USYD Camperdown-Darlington Campus Improvement Program

Hello Peter,

I am a concerned resident of Lawson street Redfern.

Thanks to a flyer received in the mail I have only just now become aware of a plan Sydney Uni has for my neighbourhood. Although I have yet to become fully aware of the implications of Sydney Uni's proposed plan for myself, my neighbours and our suburb.

Firstly I am disappointed as a resident that the changes proposed by Sydney Uni which will be directly affected me have not been communicated to myself or the neighbours I know in my street. It almost seems as if Sydney Uni sneaks these changes via the "back door".

Ultimately, unless the local infrastructure changes, for example more car spaces for teachers/students so they don't occur car spaces within the area for the major part of the business ours between 9-5pm. An upgrade to the footpaths, (ie widen them) it's often near impossible to leave my front door without pushing my way into the crowd of teachers/students walking from Redfern Station. An upgrade to Redfern Station; more ticketing machines and more entrances/exits to the station and platforms. And finally, Sydney Uni focussing on building high rise building within the original campus footprint rather than buying up and developing the surrounding streets of Darlington

Should you require any further information, please feel free to contact me.

Kind rgds.,

Philip

Re: Eucalypt Grove Darlington
REF: SSD 13_6123 USYD Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 for Camperdown-Darlington Campus

I implore you to protect the Eucalypt Grove Darlington on Shepherd Street that forms part of Sydney University. There is no need to destroy this habitat by yet another building.

We are pushed on all sides by new construction from Sydney University that is affecting both traffic flow and the quality of air my son is subject to breathing at Darlington Public School. My daughter attends the KU Child Care on Lander Street, which will also be affected by such changes that are proposed.

This proposal to improve the Camperdown-Darlington Campus is in effect detrimental to the residents of the area.
PLEASE STOP this overdevelopment!

Yours
Regina Botros

Dear Sir / Madam

I have a concern with the potential impact that this building will do to the area where I live.

There is NO NEED for Sydney University to destroy the Eucalypt Grove.

The Eucalypt Grove has very significant aesthetic values and provides a refuge for native birds and other wildlife.

I find it quite disturbing that this building works can be contemplated and considered to not have grave implications to residents of the Darlington Area.

- This building facade being 3 storey will impinge on my privacy as it will be direct line of sight into my backyard.

This building will block my already limited sunlight into my backyard.

- The building will be populated with people who will drive to work. Currently parking is unobtainable due to Uni Students. This is proven by the fact that on weekends parking is not a problem.

- This building will bring -Visual Pollution. Go through the archives and you will see Shepherd Street was once a row of beautiful terraces. Replacing the trees with a building is significantly worse.

- This building will do nothing to the Aesthetics of the area.

- This building will have - grave implications to traffic flow.

- This building and removal of trees will do nothing but harm
Flora and Fauna. Leave what few trees remain in the area. NOBODY plants trees anymore so please let these trees live.

I am all for growth and opportunity but this NON planning seems to have been submitted without any consultation or practical thinking on what best to do for the area. Why not build this building on the large grassed area on Gadigal Green, an internal open space within the uni.

ALSO

In reference to;

University of Sydney Campus Improvement Program 2014 - 2020

State Significant Development (SSD 6123)

OBJECTIONS

The University's ecological assessment of its campuses states - " The Large number of mature tree provides a canopy of relative importance. "

The University should not change its line of thought and listen to its own assessment and not destroy the Darlington Eucalypt Grove which is an important part of the tree canopy.

There is a likelihood of occurrence at the site for the Grey-headed Flying Fox, the Eastern Bentwing Bat, the Little Bentwing Bat and the Large-eared Pied Bat.

Potential impacts to these species would be as a result of the loss of foraging habitat.

Recommendations: Avoid removal of mature trees and protection of trees in proximity to building/refurbishment sites. Minimise loss of open space."

The University should listen to its own assessment and recommendations and not destroy these mature trees and open space to preserve the habitats and bridges of fauna.

A Tree Management Plan has been developed by the University which aims to "maintain and increase the present canopy cover at the Camperdown and Darlington Campuses."

The University should implement its own Tree Plan and maintain the Darlington Eucalypt Grove canopy and not destroy it.

"The University has developed a list of planting principles within its Landscape Design Principles ..... which will contribute towards the enhancement of flora and fauna."

The University should implement its own planting principals and preserve and enhance the flora and fauna associated with the Darlington Eucalypt Grove.

The CITY of SYDNEY DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2012 requires the following of the University-

Enhancement of the landscape campus setting by accommodating open spaces within precincts.

Retention and addition of vistas to open spaces or landmark buildings.

The University should implement the Council Plan by not destroying the Darlington Eucalypt Grove. If the grove were bulldozed and replaced by a 3 storey building the open vista tothe Engineering lawn and the landmark PNR building beyond would be lost.

The University of Sydney should provide quiet green buffer zones.

The University should look at other sites.

Other sites are available.

Thank You for reading

Kind Regards

Jacki largo

To Dr Peter McManus

NSW Deptartment of Planning and Infrastructure


28 February 2014

Dear Dr McManus,

Re: SSD 13_6123 USY Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 for Camperdown-Darlington Campus

I have been a resident of Ivy Street, Darlington for twenty years and a former employee of the University of Sydney. I am now retired, but every day I walk along Shepherd Street and through the gate near the corner of Shepherd Street and Calder Road. I never fail to enjoy a moment's respite in the small grove of eucalypts growing there and I am sure it is appreciated also by students and staff of the university as there are too few expanses of greenery in the university grounds. It is a wonderful amenity for the University and community alike.

I understand the University of Sydney is planning to destroy the trees to make way for a substantial three-story building. This is devastating news. The University already encroaches on the suburb and to have yet another building looming over the houses is not only unsightly but has the potential of bringing more noise and traffic into the area, and destroying the privacy of the residents in houses the building overlooks.

We need buffer zones between the campus and the residential areas and I would urge you not to approve of the development plan and to encourage the University to find an alternative.

