USYD Camperdown-Darlington Campus Improvement Program

Please see attached.

Dear Peter,

I have been granted an extension until 31 March 2014 to make a submission in regard to the above State Significant Development (SSD) application.

I object to the University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123) for the following reasons:-

1. Firstly and most importantly, 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 referred 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 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.

The Vice Chancellor has himself agreed that the community has not been consulted about the CIP. Referring to the engagement mentioned above he has said "There is no suggestion that these community stakeholders were being consulted about the CIP" (see attached).

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.

2. I object to the height, scale and bulk of the proposed building program which are more suited to an inner-city location and are far too big for the low rise heritage conservation residential precinct in which the University sits.

3. I object to the University's proposal to completely infill the backyards of every heritage listed terrace house from 86 - 130 Darlington Road with 3 storey extensions. The University should not be allowed to degrade the heritage value of these terraces.

4. I object to the proposed massive increase in the student population from 49,500 to 60,000 by 2020 because the local infrastructure cannot cope with the existing number of people. The increase in University population would put further stress on off street parking in residential streets as there would be an increase in the number of students and University staff parking their cars in local streets.

5. I object to the removal of an important strand of eucalyptus trees on the campus Shepherd Street car park facing houses in Shepherd Street and Calder Road and its replacement with a substantial 3 storey building overlooking resident's homes.

6. I object to the potential increase in noise from plant equipment such as large 24/7 air conditioners and cooling towers on proposed University buildings close to resident's homes.

7. I object to the proposed Service Centre on Shepherd Street as it will bring heavy, loud vehicles onto a residential street.

Regards,

Colin Sharp

See Attached objections to SSD 13_6123.

Please see attached.

Please find attached my comments and concerns regarding the University of Sydney Campus Improvement Plan.

Please find attached the second stage of my submission for SSD 6123.

Please see attached.

Please see attached.

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

Dear Mr McManus,

As a resident of Darlington/Chippendale for over two decades and a former tenured academic at the University, I wish to put in writing my strong objections to the above-mentioned plan for the following reasons:

1. The University has made insufficient effort to consult with the local community as per the Director General's Requirements.

2. The height and bulk of the the proposed development are much to great for the low rise heritage conservation residential precinct that is Darlington/Chippendale.

3. A number of proposed buildings (eg where the University regiment now sits and the Darlington Eucalypt Grove) will overlook residential buildings. Moreover the 24/7 noise from plant equipment with the proposed new buildings will create a very negative effect on residents' amenity.

4. The terraces from 86-130 Darlington Road are A rated as 'highly intact' by the National Trust. The proposal to infill their backyards with 3 storey extensions will degrade their heritage value.

5. The plan to increase through the greater amount of floor space the student population from its present 49,500 to 60,000 is fundamentally flawed. The local infrastructure does not cope with present student numbers as it is. Moreover, as the Teaching Quality Fellow in the Faculty of Economics & Business for over 16 years, I argue that such an increase in student numbers can only have a detrimental effect on the education process.

In conclusion, this massive over-development project should not go ahead in its present form. It would seem to be primarily designed to gain greater University income from international students, not to improve the general student experience. I say this because I have had experience of the powers that be at the University putting the business of education before educational quality. I attach a paper that I had published on this in 2007.

yours truly

Michael

Michael Paton BSc(Ed) BA(hons) PhD

Please see attached.

See attached.

See attached.

28 February 2014

The Manager
Major Project Assessments
NSW Planning & Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001


Dear Sir/Madam,

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

I write in response to the publicly advertised State Significant Development proposal for the Sydney University Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 (SSD 13_6123) and provide the following National Trust comments on this proposal.

The Trust strongly opposes the intended demolition of International House (96 City Road, Chippendale) which was listed on the National Trust Register in March, 2012 for its landmark, historic, aesthetic and social significance and its rarity as a modernist design by leading architects Bunning & Madden for university student accommodation in Australia (copy of the Listing Report attached). It is a representative Sydney example of an international genre of buildings, along with the UNSW International House built in the same year to a design by Edwards Madigan Torzzillo Briggs.

