UNSW - Cliffbrook Campus Redevelopment

In relation to the redevelopment proposal for UNSW Cliffbrook Campus. As a local resident and home owner in a nearby street I am concerned about the lack of car spaces planned for a dwelling with 52 accommodation rooms. Parking is already very difficult for local residents with no on-site parking. In summer it is almost impossible to get a park close to home. While I appreciate that the redevelopment will provide onsite parking for 37 vehicles, there will be an overflow of up to 15 cars that need to be parked on the street. This is not possible.

The scale of the development is too large for the site. I have no problem with the redevelopment of buildings CC2 and CC$ but believe the scale and bulk is too great for a sensitive clifftop location. It is already a heavily congested and populated area ...

Also too much student accommodation planned.. should be halved.

A maximum of three storeys and reduction in size overall would be better.

As a local resident, I am appalled that UNSW will submit a redevelopment proposal that will severely undersupply parking spaces for al already congested parking area in the design stage. Busses are infrequent in the area, most of which stops service after 8pm and no direct busses to Randwick/UNSW nearby unless students were to take the 1km walk to a major bus hub at Coogee. Based on the lack of public transport, one can assume that 52 accomodation rooms will require at least 52 car spaces for lodgers alone, not accounting for staff however the current proposal does not provide sufficient parking, even for students. The campus is located in an area with few parkings all year around, the adjacent street has one lane access for two way traffic (other is often filled with parked cars). The area is not suitable for a student accomodation campus. This is irresponsible for the students and local residents.

We have an objection to the proposal SSD8126
There will be the construction of 52 accommodation rooms for students. There will be the provision of 37 parking spaces but none of these are for the students attending the UNSW and /or staying in the accommodation.

Parking in our street and area is already extremely difficult for residents and this is going to create more pressure on an already difficult situation

Owner Penny Kambas & Kalliope Venson
5 Battery St Clovelly
NSW 2031 28/7/17

Application No SSD 8126 Redevelopment of Ciliffbrook Campus UNSW
45-51 Beach st Coogee

Dear Sir/ Madam,
We are not anti development but are very passionate about preserving our amenity and ensuring good design outcomes are put forward for Coogee, for us and the next generation to enjoy.
We have the following concerns with the proposed development.
1. VIEW ASSESSMENT WITH THE ERECTION OF HEIGHT POLES
We note the University has not commissioned a view assessment with the erection of height poles. We would like to request that height poles are erected so that we can all accurately understand & assess what view loss we will each encounter.
2. DECIMATION OF ICONIC VIEWS TO GORDON BAY CLIFF FACE
The proposed 4 storey structure would eradicate our view of Gordon Bays Cliff Face from our living areas. We note that the building is very high on the left as we would look out of our Battery st window at the proposed building. (currently the height of the building sits at 47.4 metres) Also we will be severely disadvantaged due to the fact that on the left side the building extends down into a L shape.
Why is the Beach st end prejudiced allowing residents there access to views, while the Battery st end is being penalized with a monstrous 4 storey building blocking our views and visual amenity.
We propose that the building should step down near the Flood st end as it does in the beach st end. This would preserve our iconic view and also preserve the views of several of our neighbours.

3. WHERE IS THE KITCHEN EXHAUST FLU TO BE LOCATED
We note the kitchen is on the left, the Flood st end. The kitchen exhaust flu is not shown on the diagrams. It is important to show where it is to be located as it is a bulky ugly structure we do not want to look at, also this flu structure may further impact our view loss. In addition exhaust systems make considerable noise we do not want our amenity disturbed because of noise or emissions. We must all remember, this is a residential area. It is not a commercial district as is Coogee Bay road. We do not want a resort type set up in our residential area.




4. PLANT ROOM, AIR CONDITIONING & ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES
I have examined the plans and could not locate - plant room & associated structures, air conditioning. It is important that these structures are shown clearly on the plans. We do not want them to be housed on the roof cutting out our light, views and visual amenity.