Yours sincerely

Margaret Walters

Dear Mr McManus

I understand that a number of members of the Darlington community are writing to you seeking an extension of time to respond to the above. This is on the basis of the obvious impossibility and extreme unreasonableness of expecting lay people to read, understand and meaningfully respond to dozens of separate documents comprising thousands of pages and text and hundreds of plans within the very short period of time made available.

Without disagreeing with those submissions, my view is that the purported Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted by the University of Sydney does not constitute a properly or lawfully prepared EIS in terms of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and it would therefore be unlawful for the Department to consider it as such. The Department must return the purported EIS to the University, require that it be resubmitted in a lawful form, and only then consider it.

The Act only gives the Department the power to consider EISs prepared in accordance with the Act and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation. The Department does not have the power to consider EISs prepared other than in accordance with the Act and Regulation.

Paragraph 3(8) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations provides that:

(8) The responsible person must ensure that an environmental impact statement complies with any environmental assessment requirements that have been provided in writing to the person in accordance with this clause.

The requirements provided with respect to this application provided that:

During preparation of the EIS, consultation must be undertaken with ...community groups.

During preparation of the EIS the applicant undertook no such consultation. This is made clear in the document, which includes only a list of community organisations and reference to consultation undertaken in relation to an earlier project, the Abercrombie Precinct Development. This does not constitute the consultation with respect to this EIS that was required.

The applicant has therefore not, as it was required to do, complied with the Director General's requirements. It is therefore not a valid EIS prepared in accordance with the Act and Regulation, and the Department therefore has no legal power to consider it as if it were. The University must be directed to properly and lawfully comply with the Director General's requirements, particularly with respect to consultation, and resubmit its application only when it has done so.

Dear Mr McManus

I wish to object to the removal of a grove of tallowood trees and the construction of a multi level building to the footpath on what is at present a car park on Shepherd Street in Sydney University Engineering Department. Shepherd Street already has a brick wall along one section which is a "dead" area, littered with rubbish and cigarette butts and often covered with large graffiti. To remove the hedge along the car park and build another brick wall would create another "dead" area. To use a Paul Keating expression, this is the "arse end" of the University.

I am concerned that the high rise plans for Sydney University campus will have an adverse effect on the environment and also be detrimental to the University. I would ask that the following quotes from Thomas Elmqvist, Stockholm Resilience Centre, at present at the University of Melbourne, be considered:

Rich biodiversiy can curb urban health issues Centre launches report on cities, biodiversity and ecosystem services:

Global urbanization will have significant implications for biodiversity and ecosystems if current trends continue, with knock-on effects for human health and development, according to a new assessment produced by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in partnership with the Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC) and Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI). ...>.

Urban green spaces perform important ecosystem services, such as filtering dust, absorbing carbon dioxide from the air and improving air quality. Data from the United Kingdom shows that a 10 percent increase in tree canopy cover in cities may result in a 3-4°C decrease in ambient temperature, thus reducing energy used in air conditioning.

The developments previously undertaken by the University seem to me to have been the result of ad hoc decisions with no consideration of their impact on the precinct and surrounding environment. I appreciate that this Campus Improvement Plan is an attempt to rectify the poor decisions made previously. However it seems that the aim is to obtain maximum floor space with high rise buildings and on filling in all available space.

I understand the University has allowed residents more time for consultation and look forward to this process. However, the construction of a high rise building along Shepherd Street would unquestionably have a major detrimental effect to the Darlington neighbourhood, the environment and also to the University.

Regards

Susannah Dale

Dear Peter,

University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123)

While you were on leave, RAIDD was informed by David Gibson that the Department of Planning would accept submissions in regard to this application for a short time after the closing date of 28 February 2014.

I am writing now to object to the University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123).

The University of Sydney has not complied with the Director General's Requirements which were requested from the Department of Planning in September 2013.

In the Director-General's Requirements documents there is a requirement which says "During the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), consultation must be undertaken with the relevant Commonwealth Government, State or local authorities, service providers, community groups and affected landowners. In particular you must consult with: ...RAIDD - Residents Acting In Darlington's Defence."

In the EIS itself at Section 10.2 it states ""The University has been engaging with the local community throughout 2013 on the Darlington Campus Abercrombie Redevelopment Project. This has resulted in meetings with key stakeholders and local community with the University providing regular communication regarding the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy. Details of these community stakeholders can be found at Appendix N."

Section 10.2 then goes on to state "Through this engagement the University has been able to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University". However, at no stage in this engagement was there any mention by the University representatives present that they were trying "to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University" nor was there any mention of the Campus Improvement Program (CIP). The engagement was specifically about the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy.

Section 10.2 of the EIS then goes on to say "These issues have all been considered and provided for in the development of the CIP through the following inclusions detailed in Table 11". Table 11 then has 2 columns: one headed "Issue Raised" which lists the things the University has identified as issues for the community (without having checked these with the community); and one headed "CIP Response" which is presumably how the University will address those issues, which it itself has identified, in the CIP.

This table is included to address another requirement laid down by the Director-General that "The EIS must describe the consultation process and the issues raised, and identify where the design of the development has been amended in response to these issues. Where amendments have not been made to address an issue, a short explanation should be provided."

Clearly, the intention of Section 10.2 of the EIS is to convince the Department that the University has complied with the Director-General's Requirements and has consulted with RAIDD in regard to the preparation of the EIS. However, no such consultation has ever taken place.

When members of RAIDD wrote to the Vice-Chancellor to complain about their names being listed in the CIS as having been consulted when they had not, the Vice-Chancellor replied quoting the first paragraph of Section 10.2 and saying "There is no suggestion that these community stakeholders were being consulted about the CIP in this reference".

Clearly, the Vice-Chancellor agrees with us that the local community has not been consulted in the preparation of the EIS and that the University has therefore not met the condition of the Director-General's Requirements which directed the University to consult with RAIDD (amongst others) in the preparation of the EIS.

