UON Honeysuckle City Campus Concept Proposal

I believe that the decision not to incorporate car parking in the
development is irresponsible. You can not rely on Students and staff
to use public transport and or the shuttle bus service that is in
operation from the Callaghan campus at the present time.
The parking at the Callaghan campus is already inadequate for that
campus in itself and the Public Transport System is not good enough to
meet the needs of the people attend the new campus.Therefor there
needs to be parking at the campus

As an owner of a residential unit at 10 Worth Place (directly opposite
the development site), I welcome the University to Honeysuckle however
I object to the proposal in its current form for the following
reasons.

The proposal seeks to exceed maximum building heights on the 8 and 9
storey buildings and is not compliant with The Newcastle Local
Environment Plan (NLEP) 2012. Being a key site close to the
waterfront, it is imperative that the height limits in the NLEP are
adhered to as the visual impact of a development of this scale is
significant to neighbouring properties. The height controls in the
NLEP were set so that all residents can enjoy views to the Hunter
River. Exceeding these limits is detrimental to all other residents in
the local area and the proposed plans have no valid justification for
exceeding these controls. The NLEP identifies the view corridor down
Worth Place to the Hunter River as a key view corridor and the 9
storey student accommodation building will permanently disrupt this
view corridor for existing residents on Hunter St given the scale of
the building and the height exceeding the allowable limit.

In addition, the buildings fronting Honeysuckle Drive are proposed to
have zero set back to the street. The scale of these buildings is
considered to be significant for the area and a zero set back will
permanently block the existing view corridor looking east to Nobby's
Headland that residents of 10 Worth Place currently enjoy. A 3 metre
set back to all buildings fronting Honeysuckle Drive will soften the
visual impact of the buildings, maintain the existing view corridor
mentioned above and ultimately not adversely impact property values at
10 Worth Place should the existing view corridor be disrupted.

Given the density of students in the proposed student accommodation
building, the DA should be conditional on a 24/7 on-site building
manager being required, as well as 24/7 security to ensure the safety
of all students and neighbouring residents is maintained. There have
been a number of assaults on international students at the
University's Callaghan campus recently and therefore 24/7 security is
essential.

The service entry for building A1 proposed on Worth Place is
considered inappropriate on the basis that the location is immediately
opposite residential apartments (namely bedrooms) and the noise
associated with a service entry/loading dock would be disruptive to
existing residents. Should the service entry remain, access should be
limited to business hours only to avoid disturbance to surrounding
neighbours and the access point should be visually appealing and not
look like a loading dock.

The plans indicate very little landscaping is proposed for the
buildings fronting Worth Place. This street is a very small street
(not even big enough for parking on either side) and having a 6 and 9
storey building so close to the road will have a significant visual
impact unless it is softened with appropriate landscaping and/or green
walls on the buildings themselves.

Finally, the materials used on the façade of building A1 should take
into consideration the effect of sun glare to neighbouring residents
at 10 Worth Place in the afternoon. Currently when the sun sets in the
west, the reflection and glare from the glass windows of the Chifley
Building at Settlement Lane to residents at 10 Worth Place is
significant and requires us to close our blinds to avoid being blinded
by the reflection. Similarly, the effect of illuminated signage on
surrounding residents at 10 Worth Place and 15-17 Honeysuckle Drive
should also be taken into consideration. Illuminated signage should be
restricted to street level and illumination kept at appropriate levels
so that neighbouring bedrooms aren't impacted at night.

As an owner occupier of an apartment in an adjacent residential property
at 10 Worth Place, I provide the following comments in response to the
proposed plans for the Honeysuckle UoN campus.

1. Concerns for safety of the public and students

The Honeysuckle area already has issues with anti-social behaviour at
night, particularly on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday
nights. I see/hear public violent behaviour on a weekly basis, with
fairly regular incidences of damage to property along Honeysuckle
Drive in addition to drug and alcohol induced fights.
I have concerns that adding 400 resident students into the area will
see some of those students become victims to violent behaviour, and
some indeed adding to it.
I would recommend that the University have an onsite security
presence, with patrols around the campus at night time. CCTV around
the campus would also be useful to minimise anti-social behaviour.
I also have concerns about the safety of students walking to and from
the Light Rail Stops. There would need to be extra measures taken to
ensure the walk to the Honeysuckle Light Rail Stop (behind existing
buildings along the old rail corridor) is safe for students to walk to
and from. Extra lighting and CCTV outside of the campus boundary may
need to be worked on with Newcastle City Council. UoN would obviously
have a duty of care to students and staff at the campus to be able to
access public transport in a safe manner.
A pedestrian island may need to be installed on Worth Place at the
point of your proposed `connection to open space' on the western side
of the campus. The current road does not allow crossing in a safe
manner except at Hunter Street, which would not be practical for use
of pedestrians exiting the campus onto Worth Place to walk to the
Honeysuckle Light Rail Stop.