5. LOSS OF AMENITY
It would be desirable to reduce the number of rooms to be built as there are loss of amenity concerns in the neighborhood. The building of 52 rooms would have significant negative noise impacts for the neighbors from the University's visiting students . Also the potential of adding significant additional cars in the neighborhood would mean that there would be severe congestion and parking issues for our neighborhood. We note there is a garage, but is it equipped to take 52 cars plus staff vehicles (Kitchen staff, maintenance staff)? There may be a need for at least 75 car spaces, has the development allowed for this? Only 37 car spaces would be available. Where would the other vehicles park???

6. BULK & SCALE OF THE BUILDING

The proposed building is massive in terms of bulk and scale. We propose again that to improve the bulk and scale of the building the number of rooms should be reduced and the rooms should step down to two levels on the flood st end as they are on the Beach st end. ( currently the height of the building sits at 47.4 metres on the Flood st end) .
Also, the shape of the building being that of an L on the Flood st end will have detrimental impacts to our iconic view of Gordon Bays Cliff face. Again the height poles would help us understand how much view loss or in fact if we would have total view loss from our living areas.

7. AESTHETIC FINISHES TO FENCE LINE
We would ask that a fence design appropriate to the street scape is chosen and that the colour blends in with the trees. For example a green colour for fencing would be desirable.

We trust you will evaluate and address our concerns in your development.
Regards
Penny Kambas & Kalliope Venson
Mobile 0413008477

Owner Penny Kambas & Kalliope Venson
5 Battery St Clovelly
NSW 2031 28/7/17

Application No SSD 8126 Redevelopment of Ciliffbrook Campus UNSW
45-51 Beach st Coogee

Dear Sir/ Madam,
We are not anti development but are very passionate about preserving our amenity and ensuring good design outcomes are put forward for Coogee, for us and the next generation to enjoy.
We have the following concerns with the proposed development.
1. VIEW ASSESSMENT WITH THE ERECTION OF HEIGHT POLES
We note the University has not commissioned a view assessment with the erection of height poles. We would like to request that height poles are erected so that we can all accurately understand & assess what view loss we will each encounter.
2. DECIMATION OF ICONIC VIEWS TO GORDON BAY CLIFF FACE
The proposed 4 storey structure would eradicate our view of Gordon Bays Cliff Face from our living areas. We note that the building is very high on the left as we would look out of our Battery st window at the proposed building. (currently the height of the building sits at 47.4 metres) Also we will be severely disadvantaged due to the fact that on the left side the building extends down into a L shape.
Why is the Beach st end prejudiced allowing residents there access to views, while the Battery st end is being penalized with a monstrous 4 storey building blocking our views and visual amenity.
We propose that the building should step down near the Flood st end as it does in the beach st end. This would preserve our iconic view and also preserve the views of several of our neighbours.

3. WHERE IS THE KITCHEN EXHAUST FLU TO BE LOCATED
We note the kitchen is on the left, the Flood st end. The kitchen exhaust flu is not shown on the diagrams. It is important to show where it is to be located as it is a bulky ugly structure we do not want to look at, also this flu structure may further impact our view loss. In addition exhaust systems make considerable noise we do not want our amenity disturbed because of noise or emissions. We must all remember, this is a residential area. It is not a commercial district as is Coogee Bay road. We do not want a resort type set up in our residential area.




4. PLANT ROOM, AIR CONDITIONING & ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES
I have examined the plans and could not locate - plant room & associated structures, air conditioning. It is important that these structures are shown clearly on the plans. We do not want them to be housed on the roof cutting out our light, views and visual amenity.

5. LOSS OF AMENITY
It would be desirable to reduce the number of rooms to be built as there are loss of amenity concerns in the neighborhood. The building of 52 rooms would have significant negative noise impacts for the neighbors from the University's visiting students . Also the potential of adding significant additional cars in the neighborhood would mean that there would be severe congestion and parking issues for our neighborhood. We note there is a garage, but is it equipped to take 52 cars plus staff vehicles (Kitchen staff, maintenance staff)? There may be a need for at least 75 car spaces, has the development allowed for this? Only 37 car spaces would be available. Where would the other vehicles park???

6. BULK & SCALE OF THE BUILDING

The proposed building is massive in terms of bulk and scale. We propose again that to improve the bulk and scale of the building the number of rooms should be reduced and the rooms should step down to two levels on the flood st end as they are on the Beach st end. ( currently the height of the building sits at 47.4 metres on the Flood st end) .
Also, the shape of the building being that of an L on the Flood st end will have detrimental impacts to our iconic view of Gordon Bays Cliff face. Again the height poles would help us understand how much view loss or in fact if we would have total view loss from our living areas.