Because of this I submit that this Development Application should not be considered by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. The University should be instructed to abide by the Director-General's Requirements and consult properly with the local community, taking into account any issues raised and showing the changes made to address each issue, before resubmitting a new State Significant Development Application to the Department.

Regards,

Geoff and Sophia Hegarty

Dear Peter,

University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123)


While you were on leave, RAIDD was informed by David Gibson that the Department of Planning would accept submissions in regard to this application for a short time after the closing date of 28 February 2014.

I am writing now to object to the University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123).

The University of Sydney has not complied with the Director General's Requirements which were requested from the Department of Planning in September 2013.

In the Director-General's Requirements documents there is a requirement which says "During the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), consultation must be undertaken with the relevant Commonwealth Government, State or local authorities, service providers, community groups and affected landowners. In particular you must consult with: ...RAIDD - Residents Acting In Darlington's Defence."

In the EIS itself at Section 10.2 it states ""The University has been engaging with the local community throughout 2013 on the Darlington Campus Abercrombie Redevelopment Project. This has resulted in meetings with key stakeholders and local community with the University providing regular communication regarding the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy. Details of these community stakeholders can be found at Appendix N."

Section 10.2 then goes on to state "Through this engagement the University has been able to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University". However, at no stage in this engagement was there any mention by the University representatives present that they were trying "to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University" nor was there any mention of the Campus Improvement Program (CIP). The engagement was specifically about the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy.

Section 10.2 of the EIS then goes on to say "These issues have all been considered and provided for in the development of the CIP through the following inclusions detailed in Table 11". Table 11 then has 2 columns: one headed "Issue Raised" which lists the things the University has identified as issues for the community (without having checked these with the community); and one headed "CIP Response" which is presumably how the University will address those issues, which it itself has identified, in the CIP.

This table is included to address another requirement laid down by the Director-General that "The EIS must describe the consultation process and the issues raised, and identify where the design of the development has been amended in response to these issues. Where amendments have not been made to address an issue, a short explanation should be provided."

Clearly, the intention of Section 10.2 of the EIS is to convince the Department that the University has complied with the Director-General's Requirements and has consulted with RAIDD in regard to the preparation of the EIS. However, no such consultation has ever taken place.

When members of RAIDD wrote to the Vice-Chancellor to complain about their names being listed in the CIS as having been consulted when they had not, the Vice-Chancellor replied quoting the first paragraph of Section 10.2 and saying "There is no suggestion that these community stakeholders were being consulted about the CIP in this reference".

Clearly, the Vice-Chancellor agrees with us that the local community has not been consulted in the preparation of the EIS and that the University has therefore not met the condition of the Director-General's Requirements which directed the University to consult with RAIDD (amongst others) in the preparation of the EIS

Because of this I submit that this Development Application should not be considered by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. The University should be instructed to abide by the Director-General's Requirements and consult properly with the local community, taking into account any issues raised and showing the changes made to address each issue, before resubmitting a new State Significant Development Application to the Department

Regards,

Greg Barlow

Dear Peter,


University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123)


While you were on leave, RAIDD was informed by David Gibson that the Department of Planning would accept submissions in regard to this application for a short time after the closing date of 28 February 2014.

I am writing now to object to the University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123).

The University of Sydney has not complied with the Director General's Requirements which were requested from the Department of Planning in September 2013.

In the Director-General's Requirements documents there is a requirement which says "During the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), consultation must be undertaken with the relevant Commonwealth Government, State or local authorities, service providers, community groups and affected landowners. In particular you must consult with: ...RAIDD - Residents Acting In Darlington's Defence."

In the EIS itself at Section 10.2 it states ""The University has been engaging with the local community throughout 2013 on the Darlington Campus Abercrombie Redevelopment Project. This has resulted in meetings with key stakeholders and local community with the University providing regular communication regarding the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy. Details of these community stakeholders can be found at Appendix N."

Section 10.2 then goes on to state "Through this engagement the University has been able to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University". However, at no stage in this engagement was there any mention by the University representatives present that they were trying "to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University" nor was there any mention of the Campus Improvement Program (CIP). The engagement was specifically about the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy.

Section 10.2 of the EIS then goes on to say "These issues have all been considered and provided for in the development of the CIP through the following inclusions detailed in Table 11". Table 11 then has 2 columns: one headed "Issue Raised" which lists the things the University has identified as issues for the community (without having checked these with the community); and one headed "CIP Response" which is presumably how the University will address those issues, which it itself has identified, in the CIP.

This table is included to address another requirement laid down by the Director-General that "The EIS must describe the consultation process and the issues raised, and identify where the design of the development has been amended in response to these issues. Where amendments have not been made to address an issue, a short explanation should be provided."

Clearly, the intention of Section 10.2 of the EIS is to convince the Department that the University has complied with the Director-General's Requirements and has consulted with RAIDD in regard to the preparation of the EIS. However, no such consultation has ever taken place.

When members of RAIDD wrote to the Vice-Chancellor to complain about their names being listed in the CIS as having been consulted when they had not, the Vice-Chancellor replied quoting the first paragraph of Section 10.2 and saying "There is no suggestion that these community stakeholders were being consulted about the CIP in this reference".

Clearly, the Vice-Chancellor agrees with us that the local community has not been consulted in the preparation of the EIS and that the University has therefore not met the condition of the Director-General's Requirements which directed the University to consult with RAIDD (amongst others) in the preparation of the EIS.

Because of this I submit that this Development Application should not be considered by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. The University should be instructed to abide by the Director-General's Requirements and consult properly with the local community, taking into account any issues raised and showing the changes made to address each issue, before resubmitting a new State Significant Development Application to the Department.

Regards,

Jennifer Sams

Dear Mr McManus


University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123)


While you were on leave, RAIDD was informed by David Gibson that the Department of Planning would accept submissions in regard to this application for a short time after the closing date of 28 February 2014.

I am writing now to object to the University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123).

The University of Sydney has not complied with the Director General's Requirements which were requested from the Department of Planning in September 2013.

In the Director-General's Requirements there is a requirement which says "During the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), consultation must be undertaken with the relevant Commonwealth Government, State or local authorities, service providers, community groups and affected landowners. In particular you must consult with: RAIDD - Residents Acting In Darlington's Defence."

In the EIS Section 10.2 it states ""The University has been engaging with the local community throughout 2013 on the Darlington Campus Abercrombie Redevelopment Project. This has resulted in meetings with key stakeholders and local community with the University providing regular communication regarding the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy. Details of these community stakeholders can be found at Appendix N."

Section 10.2 then goes on to state "Through this engagement the University has been able to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University". However, at no stage in this engagement was there any mention by the University representatives present that they were trying "to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University" nor was there any mention of the Campus Improvement Program (CIP). The engagement was specifically about the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy.

Section 10.2 of the EIS then goes on to say "These issues have all been considered and provided for in the development of the CIP through the following inclusions detailed in Table 11". Table 11 then has 2 columns: one headed "Issue Raised" which lists the things the University has identified as issues for the community (without having checked these with the community); and one headed "CIP Response" which is presumably how the University will address those issues, which it itself has identified, in the CIP.

This table is included to address another requirement laid down by the Director-General that "The EIS must describe the consultation process and the issues raised, and identify where the design of the development has been amended in response to these issues. Where amendments have not been made to address an issue, a short explanation should be provided."

Clearly, the intention of Section 10.2 of the EIS is to convince the Department that the University has complied with the Director-General's Requirements and has consulted with RAIDD in regard to the preparation of the EIS. However, no such consultation has ever taken place.

When members of RAIDD wrote to the Vice-Chancellor to complain about their names being listed in the CIS as having been consulted when they had not, the Vice-Chancellor replied quoting the first paragraph of Section 10.2 and saying "There is no suggestion that these community stakeholders were being consulted about the CIP in this reference".

Clearly, the Vice-Chancellor agrees with us that the local community has not been consulted in the preparation of the EIS and that the University has therefore not met the condition of the Director-General's Requirements which directed the University to consult with RAIDD (amongst others) in the preparation of the EIS.

Because of this I submit that this Development Application should not be considered by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. The University should be instructed to abide by the Director-General's Requirements and consult properly with the local community, taking into account any issues raised and demonstrating the changes made to address each issue, before resubmitting a new State Significant Development Application to the Department.

Sincerely yours

Mary Theresa Hanson

Dear Peter,



University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123)


While you were on leave, RAIDD was informed by David Gibson that the Department of Planning would accept submissions in regard to this application for a short time after the closing date of 28 February 2014.

I am writing now to object to the University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123).

The University of Sydney has not complied with the Director General's Requirements which were requested from the Department of Planning in September 2013.

In the Director-General's Requirements documents there is a requirement which says "During the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), consultation must be undertaken with the relevant Commonwealth Government, State or local authorities, service providers, community groups and affected landowners. In particular you must consult with: ...RAIDD - Residents Acting In Darlington's Defence."

In the EIS itself at Section 10.2 it states ""The University has been engaging with the local community throughout 2013 on the Darlington Campus Abercrombie Redevelopment Project. This has resulted in meetings with key stakeholders and local community with the University providing regular communication regarding the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy. Details of these community stakeholders can be found at Appendix N."

Section 10.2 then goes on to state "Through this engagement the University has been able to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University". However, at no stage in this engagement was there any mention by the University representatives present that they were trying "to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University" nor was there any mention of the Campus Improvement Program (CIP). The engagement was specifically about the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy.

Section 10.2 of the EIS then goes on to say "These issues have all been considered and provided for in the development of the CIP through the following inclusions detailed in Table 11". Table 11 then has 2 columns: one headed "Issue Raised" which lists the things the University has identified as issues for the community (without having checked these with the community); and one headed "CIP Response" which is presumably how the University will address those issues, which it itself has identified, in the CIP.

This table is included to address another requirement laid down by the Director-General that "The EIS must describe the consultation process and the issues raised, and identify where the design of the development has been amended in response to these issues. Where amendments have not been made to address an issue, a short explanation should be provided."

Clearly, the intention of Section 10.2 of the EIS is to convince the Department that the University has complied with the Director-General's Requirements and has consulted with RAIDD in regard to the preparation of the EIS. However, no such consultation has ever taken place.

When members of RAIDD wrote to the Vice-Chancellor to complain about their names being listed in the CIS as having been consulted when they had not, the Vice-Chancellor replied quoting the first paragraph of Section 10.2 and saying "There is no suggestion that these community stakeholders were being consulted about the CIP in this reference".

Clearly, the Vice-Chancellor agrees with us that the local community has not been consulted in the preparation of the EIS and that the University has therefore not met the condition of the Director-General's Requirements which directed the University to consult with RAIDD (amongst others) in the preparation of the EIS.

Because of this I submit that this Development Application should not be considered by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. The University should be instructed to abide by the Director-General's Requirements and consult properly with the local community, taking into account any issues raised and showing the changes made to address each issue, before resubmitting a new State Significant Development Application to the Department.

Regards,

Sue Manley


Sent from my iPhone

Dear Mr McManus



University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123)


While you were on leave, RAIDD was informed by David Gibson that the Department of Planning would accept submissions in regard to this application for a short time after the closing date of 28 February 2014.

I am writing now to object to the University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123).

The University of Sydney has not complied with the Director General's Requirements which were requested from the Department of Planning in September 2013.

In the Director-General's Requirements there is a requirement which says "During the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), consultation must be undertaken with the relevant Commonwealth Government, State or local authorities, service providers, community groups and affected landowners. In particular you must consult with: RAIDD - Residents Acting In Darlington's Defence."

In the EIS Section 10.2 it states ""The University has been engaging with the local community throughout 2013 on the Darlington Campus Abercrombie Redevelopment Project. This has resulted in meetings with key stakeholders and local community with the University providing regular communication regarding the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy. Details of these community stakeholders can be found at Appendix N."