The Environmental Impact Statement refers to the Heritage Impact Assessment (page 79 - European Heritage), which acknowledges that this building is of High Significance yet then attempts to argue that its demolition would be acceptable with an argument that: -

"the loss of any building of some heritage significance has an impact, but in the case of the University of Sydney the loss of a building should not be considered in isolation, but rather within the context of the overall campus and, in particular, the overall significance of the University as an evolving educational institution" (National Trust bolding).

As the pre-eminent and prestigious institution training Australian architects for 134 years, it would be reasonable to expect that the concepts of Heritage Conservation and adaptive re-use of buildings of high heritage significance would be thoroughly understood, promulgated and incorporated into the University's own programs as `an evolving educational institution'.

The Trust also queries the validity of any conclusions of a Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by an employee of the Proponent and urges that an independent assessment be undertaken to properly inform the Department's considerations. We do not accept that the "trade-off" approach is a satisfactory heritage philosophy for such an important institution and significant group of buildings, particularly when the proposed replacements are conceptual only and the suggested offsets are ambitions, rather than concrete outcomes.

Also, in the Assessment of Heritage Impact (page 4), the Blackburn Building is listed as only of "moderate" significance. Given the extraordinary research and medical breakthroughs which have been undertaken and achieved in this building, this seems to be an under-rating of the building's significance. It does not take into account historical and social significance, including the strong involvement of the Blackburn Family in the history of the University.

The Trust is also concerned that the proposals for Precinct D - Health are a conglomeration of massive new rectangular block constructions which will dwarf Wesley College and the adjacent St Andrews College buildings. The Conservation Management Plan identifies B3 - The "Wesley College / Blackburn Circuit Axis" as a feature of the University. This Axis will cease to exist. Wesley College will have no relationship to the Blackburn Building (A6), as the area between, including almost all of the current open space) will be consumed by huge new buildings covering this area.

The height of buildings proposed will dominate older significant buildings. Even the old Institute Building on City Road appears small when compared with what is proposed. This is in contrast to the present Merewether Building, which is low key and human in scale. Although building envelopes are proposed to be stepped, in some precincts the overall scale of what is proposed is overwhelming. Proposed setbacks are minimal and leave little opportunity to appreciate boundary walls which are evidence of past uses. This also presents a challenge to maintaining significant boundary fabric during the construction phase.

What appears to be envisaged is a high-rise university that is more akin to the Sydney Central Business District than a gracious campus of exceptional significance in the history of tertiary education in Australia.
Oxford University is a major tourist attraction because it does respect and enhance the heritage significance of its place and this contributes in no small way to the international standing of that university.

The retention of International House, ranked as of High Significance, should be non-negotiable and its size/scale should be respected in the new development.

The Blackburn Building should be retained. The Trust understands that it was built with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and that its heritage significance has been greatly underestimated.

Yours sincerely


Graham Quint
Director - Advocacy

Dear Peter

I write to you as an owner and resident of Darlington in relation to the development proposal of SSD 13_6123 USYD campus improvement program 2014-2020 for camperdown-Darlington. I have noted some concerns and objections to this proposal:

1. Increase density of students housing, and the management of students living in such high density and with close proximity to family residences; and the potential for increase in student parties and the like.

2. Increased traffic (cars and pedestrian), parking issues and pollution

3. Increased noise pollution generated from such major increase in density (in particular from 24hr cooling towers). Due to the height the noise will travel unabated 24/7.

4. The set back of buildings is too close to property boundaries, therefore causing shadowing, privacy and noise issues. The height of the building seems out of character for the area.

5. The removal of established trees, and the increased sun exposure in some cases will require additional air conditioning, at cost to residents and the environment. Thermal heat from these buildings may also cause issue. There should be a green buffer of trees between the buildings and residents.