7. AESTHETIC FINISHES TO FENCE LINE
We would ask that a fence design appropriate to the street scape is chosen and that the colour blends in with the trees. For example a green colour for fencing would be desirable.

We trust you will evaluate and address our concerns in your development.
Regards
Penny Kambas & Kalliope Venson
Mobile 0413008477

John Kambas
5 Battery St Clovelly
NSW 2031 28/7/17

Application No SSD 8126 Redevelopment of Ciliffbrook Campus UNSW
45-51 Beach st Coogee

Dear Sir/ Madam,
We are not anti development but are very passionate about preserving our amenity and ensuring good design outcomes are put forward for Coogee, for us and the next generation to enjoy.
We have the following concerns with the proposed development.
1. VIEW ASSESSMENT WITH THE ERECTION OF HEIGHT POLES
We note the University has not commissioned a view assessment with the erection of height poles. We would like to request that height poles are erected so that we can all accurately understand & assess what view loss we will each encounter.
2. DECIMATION OF ICONIC VIEWS TO GORDON BAY CLIFF FACE
The proposed 4 storey structure would eradicate our view of Gordon Bays Cliff Face from our living areas. We note that the building is very high on the left as we would look out of our Battery st window at the proposed building. (currently the height of the building sits at 47.4 metres) Also we will be severely disadvantaged due to the fact that on the left side the building extends down into a L shape.
Why is the Beach st end prejudiced allowing residents there access to views, while the Battery st end is being penalized with a monstrous 4 storey building blocking our views and visual amenity.
We propose that the building should step down near the Flood st end as it does in the beach st end. This would preserve our iconic view and also preserve the views of several of our neighbours.

3. WHERE IS THE KITCHEN EXHAUST FLU TO BE LOCATED
We note the kitchen is on the left, the Flood st end. The kitchen exhaust flu is not shown on the diagrams. It is important to show where it is to be located as it is a bulky ugly structure we do not want to look at, also this flu structure may further impact our view loss. In addition exhaust systems make considerable noise we do not want our amenity disturbed because of noise or emissions. We must all remember, this is a residential area. It is not a commercial district as is Coogee Bay road. We do not want a resort type set up in our residential area.




4. PLANT ROOM, AIR CONDITIONING & ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES
I have examined the plans and could not locate - plant room & associated structures, air conditioning. It is important that these structures are shown clearly on the plans. We do not want them to be housed on the roof cutting out our light, views and visual amenity.

5. LOSS OF AMENITY
It would be desirable to reduce the number of rooms to be built as there are loss of amenity concerns in the neighborhood. The building of 52 rooms would have significant negative noise impacts for the neighbors from the University's visiting students . Also the potential of adding significant additional cars in the neighborhood would mean that there would be severe congestion and parking issues for our neighborhood. We note there is a garage, but is it equipped to take 52 cars plus staff vehicles (Kitchen staff, maintenance staff)? There may be a need for at least 75 car spaces, has the development allowed for this? Only 37 car spaces would be available. Where would the other vehicles park???

6. BULK & SCALE OF THE BUILDING

The proposed building is massive in terms of bulk and scale. We propose again that to improve the bulk and scale of the building the number of rooms should be reduced and the rooms should step down to two levels on the flood st end as they are on the Beach st end. ( currently the height of the building sits at 47.4 metres on the Flood st end) .
Also, the shape of the building being that of an L on the Flood st end will have detrimental impacts to our iconic view of Gordon Bays Cliff face. Again the height poles would help us understand how much view loss or in fact if we would have total view loss from our living areas.

7. AESTHETIC FINISHES TO FENCE LINE
We would ask that a fence design appropriate to the street scape is chosen and that the colour blends in with the trees. For example a green colour for fencing would be desirable.