Section 10.2 then goes on to state "Through this engagement the University has been able to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University". However, at no stage in this engagement was there any mention by the University representatives present that they were trying "to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University" nor was there any mention of the Campus Improvement Program (CIP). The engagement was specifically about the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy.

Section 10.2 of the EIS then goes on to say "These issues have all been considered and provided for in the development of the CIP through the following inclusions detailed in Table 11". Table 11 then has 2 columns: one headed "Issue Raised" which lists the things the University has identified as issues for the community (without having checked these with the community); and one headed "CIP Response" which is presumably how the University will address those issues, which it itself has identified, in the CIP.

This table is included to address another requirement laid down by the Director-General that "The EIS must describe the consultation process and the issues raised, and identify where the design of the development has been amended in response to these issues. Where amendments have not been made to address an issue, a short explanation should be provided."

Clearly, the intention of Section 10.2 of the EIS is to convince the Department that the University has complied with the Director-General's Requirements and has consulted with RAIDD in regard to the preparation of the EIS. However, no such consultation has ever taken place.

When members of RAIDD wrote to the Vice-Chancellor to complain about their names being listed in the CIS as having been consulted when they had not, the Vice-Chancellor replied quoting the first paragraph of Section 10.2 and saying "There is no suggestion that these community stakeholders were being consulted about the CIP in this reference".

Clearly, the Vice-Chancellor agrees with us that the local community has not been consulted in the preparation of the EIS and that the University has therefore not met the condition of the Director-General's Requirements which directed the University to consult with RAIDD (amongst others) in the preparation of the EIS.

Because of this I submit that this Development Application should not be considered by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. The University should be instructed to abide by the Director-General's Requirements and consult properly with the local community, taking into account any issues raised and demonstrating changes made to address each issue, before resubmitting a new State Significant Development Application to the Department.

Sincerely yours

Kyra Henderson

Dear Peter,



University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123)



While you were on leave, RAIDD was informed by David Gibson that the Department of Planning would accept submissions in regard to this application for a short time after the closing date of 28 February 2014.

I am writing now to object to the University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123).

The University of Sydney has not complied with the Director General's Requirements which were requested from the Department of Planning in September 2013.

In the Director-General's Requirements documents there is a requirement which says "During the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), consultation must be undertaken with the relevant Commonwealth Government, State or local authorities, service providers, community groups and affected landowners. In particular you must consult with: ...RAIDD - Residents Acting In Darlington's Defence."

In the EIS itself at Section 10.2 it states ""The University has been engaging with the local community throughout 2013 on the Darlington Campus Abercrombie Redevelopment Project. This has resulted in meetings with key stakeholders and local community with the University providing regular communication regarding the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy. Details of these community stakeholders can be found at Appendix N."

Section 10.2 then goes on to state "Through this engagement the University has been able to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University". However, at no stage in this engagement was there any mention by the University representatives present that they were trying "to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University" nor was there any mention of the Campus Improvement Program (CIP). The engagement was specifically about the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy.

Section 10.2 of the EIS then goes on to say "These issues have all been considered and provided for in the development of the CIP through the following inclusions detailed in Table 11". Table 11 then has 2 columns: one headed "Issue Raised" which lists the things the University has identified as issues for the community (without having checked these with the community); and one headed "CIP Response" which is presumably how the University will address those issues, which it itself has identified, in the CIP.

This table is included to address another requirement laid down by the Director-General that "The EIS must describe the consultation process and the issues raised, and identify where the design of the development has been amended in response to these issues. Where amendments have not been made to address an issue, a short explanation should be provided."

Clearly, the intention of Section 10.2 of the EIS is to convince the Department that the University has complied with the Director-General's Requirements and has consulted with RAIDD in regard to the preparation of the EIS. However, no such consultation has ever taken place.

When members of RAIDD wrote to the Vice-Chancellor to complain about their names being listed in the CIS as having been consulted when they had not, the Vice-Chancellor replied quoting the first paragraph of Section 10.2 and saying "There is no suggestion that these community stakeholders were being consulted about the CIP in this reference".

Clearly, the Vice-Chancellor agrees with us that the local community has not been consulted in the preparation of the EIS and that the University has therefore not met the condition of the Director-General's Requirements which directed the University to consult with RAIDD (amongst others) in the preparation of the EIS.

Because of this I submit that this Development Application should not be considered by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. The University should be instructed to abide by the Director-General's Requirements and consult properly with the local community, taking into account any issues raised and showing the changes made to address each issue, before resubmitting a new State Significant Development Application to the Department.

Regards,


Chris O'Connor

Dear Peter,

University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123)



While you were on leave, RAIDD was informed by David Gibson that the Department of Planning would accept submissions in regard to this application for a short time after the closing date of 28 February 2014.

I am writing now to object to the University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123).

The University of Sydney has not complied with the Director General's Requirements which were requested from the Department of Planning in September 2013.

In the Director-General's Requirements documents there is a requirement which says "During the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), consultation must be undertaken with the relevant Commonwealth Government, State or local authorities, service providers, community groups and affected landowners. In particular you must consult with: ...RAIDD - Residents Acting In Darlington's Defence."

In the EIS itself at Section 10.2 it states ""The University has been engaging with the local community throughout 2013 on the Darlington Campus Abercrombie Redevelopment Project. This has resulted in meetings with key stakeholders and local community with the University providing regular communication regarding the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy. Details of these community stakeholders can be found at Appendix N."

Section 10.2 then goes on to state "Through this engagement the University has been able to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University". However, at no stage in this engagement was there any mention by the University representatives present that they were trying "to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University" nor was there any mention of the Campus Improvement Program (CIP). The engagement was specifically about the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy.