6. The impact and damage to heritage listed properties for more students housing along Darlington road seems out of touch with community concerns and the need to maintain local heritage and character.

7. The very limited and primitive consultation for such large scale development in such a small neighbourhood.

8. The removal of the preschool, Sydney University has not proposed any benefits to the community. There is no offering to the community to replace such a vital social infrastructure.

9. The current design (Abercrombie st accommodation, business school buildings) of building look cheap and nasty, poor architectural value of the buildings to the community. No legacy in design has been considered for such a major development

10. The university pursuit of $ in creating more student accommodation over its stewardship of the area and consideration of its neighbours. The increase on student accommodation seems excessive, in particular when you consider the recent constructed and approved student accommodation in the area. Sydney university's lack of consideration and consultation of people who live in the neighbourhood who are not students. It appears Sydney University considers Darlington to be its sole domain.

11. The community does not benefit from this development.
As someone who works in the construction and infrastructure industry I understand the need to expand and redevelop areas for the greater good of the city. However I do not believe this is the case in this instance and further review of the scale, design and benefits (both short and long term) needs to be done and openly discussed with the community. In addition the vast increase of student accommodation appears to be cash grab by the university, there are several other student accommodation development recently constructed and more planned or approved ready for construction, so why it so necessary. Information should be provided on the business case for the expansion, as the university is funded by the government and in turn funded by the people. The university should consider remote internet access growth via technology to relief the burden on the inner city neighbourhoods rather than just increase students on campus.

In summary I note that I am not a NIMBY person and i do not have issue with development in general or Sydney University. My issue relates to what i believe is gross overdevelopment and lack of consideration to the neighbourhood. The development could be improved and add better value to everyone if the neighbourhood was genuinely and adequately considered and consulted, and where the community obtains a benefit.

I hope Clover as Lord Mayor as a champion for the people and of the neighbourhood assist in making us heard, and so that action be done to reduce the scale and limit the impact to the neighbourhood, whilst providing benefit to the community. Development is opportunity to strength to the community and be a win for all stakeholders not just the developer.

Your assistance in this matter is warmly appreciated.

Sincerely

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the University of Sydney's Response to Submissions. We note that the College is referred to at various points in the University's response, but wanted to focus our comments on the references in the section between pages 44 and 48 of the University's response.
1. (p45) We acknowledge that the amended envelope matches that of the adjoining RPAH.
2. (p45) We acknowledge the fact of the consultation with USYD, and the scope of that consultation.
3. (p45) We note the promise of future discussions with USYD regarding Cadigal Ln/Western Ave, ground floor alignment and pedestrian connection.
4. (p45) We note the agreement by USYD to address our concern about the single access point for loading and parking in the original CIP, and acknowledge USYD's central strategy to reduce through campus vehicle movement.
5. (p46) We acknowledge the setback solution proposed by USYD in the revised envelope.
6. (p46) We retain our preference for a N-S alignment of buildings, to minimise shadow impact upon the College's Harper Building, and look forward to reviewing this aspect in the next stage of the detailed Application process.
7. (p47) We note that the amended CIP includes shadow plans which demonstrate satisfactory compliance levels.

We note and acknowledge USYD's preparedness to consult and amend, and look forward to participating in this iterative process in the next stage of the Development application.

I remain opposed to the following

1. SHEPHERD ST SERVICE CENTRE

The rationale behind having principal Service Centres has merit but the location would be better served if it was located nearer the intersection of Shepherd and Cleveland Streets.
This would mean the NOISE and TRAFFIC impact of heavy service vehicles at all hours of the day and night would be kept away from residential streets.

2. THE REMOVAL OF THE EUCALYPT TREES IN SHEPHERD STREET.

The number of trees proposed to be retained needs further clarification. The university's modification is ambiguous and insufficient. More should be done to preserve these important trees.

3. HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS

The University should provide an undertaking to only use 85% of each envelope in its modified CIP and that the Department should enforce this utilization for each development application covered by this program.

The height, the scale and the density of the proposed buildings is still far too great on all suggested precincts. The result of these proposed buildings is overshadowing, loss of light and loss of amenity not only for local residents surrounding the university but also within the university grounds.

4. DARLINGTON TERRACES

The University's proposal to completely infill the backyards of every heritage listed terrace house (bar 3) from 86 - 130 Darlington Road with 3 storey extensions was and continues to be appalling.
The National Trust has given these terraces an "A" rating - "highly intact". The University should not be allowed to further degrade the heritage value of these terraces.

I remain opposed to the following

1. SHEPHERD ST SERVICE CENTRE

The rationale behind having principal Service Centres has merit but the location would be better served if it was located nearer the intersection of Shepherd and Cleveland Streets.
This would mean the noise and traffic impact of heavy service vehicles at all hours of the day and night would be kept away from residential streets.


2. HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS

The University should provide an undertaking to only use 85% of each envelope in its modified CIP and that the Department should enforce this utilization for each development application covered by this program.

The height, the scale and the density of the proposed buildings is still far too great on all suggested precincts. The result of these proposed buildings is overshadowing, loss of light and loss of amenity not only for local residents surrounding the university but also within the university grounds.

See separate email from me to Peter McManus

Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 for Camperdown-Darlington

RAIDD Response to RtS for SSD6123
Date: 25 August 2014
Name: David Laws
Address: 322 Abercrombie St, Darlington, NSW, 2008

SHEPHERD ST SERVICE CENTRE

I remain opposed to the proposed Service Centre on Shepherd Street. A more appropriate location for it would be near the intersection of Shepherd and Cleveland Streets. This would mean the heavy service vehicles could enter and exit from the main arterial road of Cleveland Street and would therefore be kept off residential streets.
EUCALYPT TREES

The number of trees proposed to be retained following the objections of residents to their removal is still insufficient and unacceptable. Currently I estimate that 100 metres from residents terraces, behind the eucalypt grove, is the two story building. By removing the trees to the extent planned, a 4-6 storey building will be behind one row of trees 20 metres from residents terraces of two stories. Overwhelming.

The meeting of June 2014 related to this tree removal issue was a joke really. I had missed previously submitting anything earlier in the year as I was on Long Service Leave. This meant that I did not hear about the meeting from the Precinct Project but via RAID who are not the responsible party for the meeting, a meeting that should have been advertised to the entire community. A one hour only meeting was held for more information. Hardly enough time. At the meeting there was no agenda. The meeting raised more questions than it answered. These questions were noted by the architect but no date was given as to answers or method. Two months later. Nothing. This is not consultation. It is token consultation only, patronising, and not informative at all.

Example of my question: The plan has `Pedestrian Gateways' out of the engineering new buildings. There is no plan for student/staff movement after leaving the University. Again. Could the university learn from what was imposed on the Business Faculty Building and have at least a movement plan for people? Already students are using Calder and Ivy streets as route from station, so with `gateways' in the plan this will encourage the takeover of quite residential streets.

Example of extemely mixed messages: The VC Spence was quoted in article in the local paper that trees would not be removed. Then there we are at the tree removal meeting. I gave copy of the VC article in the local paper to Tracey Baldwin to show just how mixed the messages were from the Univerisity

I remain entirely opposed to the removal of any of the Eucalypt Grove. The information meeting about this issue was pretty unprofessional and uniformative.

HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS

Overall, the height, scale and density of the proposed buildings is still far too great on all suggested precincts. Not only do buildings such as those proposed create overshadowing but also mean loss of light and privacy

Are the university really proposing a 9 story building on the corner of Shepherd and Abercrombie? This was shown on the plan at the meeting related to the Eucalpyt Grove (see above).