We trust you will evaluate and address our concerns in your development.
Regards
John kambas
Mobile 0413657527

Michael Kambas
5 Battery St Clovelly
NSW 2031 28/7/17

Application No SSD 8126 Redevelopment of Ciliffbrook Campus UNSW
45-51 Beach st Coogee

Dear Sir/ Madam,
We are not anti development but are very passionate about preserving our amenity and ensuring good design outcomes are put forward for Coogee, for us and the next generation to enjoy.
We have the following concerns with the proposed development.
1. VIEW ASSESSMENT WITH THE ERECTION OF HEIGHT POLES
We note the University has not commissioned a view assessment with the erection of height poles. We would like to request that height poles are erected so that we can all accurately understand & assess what view loss we will each encounter.
2. DECIMATION OF ICONIC VIEWS TO GORDON BAY CLIFF FACE
The proposed 4 storey structure would eradicate our view of Gordon Bays Cliff Face from our living areas. We note that the building is very high on the left as we would look out of our Battery st window at the proposed building. (currently the height of the building sits at 47.4 metres) Also we will be severely disadvantaged due to the fact that on the left side the building extends down into a L shape.
Why is the Beach st end prejudiced allowing residents there access to views, while the Battery st end is being penalized with a monstrous 4 storey building blocking our views and visual amenity.
We propose that the building should step down near the Flood st end as it does in the beach st end. This would preserve our iconic view and also preserve the views of several of our neighbours.

3. WHERE IS THE KITCHEN EXHAUST FLU TO BE LOCATED
We note the kitchen is on the left, the Flood st end. The kitchen exhaust flu is not shown on the diagrams. It is important to show where it is to be located as it is a bulky ugly structure we do not want to look at, also this flu structure may further impact our view loss. In addition exhaust systems make considerable noise we do not want our amenity disturbed because of noise or emissions. We must all remember, this is a residential area. It is not a commercial district as is Coogee Bay road. We do not want a resort type set up in our residential area.




4. PLANT ROOM, AIR CONDITIONING & ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES
I have examined the plans and could not locate - plant room & associated structures, air conditioning. It is important that these structures are shown clearly on the plans. We do not want them to be housed on the roof cutting out our light, views and visual amenity.

5. LOSS OF AMENITY
It would be desirable to reduce the number of rooms to be built as there are loss of amenity concerns in the neighborhood. The building of 52 rooms would have significant negative noise impacts for the neighbors from the University's visiting students . Also the potential of adding significant additional cars in the neighborhood would mean that there would be severe congestion and parking issues for our neighborhood. We note there is a garage, but is it equipped to take 52 cars plus staff vehicles (Kitchen staff, maintenance staff)? There may be a need for at least 75 car spaces, has the development allowed for this? Only 37 car spaces would be available. Where would the other vehicles park???

6. BULK & SCALE OF THE BUILDING

The proposed building is massive in terms of bulk and scale. We propose again that to improve the bulk and scale of the building the number of rooms should be reduced and the rooms should step down to two levels on the flood st end as they are on the Beach st end. ( currently the height of the building sits at 47.4 metres on the Flood st end) .
Also, the shape of the building being that of an L on the Flood st end will have detrimental impacts to our iconic view of Gordon Bays Cliff face. Again the height poles would help us understand how much view loss or in fact if we would have total view loss from our living areas.

7. AESTHETIC FINISHES TO FENCE LINE
We would ask that a fence design appropriate to the street scape is chosen and that the colour blends in with the trees. For example a green colour for fencing would be desirable.

We trust you will evaluate and address our concerns in your development.
Regards
Michael Kambas

Poppy Kambas
5 Battery St Clovelly
NSW 2031 28/7/17

Application No SSD 8126 Redevelopment of Ciliffbrook Campus UNSW
45-51 Beach st Coogee

Dear Sir/ Madam,
We are not anti development but are very passionate about preserving our amenity and ensuring good design outcomes are put forward for Coogee, for us and the next generation to enjoy.
We have the following concerns with the proposed development.
1. VIEW ASSESSMENT WITH THE ERECTION OF HEIGHT POLES
We note the University has not commissioned a view assessment with the erection of height poles. We would like to request that height poles are erected so that we can all accurately understand & assess what view loss we will each encounter.
2. DECIMATION OF ICONIC VIEWS TO GORDON BAY CLIFF FACE
The proposed 4 storey structure would eradicate our view of Gordon Bays Cliff Face from our living areas. We note that the building is very high on the left as we would look out of our Battery st window at the proposed building. (currently the height of the building sits at 47.4 metres) Also we will be severely disadvantaged due to the fact that on the left side the building extends down into a L shape.
Why is the Beach st end prejudiced allowing residents there access to views, while the Battery st end is being penalized with a monstrous 4 storey building blocking our views and visual amenity.
We propose that the building should step down near the Flood st end as it does in the beach st end. This would preserve our iconic view and also preserve the views of several of our neighbours.