Section 10.2 of the EIS then goes on to say "These issues have all been considered and provided for in the development of the CIP through the following inclusions detailed in Table 11". Table 11 then has 2 columns: one headed "Issue Raised" which lists the things the University has identified as issues for the community (without having checked these with the community); and one headed "CIP Response" which is presumably how the University will address those issues, which it itself has identified, in the CIP.

This table is included to address another requirement laid down by the Director-General that "The EIS must describe the consultation process and the issues raised, and identify where the design of the development has been amended in response to these issues. Where amendments have not been made to address an issue, a short explanation should be provided."

Clearly, the intention of Section 10.2 of the EIS is to convince the Department that the University has complied with the Director-General's Requirements and has consulted with RAIDD in regard to the preparation of the EIS. However, no such consultation has ever taken place.

When members of RAIDD wrote to the Vice-Chancellor to complain about their names being listed in the CIS as having been consulted when they had not, the Vice-Chancellor replied quoting the first paragraph of Section 10.2 and saying "There is no suggestion that these community stakeholders were being consulted about the CIP in this reference".

Clearly, the Vice-Chancellor agrees with us that the local community has not been consulted in the preparation of the EIS and that the University has therefore not met the condition of the Director-General's Requirements which directed the University to consult with RAIDD (amongst others) in the preparation of the EIS.

Because of this I submit that this Development Application should not be considered by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. The University should be instructed to abide by the Director-General's Requirements and consult properly with the local community, taking into account any issues raised and showing the changes made to address each issue, before resubmitting a new State Significant Development Application to the Department.

Regards,

Dear Peter,



University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123)


While you were on leave, RAIDD was informed by David Gibson that the Department of Planning would accept submissions in regard to this application for a short time after the closing date of 28 February 2014.

I am writing now to object to the University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123).

The University of Sydney has not complied with the Director General's Requirements which were requested from the Department of Planning in September 2013.

In the Director-General's Requirements documents there is a requirement which says "During the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), consultation must be undertaken with the relevant Commonwealth Government, State or local authorities, service providers, community groups and affected landowners. In particular you must consult with: ...RAIDD - Residents Acting In Darlington's Defence."

In the EIS itself at Section 10.2 it states ""The University has been engaging with the local community throughout 2013 on the Darlington Campus Abercrombie Redevelopment Project. This has resulted in meetings with key stakeholders and local community with the University providing regular communication regarding the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy. Details of these community stakeholders can be found at Appendix N."

Section 10.2 then goes on to state "Through this engagement the University has been able to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University". However, at no stage in this engagement was there any mention by the University representatives present that they were trying "to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University" nor was there any mention of the Campus Improvement Program (CIP). The engagement was specifically about the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy.

Section 10.2 of the EIS then goes on to say "These issues have all been considered and provided for in the development of the CIP through the following inclusions detailed in Table 11". Table 11 then has 2 columns: one headed "Issue Raised" which lists the things the University has identified as issues for the community (without having checked these with the community); and one headed "CIP Response" which is presumably how the University will address those issues, which it itself has identified, in the CIP.

This table is included to address another requirement laid down by the Director-General that "The EIS must describe the consultation process and the issues raised, and identify where the design of the development has been amended in response to these issues. Where amendments have not been made to address an issue, a short explanation should be provided."

Clearly, the intention of Section 10.2 of the EIS is to convince the Department that the University has complied with the Director-General's Requirements and has consulted with RAIDD in regard to the preparation of the EIS. However, no such consultation has ever taken place.

When members of RAIDD wrote to the Vice-Chancellor to complain about their names being listed in the CIS as having been consulted when they had not, the Vice-Chancellor replied quoting the first paragraph of Section 10.2 and saying "There is no suggestion that these community stakeholders were being consulted about the CIP in this reference".

Clearly, the Vice-Chancellor agrees with me that the local community has not been consulted in the preparation of the EIS and that the University has therefore not met the condition of the Director-General's Requirements which directed the University to consult with RAIDD (amongst others) in the preparation of the EIS.

Because of this I submit that this Development Application should not be considered by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. The University should be instructed to abide by the Director-General's Requirements and consult properly with the local community, taking into account any issues raised and showing the changes made to address each issue, before resubmitting a new State Significant Development Application to the Department.


Regards,

Colin Sharp,

Member of RAIDD (Residents Acting In Darlington's Defence).

Dear Peter,




University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123)


While you were on leave, I spoke to David Gibson, on behalf of RAIDD, and was informed by him that the Department of Planning would accept submissions in regard to this application for a short time after the closing date of 28 February 2014.

I am writing now to object to the University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123).

The University of Sydney has not complied with the Director General's Requirements which were requested from the Department of Planning in September 2013.

In the Director-General's Requirements documents there is a requirement which says "During the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), consultation must be undertaken with the relevant Commonwealth Government, State or local authorities, service providers, community groups and affected landowners. In particular you must consult with: ...RAIDD - Residents Acting In Darlington's Defence."

In the EIS itself at Section 10.2 it states ""The University has been engaging with the local community throughout 2013 on the Darlington Campus Abercrombie Redevelopment Project. This has resulted in meetings with key stakeholders and local community with the University providing regular communication regarding the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy. Details of these community stakeholders can be found at Appendix N."

Section 10.2 then goes on to state "Through this engagement the University has been able to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University". However, at no stage in this engagement was there any mention by the University representatives present that they were trying "to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University" nor was there any mention of the Campus Improvement Program (CIP). The engagement was specifically about the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy.

Section 10.2 of the EIS then goes on to say "These issues have all been considered and provided for in the development of the CIP through the following inclusions detailed in Table 11". Table 11 then has 2 columns: one headed "Issue Raised" which lists the things the University has identified as issues for the community (without having checked these with the community); and one headed "CIP Response" which is presumably how the University will address those issues, which it itself has identified, in the CIP.

This table is included to address another requirement laid down by the Director-General that "The EIS must describe the consultation process and the issues raised, and identify where the design of the development has been amended in response to these issues. Where amendments have not been made to address an issue, a short explanation should be provided."

