proposal and go back to the point when this site was viewed as being a community site, with potential to heal a wounded group of first Australians. It is time to show courage and belief in a better society - not a ghetto for overseas students who want nothing more from our society than a symbol of their wealth and aspirations for status.

It is time for the bureaucrats in the planning process to look beyond the easy and popular and stand up for quality and integrity.

Please do not let this proposal proceed.
Name Withheld
Object
Ultimo , New South Wales
Message
I do not agree with this change to the original concept because:
1. The building is 24 stories when most of the surrounding suburb is 2-story, historic terraces. This is too tall and will dominate the skyline. At the moment, the area is a flourishing, preserved, historic village and this would threaten that rare combination.
2. The design/look of the building is very different to buildings in the surrounding area and, in my opinion, visually incongruent. The surrounding area is mainly Victorian-era terraces whereas the proposed design is ultra modern. It will clash with the neighbourhood.
3. I think the specialized use (student housing) is risky and may cause the building to become a slum in the future. Looking forward, it is possible that many more courses will be delivered online and physical accommodation will no longer be in such high demand as it is today. Re-purposing the studios and shared rooms envisaged in this application would be difficult and would result in accommodation that would, most likely, be considered small and undesirable for people who are not students. This could create a concentration of slum-like dwellings which would adversely affect the area. For these reasons, I don't think the amount of student housing should be increased from the original 2009 concept.

I request that my name be withheld from the list of submitters (I have ticked the relevant box in the form) and request for my personal information not to be disclosed.

Regards,

Chris Osborne
0438 898 227
not include any of your personal information in your
Name Withheld
Object
Newtown , New South Wales
Message
Firstly, I think it is unfair and unjust to remove Aboriginal residents from Eveleigh Street, only to replace it with private accommodation and student accommodation. It appears to be an attempt at the gentrification of the area, in alignment with the Waterloo redevelopment and the rail network in the area.

Eveleigh Street and the surrounding area is a signicant place for Aboriginal people and holds a significant place in history for Aboriginal people. It appears that as usual, zero consideration is given to First Nations People in Australia, and regardless of historical or cultural significance, government continues to displace Aboriginal people to benefit their own agenda.

I believe that given the cultural and historical significance, a certain percentage of residential properties should be returned to this site, to compensate for the homes lost prior to the demolition of such homes, to make way for the redevelopment.
ETBAHA Pty Ltd
Object
Redfern , New South Wales
Message
As neighbours of the development site, we firmly oppose the proposed development of a 24 student block to house 596 students. We would urge the Department of Planning and Environment to consider the following.
1. Visual impact on the surrounding historical conservation area, notably the relatively small dimensions of the transport hub of the quaint Redfern train station, situated centrally on the bridge which spans the railway line, with the surrounding streets of terraced houses and warehouse conversions, sloping away from this central point, with a height of 2-3 stories. The existing development proposal has a height of 6 stories which already dwarfs the surrounding area and fails to harmonize with the architectural context. We see the proposed block of 4 times that height as preposterous. The only explanation for this proposal is the desire to squeeze out the maximum short-term profit out of the project.

2. Demographic impact. To inject an additional 600 students into an area the size of one urban block, and into a housing development which already plans to house an additional 62 families, plus an area of commercial lots, would negatively impact the population density and circulation of people and cars from the adjoining streets. This situation is already under stress. Parking is already in very short supply and surrounding houses generally rely on street parking. The streets, being of historical value, are narrow. It is impossible to create the necessary infrastructure to accommodate this tower.

We oppose the proposal for a 24 storey tower which ignores the aesthetic and historical value of the surrounding area and the wellbeing of its neighbours. .
Samantha Rich
Object
Redfern , New South Wales
Message
I do not think this submission benefits the current community, the height is too high for the area. It does not fit in with the local character.

In addition, the housing provided to the current Redfern community is minimal. I believe more resources, such as public amenities and housing to cater for the Aboriginal community would make this proposal more appropriate.
Deidre Mitchell
Object
DARLINGTON , New South Wales
Message
Too much student accommodation in the area already.
It is too tall which will make it dark, and windy.
Make more social housing for Indigenous police, nurses, ambos, eg. public servants.
The area is losing its diversity.
It will lose its community / village vibe, like a lot of other high residential areas.
Lets have more green spaces/
Name Withheld
Object
Redfern , New South Wales
Message
I object to the proposed modification to the development for the following reasons: 1) The 24 storey height is out of character with the nature and style of housing to the west of Redfern station which is lower rise, residential and older style buildings with a community feel. The proposal is more in line with the east side of Redfern station, 2) The 24 storey height and style of the building will negatively impact the views of the city skyline from the station overpass and the aesthetics of the painted wall on the station overpass, 3) The proposal does not include any car parking spaces, 4) The number of student accommodations proposed will result in an over-proportionate representation of students in the area. The proposed modification increases student accommodation only and does not provide additional indigenous housing or housing for families
James Lidis
Object
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
See attached objection letter on behalf of owners of 157 Redfern Street, Redfern
Michael Leggett
Support
Redfern , New South Wales
Message
I commend the planners for increasing the height of the block to improve the external appearance and internal design options. These will hopefully mask the awful TNT towers and set the standard for any forthcoming developments in the precinct.