3. WHERE IS THE KITCHEN EXHAUST FLU TO BE LOCATED
We note the kitchen is on the left, the Flood st end. The kitchen exhaust flu is not shown on the diagrams. It is important to show where it is to be located as it is a bulky ugly structure we do not want to look at, also this flu structure may further impact our view loss. In addition exhaust systems make considerable noise we do not want our amenity disturbed because of noise or emissions. We must all remember, this is a residential area. It is not a commercial district as is Coogee Bay road. We do not want a resort type set up in our residential area.




4. PLANT ROOM, AIR CONDITIONING & ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES
I have examined the plans and could not locate - plant room & associated structures, air conditioning. It is important that these structures are shown clearly on the plans. We do not want them to be housed on the roof cutting out our light, views and visual amenity.

5. LOSS OF AMENITY
It would be desirable to reduce the number of rooms to be built as there are loss of amenity concerns in the neighborhood. The building of 52 rooms would have significant negative noise impacts for the neighbors from the University's visiting students . Also the potential of adding significant additional cars in the neighborhood would mean that there would be severe congestion and parking issues for our neighborhood. We note there is a garage, but is it equipped to take 52 cars plus staff vehicles (Kitchen staff, maintenance staff)? There may be a need for at least 75 car spaces, has the development allowed for this? Only 37 car spaces would be available. Where would the other vehicles park???

6. BULK & SCALE OF THE BUILDING

The proposed building is massive in terms of bulk and scale. We propose again that to improve the bulk and scale of the building the number of rooms should be reduced and the rooms should step down to two levels on the flood st end as they are on the Beach st end. ( currently the height of the building sits at 47.4 metres on the Flood st end) .
Also, the shape of the building being that of an L on the Flood st end will have detrimental impacts to our iconic view of Gordon Bays Cliff face. Again the height poles would help us understand how much view loss or in fact if we would have total view loss from our living areas.

7. AESTHETIC FINISHES TO FENCE LINE
We would ask that a fence design appropriate to the street scape is chosen and that the colour blends in with the trees. For example a green colour for fencing would be desirable.

We trust you will evaluate and address our concerns in your development.
Regards
Poppy Kambas

James Kambas
5 Battery St Clovelly
NSW 2031 28/7/17

Application No SSD 8126 Redevelopment of Ciliffbrook Campus UNSW
45-51 Beach st Coogee

Dear Sir/ Madam,
We are not anti development but are very passionate about preserving our amenity and ensuring good design outcomes are put forward for Coogee, for us and the next generation to enjoy.
We have the following concerns with the proposed development.
1. VIEW ASSESSMENT WITH THE ERECTION OF HEIGHT POLES
We note the University has not commissioned a view assessment with the erection of height poles. We would like to request that height poles are erected so that we can all accurately understand & assess what view loss we will each encounter.
2.BLOCKING OF ICONIC VIEWS TO GORDON BAY CLIFF FACE
The proposed 4 storey structure would eradicate our view of Gordon Bays Cliff Face from our living areas. We note that the building is very high on the left as we would look out of our Battery st window at the proposed building. (currently the height of the building sits at 47.4 metres) Also we will be severely disadvantaged due to the fact that on the left side the building extends down into a L shape.
Why is the Beach st end prejudiced allowing residents there access to views, while the Battery st end is being penalized with a monstrous 4 storey building blocking our views and visual amenity.
We propose that the building should step down near the Flood st end as it does in the beach st end. This would preserve our iconic view and also preserve the views of several of our neighbours.