Clearly, the intention of Section 10.2 of the EIS is to convince the Department that the University has complied with the Director-General's Requirements and has consulted with RAIDD in regard to the preparation of the EIS. However, no such consultation has ever taken place.

When members of RAIDD wrote to the Vice-Chancellor to complain about their names being listed in the CIS as having been consulted when they had not, the Vice-Chancellor replied quoting the first paragraph of Section 10.2 and saying "There is no suggestion that these community stakeholders were being consulted about the CIP in this reference".

Clearly, the Vice-Chancellor agrees with us that the local community has not been consulted in the preparation of the EIS and that the University has therefore not met the condition of the Director-General's Requirements which directed the University to consult with RAIDD (amongst others) in the preparation of the EIS.

Because of this I submit that this Development Application should not be considered by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. The University should be instructed to abide by the Director-General's Requirements and consult properly with the local community, taking into account any issues raised and showing the changes made to address each issue, before resubmitting a new State Significant Development Application to the Department.

I trust you will consider my objection and I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Mary Ellen McCue,

Member of RAIDD (Residents Acting In Darlingon's Defence).

Dear Peter,


University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123)


While you were on leave, RAIDD was informed by David Gibson that the Department of Planning would accept submissions in regard to this application for a short time after the closing date of 28 February 2014.

I am writing now to object to the University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123).

The University of Sydney has not complied with the Director General's Requirements which were requested from the Department of Planning in September 2013.

In the Director-General's Requirements documents there is a requirement which says "During the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), consultation must be undertaken with the relevant Commonwealth Government, State or local authorities, service providers, community groups and affected landowners. In particular you must consult with: ...RAIDD - Residents Acting In Darlington's Defence."

In the EIS itself at Section 10.2 it states ""The University has been engaging with the local community throughout 2013 on the Darlington Campus Abercrombie Redevelopment Project. This has resulted in meetings with key stakeholders and local community with the University providing regular communication regarding the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy. Details of these community stakeholders can be found at Appendix N."

Section 10.2 then goes on to state "Through this engagement the University has been able to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University". However, at no stage in this engagement was there any mention by the University representatives present that they were trying "to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University" nor was there any mention of the Campus Improvement Program (CIP). The engagement was specifically about the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy.

Section 10.2 of the EIS then goes on to say "These issues have all been considered and provided for in the development of the CIP through the following inclusions detailed in Table 11". Table 11 then has 2 columns: one headed "Issue Raised" which lists the things the University has identified as issues for the community (without having checked these with the community); and one headed "CIP Response" which is presumably how the University will address those issues, which it itself has identified, in the CIP.

This table is included to address another requirement laid down by the Director-General that "The EIS must describe the consultation process and the issues raised, and identify where the design of the development has been amended in response to these issues. Where amendments have not been made to address an issue, a short explanation should be provided."

Clearly, the intention of Section 10.2 of the EIS is to convince the Department that the University has complied with the Director-General's Requirements and has consulted with RAIDD in regard to the preparation of the EIS. However, no such consultation has ever taken place.

When members of RAIDD wrote to the Vice-Chancellor to complain about their names being listed in the CIS as having been consulted when they had not, the Vice-Chancellor replied quoting the first paragraph of Section 10.2 and saying "There is no suggestion that these community stakeholders were being consulted about the CIP in this reference".

Clearly, the Vice-Chancellor agrees with us that the local community has not been consulted in the preparation of the EIS and that the University has therefore not met the condition of the Director-General's Requirements which directed the University to consult with RAIDD (amongst others) in the preparation of the EIS.

Because of this I submit that this Development Application should not be considered by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. The University should be instructed to abide by the Director-General's Requirements and consult properly with the local community, taking into account any issues raised and showing the changes made to address each issue, before resubmitting a new State Significant Development Application to the Department.

Regards,
Guo Wei & Yan Wu

Dear Mr McManus



University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123)


While you were on leave, RAIDD was informed by David Gibson that the Department of Planning would accept submissions in regard to this application for a short time after the closing date of 28 February 2014.

I am writing now to object to the University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123).

The University of Sydney has not complied with the Director General's Requirements which were requested from the Department of Planning in September 2013.

In the Director-General's Requirements there is a requirement which says "During the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), consultation must be undertaken with the relevant Commonwealth Government, State or local authorities, service providers, community groups and affected landowners. In particular you must consult with: RAIDD - Residents Acting In Darlington's Defence."

In the EIS Section 10.2 it states ""The University has been engaging with the local community throughout 2013 on the Darlington Campus Abercrombie Redevelopment Project. This has resulted in meetings with key stakeholders and local community with the University providing regular communication regarding the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy. Details of these community stakeholders can be found at Appendix N."

Section 10.2 then goes on to state "Through this engagement the University has been able to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University". However, at no stage in this engagement was there any mention by the University representatives present that they were trying "to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University" nor was there any mention of the Campus Improvement Program (CIP). The engagement was specifically about the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy.

Section 10.2 of the EIS then goes on to say "These issues have all been considered and provided for in the development of the CIP through the following inclusions detailed in Table 11". Table 11 then has 2 columns: one headed "Issue Raised" which lists the things the University has identified as issues for the community (without having checked these with the community); and one headed "CIP Response" which is presumably how the University will address those issues, which it itself has identified, in the CIP.

This table is included to address another requirement laid down by the Director-General that "The EIS must describe the consultation process and the issues raised, and identify where the design of the development has been amended in response to these issues. Where amendments have not been made to address an issue, a short explanation should be provided."

Clearly, the intention of Section 10.2 of the EIS is to convince the Department that the University has complied with the Director-General's Requirements and has consulted with RAIDD in regard to the preparation of the EIS. However, no such consultation has ever taken place.

When members of RAIDD wrote to the Vice-Chancellor to complain about their names being listed in the CIS as having been consulted when they had not, the Vice-Chancellor replied quoting the first paragraph of Section 10.2 and saying "There is no suggestion that these community stakeholders were being consulted about the CIP in this reference".