More importantly if managed professionally, the cash flow will enable borrowings for the essential housing for aboriginal people, the true custodians of this Redfern land.
Name Withheld
Object
Redfern , New South Wales
Message
This proposal is significantly higher than any other site in the general vicinity of Eveleigh St, with no other building in the area bounded by the rail line, Lawson St, Shepherd St and Cleveland St anywhere near this high.Even the buildings at Lawson Sq and on Gibbons St facing the rail line are nowhere near this tall, with a maximum height limit under the Sydney LEP of 22 metres, not 24 STOREYS. The height of the proposed building sits at a level more suited to the CBD, noting that in the CBD such buildings are located in commercial areas and transition down in height to more residential areas.




It is completely out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood west of the rail line, which is characterised by generally terraced housing and low scale apartment buildings on a human scale. There is no transitional zone between the existing dwellings and this proposal, as Precinct 1 is thankfully on a much smaller scale and the distances between this proposed building and the existing surrounding terraces is too small for a meaningful transition between a tower block and terraced housing. The height and scale of the proposal will have an enormous and deleterious impact on Redfern Railway Station, which is a state heritage listed building. The impact of the presence of this large angular building, and also the shadow cast by this building over the station will be severe.




The proposal will also cast a massive shadow over Caroline St and surrounding areas during the morning, and I note there have been inadequate shadow diagrams submitted to verify the extent of this overshadowing. It would be appreciated if these could be submitted.The proposal will also lead to a massive loss of privacy to the surrounding terrace houses, which at present cannot be overlooked by large numbers of people. This will change if this proposal is allowed.




The building has minimal articulation on any facade, leading to a dominant and unattractive aspect when viewed from any public space or the rail line, which is travelled by hundreds of thousands of people daily. What a lost opportunity this is to provide a building that could be a landmark of good design, but as currently proposed provides a poor design outcome on this visually prominent site . Moreover, it appears far too large for the site on which it will be built. Although no site dimensions have been provided, it appears that the 22-24 storey elements of the design will be contained in are area with a maximum width of between 17-28 metres. It would be appreciated if plans showing all dimensions, including height, width and site dimensions could be provided to verify both this, and the overall height of the proposal.




It does not appear that any additional open space has been provided for the proposed massive increase in residents, which will lead to a decreased quality of life for proposed occupants, as the area of open space was not generous to begin with.The courtyard itself will be overshadowed by the 9 storey tower for a significant portion of the day, although again, shadow diagrams would be useful in ascertaining the exact amount.




The layout of the building appears to promote isolation and lack of interaction between occupants, which is not healthy, especially given the rates of youth suicide and the fact that many of these students may well be isolated from their families and support networks.




No detail appears to have been provided as to the impact of additional traffic and parking generated as a result of the proposed massive increase in population, in what are small and narrow streets. No detail has been provided as to why, all of a sudden, the only way to make the Pemelwuy project work is to shoehorn a building better suited to Barangaroo into a closegrained terraced community characterised by modest terrace housing.




In conclusion, this proposal is completely out of character with the existing locality, is significantly taller than any other surrounding building, provides a poor design outcome for a visually prominent site and will significantly reduce the amenity of surrounding residents through overshadowing and loss of privacy, in addition to the visual impact of such a large and over bearing tower. It will have a significant and deleterious impact on the state heritage listed Redfern Railway Station and will provide a poor quality of life for residents of the tower. basic details, such as dimensions, shadow diagrams and justification for the increase have not been provided.




The provision of affordable housing for Aboriginal people in this locality is well overdue, and construction of this should have started years ago. However, to attempt to claim that it can now only be provided if the local community acquiesces to this monstrosity of a building is utterly unacceptable."
Name Withheld
Object
Darlington , New South Wales
Message
I object to the height of this building. It's height is not in keeping with the existing buildings and it will provide a precedent for future developers to over develop the surrounding area.
Local infrastructure is at or over capacity and this will tip the balance in a bad way.
This is not good development.
Clare Lewis
Object
sydney , New South Wales
Message
The increased height of the student accommodation is problematic. It has crept from 6-16 storeys to 28 storeys, and no plans detail the timeframe or shape of the Pemulwuy project. This amendment represents an unprecedented and massive leap skyward, and will be incongruous with the rest of the surrounding buildings, blocking out sun and dwarfing the tiny terraced architecture that defines this area of Redfern. I am also at a loss as to why the student accommodation is still being developed before Aboriginal housing. There is a severe shortage of affordable housing, and this area, of all areas should prioritise Aboriginal Housing, wasn't this the outcome of the high court decision?
Belinda Davey
Object
Redfern , New South Wales
Message
The amended proposal will cause significant detriment to the character and amenity of the area.