3. WHERE IS THE KITCHEN EXHAUST FLU TO BE LOCATED
We note the kitchen is on the left, the Flood st end. The kitchen exhaust flu is not shown on the diagrams. It is important to show where it is to be located as it is a bulky ugly structure we do not want to look at, also this flu structure may further impact our view loss. In addition exhaust systems make considerable noise we do not want our amenity disturbed because of noise or emissions. We must all remember, this is a residential area. It is not a commercial district as is Coogee Bay road. We do not want a resort type set up in our residential area.




4. PLANT ROOM, AIR CONDITIONING & ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES
I have examined the plans and could not locate - plant room & associated structures, air conditioning. It is important that these structures are shown clearly on the plans. We do not want them to be housed on the roof cutting out our light, views and visual amenity.

5. LOSS OF AMENITY
It would be desirable to reduce the number of rooms to be built as there are loss of amenity concerns in the neighborhood. The building of 52 rooms would have significant negative noise impacts for the neighbors from the University's visiting students . Also the potential of adding significant additional cars in the neighborhood would mean that there would be severe congestion and parking issues for our neighborhood. We note there is a garage, but is it equipped to take 52 cars plus staff vehicles (Kitchen staff, maintenance staff)? There may be a need for at least 75 car spaces, has the development allowed for this? Only 37 car spaces would be available. Where would the other vehicles park???

6. BULK & SCALE OF THE BUILDING

The proposed building is massive in terms of bulk and scale. We propose again that to improve the bulk and scale of the building the number of rooms should be reduced and the rooms should step down to two levels on the flood st end as they are on the Beach st end. ( currently the height of the building sits at 47.4 metres on the Flood st end) .
Also, the shape of the building being that of an L on the Flood st end will have detrimental impacts to our iconic view of Gordon Bays Cliff face. Again the height poles would help us understand how much view loss or in fact if we would have total view loss from our living areas.

7. AESTHETIC FINISHES TO FENCE LINE
We would ask that a fence design appropriate to the street scape is chosen and that the colour blends in with the trees. For example a green colour for fencing would be desirable.

We trust you will evaluate and address our concerns in your development.
Regards
James Kambas

Emmanuel Mannthoudakis
5 Battery St Clovelly
NSW 2031 28/7/17

Application No SSD 8126 Redevelopment of Ciliffbrook Campus UNSW
45-51 Beach st Coogee

Dear Sir/ Madam,
We are not anti development but are very passionate about preserving our amenity and ensuring good design outcomes are put forward for Coogee, for us and the next generation to enjoy.
We have the following concerns with the proposed development.
1. VIEW ASSESSMENT WITH THE ERECTION OF HEIGHT POLES
We note the University has not commissioned a view assessment with the erection of height poles. We would like to request that height poles are erected so that we can all accurately understand & assess what view loss we will each encounter.
2. DECIMATION OF ICONIC VIEWS TO GORDON BAY CLIFF FACE
The proposed 4 storey structure would eradicate our view of Gordon Bays Cliff Face from our living areas. We note that the building is very high on the left as we would look out of our Battery st window at the proposed building. (currently the height of the building sits at 47.4 metres) Also we will be severely disadvantaged due to the fact that on the left side the building extends down into a L shape.
Why is the Beach st end prejudiced allowing residents there access to views, while the Battery st end is being penalized with a monstrous 4 storey building blocking our views and visual amenity.
We propose that the building should step down near the Flood st end as it does in the beach st end. This would preserve our iconic view and also preserve the views of several of our neighbours.

3. WHERE IS THE KITCHEN EXHAUST FLU TO BE LOCATED
We note the kitchen is on the left, the Flood st end. The kitchen exhaust flu is not shown on the diagrams. It is important to show where it is to be located as it is a bulky ugly structure we do not want to look at, also this flu structure may further impact our view loss. In addition exhaust systems make considerable noise we do not want our amenity disturbed because of noise or emissions. We must all remember, this is a residential area. It is not a commercial district as is Coogee Bay road. We do not want a resort type set up in our residential area.




4. PLANT ROOM, AIR CONDITIONING & ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES
I have examined the plans and could not locate - plant room & associated structures, air conditioning. It is important that these structures are shown clearly on the plans. We do not want them to be housed on the roof cutting out our light, views and visual amenity.