DARLINGTON TERRACES

We vehemently object to the University's proposal to completely infill the backyards of every heritage listed terrace house (bar 3) from 86 - 130 Darlington Road with 3 storey extensions. The University will have used almost every piece of land for building on leaving very little open space, vegetation or light which are all important to the health and wellbeing of humans.
The National Trust has given these terraces an "A" rating - "highly intact". The University should not be allowed to degrade the heritage value of these terraces which are very close to the Golden Grove.

LACK OF COMMUNICATION and CONSULTATION
The community submissions were about the fact that the University had not consulted with the community about the CIP during the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as it had been instructed to do by the Director General of the Department of Planning. The University has not addressed this.
The University's response refers to "specific and regular email Invitations" to "community drop-in sessions" having been sent out. These were not sent out during the period that the EIS was being developed, which is when the consultation should have taken place, but were sent out well after the EIS had been finalized and only after protests from the community about the insufficient time given to respond to the wealth of documents lodged on the Department's website.

These "specific and regular email Invitations" mean that only residents that the University had email addresses for were invited? Is this really consultation with the community when the invitation list is so narrow (ie only those whose emails the University has)? and if i do not submit then I am denied further involvement as is my experience? This is not consultation, its just lazy and dodgy.

So if I am new to the area, how could the University be emailing me invitations? Relying on emails means a reduced number of residents are targeted to know of meetings.

In its Response to Submissions, the University also refers to a specific email from RAIDD dated 20 March 2014, which was actually a reply from two members of RAIDD to an email from Julie Parsons, University of Sydney Project Manager, inviting them to the last "community drop-in session".

The "community drop-in sessions" do not in fact constitute the consultation as specified in the Director General's Requirements.

It is not the community who are the poor communicators, it is the Precinct Project Team of the University.

FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROCESS
The University had not complied with the Director General's Requirements by not consulting with the community during the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for the CIP and that therefore the "Development Application should not be considered by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure".
The University, in its "CIP Response to Submissions" document, refers on its front page to a "State Significant Development Application" yet chooses to respond in this same document to this in part by saying that "SSD13_6123 is not a Development Application" but rather a "Concept Strategy".
One of the numerous documents lodged on the Department of Planning website by the University is one titled "SSD Completed Application Form 1.pdf". The heading to this form, which bears Greg Robinson's signature, is "State Significant Development Application". This is why it was referred to in RAIDD's original submission as a Development Application.
Even though the University says that SSD13_6123 is not an application, it then goes on to refer to it as one anyway. The Response says "The University lodged a test of adequacy of the DGR's with the DPE (formerly Department of Planning & Infrastructure) prior to officially lodging the Campus Improvement Plan application."

Regards
David Laws
322 Abercrombie St Darlington

Dear Peter,
I would like to make the general comment that the university is putting up new buildings with no apparent vision for the future. I'm sure the uni would claim it does have a plan but from the point of view of a local resident they are just stuffing as many buildings onto an already overcrowded campus as they can. Rather than put yet another building along Shepherd St I think it would serve the uni, the students and the community better if the plan was to eventually remove the lowish building between the current grove of trees and the green space surrounding the old Darlington School building and create a contiguous green space (with NO parking). I think the building is called LNR or PNR. I would think it's obvious that the current engineering buildings and workshops to the left of the grove of trees (as you enter from Shepherd St) are probably no longer fit for purpose - or have a very limited time left for being useful. If the uni is allowed to whack up another building where the grove is - how long will it be before there's is a plan to replace the engineering buildings? There seems to be a very high risk that the whole of the uni side of Shepherd St will be one tall facade after another with no capacity for creating, restoring or maintaining green space. I would also like to emphasise that I have no faith in the uni when it comes to air-conditioning noise. There is already persistent, irritating, noise and I understand the uni simply half-pie acknowledges the problem and waits for residents to give up. Sydney uni is a university for goodness sake. How can such an organisation not come up with a a convincing solution to this problem?
regards,
Rachel Wolfgram
41 Calder Rd
Darlington