The proposed 24 storey height is completely out of scale and character with the surrounding area. It is 6 storeys higher than the tallest buildings located within the Redfern Town Centre, land zoned Business Zone--Commercial Core. It will cause significant detriment to the character and amenity of the adjacent low rise residential area to the west, including the 3 storey and 5 storey buildings approved for Precincts 1 and 2. It does not provide a transition from the Redfern Town Centre to the low density residential land adjacent, as the currently approved development does.

Neither the architectural plans or Urban Context Report include an elevation from Lawson Street showing the building in relation to the three storey building in Precinct 2 and the adjacent low rise terraces to the west. The terraces to the west along Lawson Street are notably located within a heritage conservation area.

The removal of the community gallery and retail land use components from Precinct 3 is not consistent with the Business Zone--Mixed Use zoning of the land, which seeks to support development with a mix of employment, educational, cultural and residential opportunities. This also reduces the vitality and safety of the precinct with a less active street frontage proposed. Apart from lobbies, which are just pass through spaces, there will be substations, hydrant boosters, water meters and a loading dock occupying much of the frontage. The Environmental Impact and Assessment Statement refers to the relocation of the gallery to Precinct 1 (page 19). One questions whether this requires additional permission.

The proposal deletes the approved bridge widening at Lawson Street with its creation of a more substantial public space in the front of the building creating a visual connection from Redfern Station through the site to the existing community centre in Louis Street. This aspect of the proposal was considered by the Director General to create a vibrant pedestrian space, a gateway to the site, and provide enhanced levels of safety through passive surveillance. There is no reason the new wall built as part of the widening could not be painted by Danny Eastwood and other local artists as envisioned in the Public Art Strategy, whilst maintaining the positive aspects of the approved development.

The proposal does not provide any car parking which is unacceptable for accommodation for 596 students and 13 staff. There is already significant demand for kerbside car parking in the area.

The provisions for waste storage and removal within the site appears to be extremely tight.

The approved development had a community focus, this proposal is a money grabbing excercise and takes away from the community based aspect. The social impact of the increase in the itinerant students on the area and immediate pathways will be hugely negative for the community.
Name Withheld
Object
Redfern , New South Wales
Message
Over all the scheme will be of benefit to the area. However, revising the height of some blocks to 24 storeys is inconsistent and inappropriate for the area. Any additional height and units should be limited to something more appropriate and in keeping with the immediate surrounding existing and originally proposed, i.e. 2-6 storeys.
Name Withheld
Object
Alexandria , New South Wales
Message
I'm submitting the opinion that this development should not go ahead in its current form. The majority of the Redfern community is certainly NOT represented by the Redfern housing company, and the community are bitterly disappointed with the company and how they have gone about their underhand work.

I work closely with the Aboriginal community, and it's become very clear to me that they do not want this proposal to go ahead.
Traditionally , as you well know, Eveleigh street was Aboriginal land, especially the block. The community have made it very clear to myself, others and YOU, that they do not wish to be surrounded by hundreds of International students, and neither would you want this to occur, if it was happening in YOUR street.
There appears to be a very CORRUPT situation happening here with the housing company, which your department appears now to be in collusion with. It is a tradgedy that you, our government continues to sell out the NSW community, when there is such clear opposition.
There needs to be an investigation done into the Redfern Housing Company, and perhaps you could have a good look at the way your Department conducts its business at the same time. Sadly our country is being sold out to the highest bidders, and I hope in the future when all is lost that the department person reading this feels a sense of guilt, as you are all responsible for what is occurring here.
To destroy this community like you are is devastating for them. SHAME ON YOU.
Gabrielle Richardso
Object
Strathfield , New South Wales
Message
The Pemulway Project should be designated 100% affordable Aboriginal housing. This was the intention of the original land holders and it would help retain the character of the area. There are plenty of other sites for student accomidation in the area.
There is no reason to gradually move further and further away from this lands best use, affordable Aboriginal housing.

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSD-8135
Assessment Type
State Significant Development
Development Type
Residential & Commercial
Local Government Areas
City of Sydney
Decision
Approved
Determination Date
Decider
IPC-N
Last Modified By
SSD-8135-Mod-2
Last Modified On
16/03/2021

Contact Planner

Name
Matthew Rosel