5. LOSS OF AMENITY
It would be desirable to reduce the number of rooms to be built as there are loss of amenity concerns in the neighborhood. The building of 52 rooms would have significant negative noise impacts for the neighbors from the University's visiting students . Also the potential of adding significant additional cars in the neighborhood would mean that there would be severe congestion and parking issues for our neighborhood. We note there is a garage, but is it equipped to take 52 cars plus staff vehicles (Kitchen staff, maintenance staff)? There may be a need for at least 75 car spaces, has the development allowed for this? Only 37 car spaces would be available. Where would the other vehicles park???

6. BULK & SCALE OF THE BUILDING

The proposed building is massive in terms of bulk and scale. We propose again that to improve the bulk and scale of the building the number of rooms should be reduced and the rooms should step down to two levels on the flood st end as they are on the Beach st end. ( currently the height of the building sits at 47.4 metres on the Flood st end) .
Also, the shape of the building being that of an L on the Flood st end will have detrimental impacts to our iconic view of Gordon Bays Cliff face. Again the height poles would help us understand how much view loss or in fact if we would have total view loss from our living areas.

7. AESTHETIC FINISHES TO FENCE LINE
We would ask that a fence design appropriate to the street scape is chosen and that the colour blends in with the trees. For example a green colour for fencing would be desirable.

We trust you will evaluate and address our concerns in your development.
Regards
Emmanuel Mannthoudakis

I have and objection to the proposal.

The objection is on the basis of insufficient parking in Beach street and possible disturbances from students.
There will be the construction of 50 accommodation rooms for students and the provision for 37 parking spaces allocated to the staff. No parking is provided for the 50 students. Parking in Coogee is extremely difficult for local residents and their visitors especially in summer. There is already insufficient parking places in the street.

Also, with 50 student rooms there is the potential for noise disturbances in the street from the students. I lived opposite UNSW student accommodation at [INFORMATION REDACTED] from [INFORMATION REDACTED] and had to call the UNSW student security service on many occasions to break up student parties, usually after midnight. This is a residential area with working people who do not want to be disturbed by noisy students.

I have no Political donations to disclose.
Regards,
[INFORMATION REDACTED]

As a resident living [INFORMATION REDACTED] from this development, I would like to express my deep concerns and opposition to the scale of proposed development.

As the development is claimed to be accomodations for business students of UNSW, the construction of 37 car spaces (requiring deep excavation and acquisition of public street space along Beach street) is not justified in the least. Due to the closeness of this development to many local eateries and cafes as well as a plethora of public transport options, the encouragement of private car usage comes across redundant and even injudicious.

As this site is located in the middle of a very quiet residential area, the addition of 37 more cars and potentially 100+ more lodgers will be received very negatively by the local neighbourhood. It would behoove the university greatly to be more mindful of the disruption this construction and changes will cause to residents as well as pedestrians making their way to Coogee and Clovelly beaches. The scale of these plans are not appropriate to the nature of this locale.

We are writing with an objection to the above application proposal.

The objection is on the basis of insufficient parking.

The application includes construction of 52 accommodation rooms of which 50 will be for students. There is provision for 37 car spaces for staff however no spaces have been allocated for student use.

Parking in Beach Street is already extremely difficult for local residents. This will create a huge demand for already limited street parking.

Thank you for referring the Response to Submissions listed above to Sydney Water.

Apologise for the delay. We have reviewed the documents and have no further comments to make.

Please let me know if you have further questions.

I would like to comment on the Response to submissions for the UNSW Cliffbrook campus. I am very unhappy to see that my concerns and many of my neighbours concerns about inadequate parking at the Cliffbrook campus have been ignored. A green travel plan where the students will be encouraged to use green forms of travel (eg. the light rail system which terminates in Randwick junction) is totally unrealistic. The inadequate parking will impact on residents and visitors to Coogee Beach who already find it difficult to park their cars. The cross section of students who will be using this facility includes seminars that run for up to a week (including weekends) for middle management executives. It would also be unrealistic to expect that none of the 50 students will have a car that needs to be parked off campus. I would expect that the majority of students will have a car and these should be catered for. The theory behind green transport is an admirable one, but implementation via encouragement is unrealistic.

Please see attached Ausgrid's Condition and Consent

See uploaded pdf

Submission attached

Please find attached submission