Clearly, the Vice-Chancellor agrees with us that the local community has not been consulted in the preparation of the EIS and that the University has therefore not met the condition of the Director-General's Requirements which directed the University to consult with RAIDD (amongst others) in the preparation of the EIS.

Because of this I submit that this Development Application should not be considered by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. The University should be instructed to abide by the Director-General's Requirements and consult properly with the local community, taking into account any issues raised and demonstrating changes made to address each issue, before resubmitting a new State Significant Development Application to the Department.


Sincerely yours


Ha Nguyen

Dear Sir




University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123)


While you were on leave, RAIDD was informed by David Gibson that the Department of Planning would accept submissions in regard to this application for a short time after the closing date of 28 February 2014.

I am writing now to object to the University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123).

The University of Sydney has not complied with the Director General's Requirements which were requested from the Department of Planning in September 2013.

In the Director-General's Requirements there is a requirement which says "During the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), consultation must be undertaken with the relevant Commonwealth Government, State or local authorities, service providers, community groups and affected landowners. In particular you must consult with: RAIDD - Residents Acting In Darlington's Defence."

In the EIS Section 10.2 it states ""The University has been engaging with the local community throughout 2013 on the Darlington Campus Abercrombie Redevelopment Project. This has resulted in meetings with key stakeholders and local community with the University providing regular communication regarding the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy. Details of these community stakeholders can be found at Appendix N."

Section 10.2 then goes on to state "Through this engagement the University has been able to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University". However, at no stage in this engagement was there any mention by the University representatives present that they were trying "to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University" nor was there any mention of the Campus Improvement Program (CIP). The engagement was specifically about the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy.

Section 10.2 of the EIS then goes on to say "These issues have all been considered and provided for in the development of the CIP through the following inclusions detailed in Table 11". Table 11 then has 2 columns: one headed "Issue Raised" which lists the things the University has identified as issues for the community (without having checked these with the community); and one headed "CIP Response" which is presumably how the University will address those issues, which it itself has identified, in the CIP.

This table is included to address another requirement laid down by the Director-General that "The EIS must describe the consultation process and the issues raised, and identify where the design of the development has been amended in response to these issues. Where amendments have not been made to address an issue, a short explanation should be provided."

Clearly, the intention of Section 10.2 of the EIS is to convince the Department that the University has complied with the Director-General's Requirements and has consulted with RAIDD in regard to the preparation of the EIS. However, no such consultation has ever taken place.

When members of RAIDD wrote to the Vice-Chancellor to complain about their names being listed in the CIS as having been consulted when they had not, the Vice-Chancellor replied quoting the first paragraph of Section 10.2 and saying "There is no suggestion that these community stakeholders were being consulted about the CIP in this reference".

Clearly, the Vice-Chancellor agrees with us that the local community has not been consulted in the preparation of the EIS and that the University has therefore not met the condition of the Director-General's Requirements which directed the University to consult with RAIDD (amongst others) in the preparation of the EIS.

Because of this I submit that this Development Application should not be considered by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. The University should be instructed to abide by the Director-General's Requirements and consult properly with the local community, taking into account any issues raised and demonstrating changes made to address each issue, before resubmitting a new State Significant Development Application to the Department.


Sincerely yours


Jacqueline Nipperess

Dear Sir




University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123)

While you were on leave, RAIDD was informed by David Gibson that the Department of Planning would accept submissions in regard to this application for a short time after the closing date of 28 February 2014.

I am writing now to object to the University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123).

The University of Sydney has not complied with the Director General's Requirements which were requested from the Department of Planning in September 2013.

In the Director-General's Requirements there is a requirement which says "During the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), consultation must be undertaken with the relevant Commonwealth Government, State or local authorities, service providers, community groups and affected landowners. In particular you must consult with: RAIDD - Residents Acting In Darlington's Defence."

In the EIS Section 10.2 it states ""The University has been engaging with the local community throughout 2013 on the Darlington Campus Abercrombie Redevelopment Project. This has resulted in meetings with key stakeholders and local community with the University providing regular communication regarding the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy. Details of these community stakeholders can be found at Appendix N."

Section 10.2 then goes on to state "Through this engagement the University has been able to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University". However, at no stage in this engagement was there any mention by the University representatives present that they were trying "to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University" nor was there any mention of the Campus Improvement Program (CIP). The engagement was specifically about the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy.

Section 10.2 of the EIS then goes on to say "These issues have all been considered and provided for in the development of the CIP through the following inclusions detailed in Table 11". Table 11 then has 2 columns: one headed "Issue Raised" which lists the things the University has identified as issues for the community (without having checked these with the community); and one headed "CIP Response" which is presumably how the University will address those issues, which it itself has identified, in the CIP.

This table is included to address another requirement laid down by the Director-General that "The EIS must describe the consultation process and the issues raised, and identify where the design of the development has been amended in response to these issues. Where amendments have not been made to address an issue, a short explanation should be provided."

Clearly, the intention of Section 10.2 of the EIS is to convince the Department that the University has complied with the Director-General's Requirements and has consulted with RAIDD in regard to the preparation of the EIS. However, no such consultation has ever taken place.

When members of RAIDD wrote to the Vice-Chancellor to complain about their names being listed in the CIS as having been consulted when they had not, the Vice-Chancellor replied quoting the first paragraph of Section 10.2 and saying "There is no suggestion that these community stakeholders were being consulted about the CIP in this reference".

Clearly, the Vice-Chancellor agrees with us that the local community has not been consulted in the preparation of the EIS and that the University has therefore not met the condition of the Director-General's Requirements which directed the University to consult with RAIDD (amongst others) in the preparation of the EIS.

Because of this I submit that this Development Application should not be considered by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. The University should be instructed to abide by the Director-General's Requirements and consult properly with the local community, taking into account any issues raised and demonstrating changes made to address each issue, before resubmitting a new State Significant Development Application to the Department.


Sincerely yours


Brianna Murphy