2. 0m setback on Honeysuckle Drive

Honeysuckle Drive provides a view corridor for residential and
commercial buildings to have an ongoing view to the water and Nobby's
headland. Plans for a 0m setback will eliminate this view for some
residents at 10 Worth Place, which would adversely affect their
property values.
Some extra space alongside the existing footpath along Honeysuckle
Drive would be advisable as there would be an increased volume of
pedestrian activity, and the existing footpath is of a minimal width
at some points, for the existing amount of pedestrians at times.

3. Height to exceed Newcastle Local Environmental Plan 2012

I feel it is important to adhere to the LEP controls in place and
adjust the existing UoN campus plans to do so. To exceed the height
limits is to the detriment of local residents and owners. I appreciate
that the design has implemented a setback for over the 6th storey of
the buildings on Honeysuckle Drive, but this would still affect the
views unfairly. I bought my apartment knowing what the LEP controls
were for adjacent properties - to have no regard for these controls
feels like the developer has little regard for the surrounding
residents / owners.
I strongly oppose exceeding the LEP building height controls.

4. Insufficient parking provisioned

There are several references in the masterplan to there being
sufficient public parking in the area. This is blatantly false. The
Honeysuckle area does not have sufficient public parking. I reside in
the Honeysuckle area and can attest that there are no vacant spaces
most days in this area, and this is before the 188 space Wright Lane
carpark is developed in the UoN campus. Businesses in the Honeysuckle
area are closing due to lack of parking for their customers. It is
common knowledge to any person who lives in, works in, or visits the
Honeysuckle area. Adding to this issue without any countermeasures
being implemented shows what I (and many others) would regard as
contempt.
With an estimated 6500 students at end of the planned campus, there
really needs to be some parking included in the plan. I would
recommend that the campus should plan to have at a minimum the amount
of spaces being removed (188). This could easily be achieved with an
underground carpark, and costs could be offset by charging for
parking. (Spaces in our building at 10 Worth Place are rented at $200
per month.)
Again, by not even including a realistic amount of parking spaces, the
developer shows no regard for local businesses or the future students,
staff, and residents of this proposed campus.

5. Plans for sports facilities on existing Wright Lane carpark in
Stage 1

As per previous point, parking in the local area is at a very high
demand and in limited supply. I would recommend that in Stage 1 that
as much of the existing Wright Lane carpark remains open, instead of
the planned sports facilities (what looks to be basketball courts are
pictured on page 87 of Appendix A).

see attached

Thank you for following up with Port Authority regarding SSD 9262.

Although we consider the issues that we raised in our response to the
SEARs request to be generally important for all new developments along
the Hunter River in Newcastle, particularly residential and other
sensitive use developments, the location of the site for the concept
planning approval request on the south side of Honeysuckle Drive means
that future development at this site would be less exposed to
operational port noise than developments fronting the Hunter River.
Therefore it is less of a priority for Port Authority to advocate for
noise assessments to consider the operational port and for siting and
design of proposed developments to consider minimising noise impacts
on future residential occupants from existing port noise and thereby
minimising potential impacts on port operations as a result of noise
complaints from future residents.

Response to SSD

Please refer to previously provided correspondence and new correspondence for Stage 1A

The applicants response to submissions has failed to adequately address the severe lack of parking within the development. The development will remove two large car parks at the rear of the site when construction commences and those car parks are currently fully utilized by workers and visitors in Honeysuckle during the week and on weekends. In addition to removing this existing valuable public parking, the development has virtually no parking despite being a major development which will be utilized by thousands of students and academic staff, including student residents within the proposed student accommodation building. A residential tower would never be approved with zero parking for residents, so the student accommodation tower should not be approved with zero parking for residents. The severe lack of parking in the immediate area has resulted in a large number of businesses in Honeysuckle closing down as visitors have no where to park and no longer visit the area.

The height of the student accommodation building significantly exceeds the LEP and the height is inappropriate for the site. It will impact the view corridor from Hunter St and impact property values.

I support this project.

As an owner of a residential unit at 489 Hunter St Worth Place Apartments (looking in a Northerly direction at the development site), I object to the proposal in its current form for the following reasons.
Unfortunately available drawings and documentation on the Major Projects Planning web site and at Newcastle City Council was poor regarding the Honeysuckle City Campus Concept Plan Proposal.

I am assuming the proposal does not exceed maximum building heights on any of the buildings and is compliant with the Newcastle Local Environment Plan (NLEP) 2012. Being a key site close to Newcastle Harbour waterfront, it is imperative that the height limits in the NLEP are adhered to as the visual impact on neighbouring properties.

I am hoping that consideration for ample car parking onsite is being incorporated in the Honeysuckle City Campus Concept Plan as parking around the area is limited now.

See attached submission

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached