Pemulwuy Student Accommodation

I object to this massive overdevelopment in Redfern/Darlington. The proposed 24 Storeys will destroy our home, Darlington, as well as destroying our amenity.

I have lived here for 39 years & see no advantage to anyone except Sydney Uni & developers. Such a gross overbuilding for such a minimal, non return for the Aboriginal & other local communities.

The attempt at a community meeting was taken over by a few individuals. There has not been an attempt to reconvene a new meeting on these matters.

6 Stories is more than enough & I urge the rejection of this underhand proposal.

Stephen Mulley

I object to this massive overdevelopment in Redfern/Darlington. The proposed 24 Storeys will destroy our home, Darlington, as well as destroying our amenity.

I have lived here for 39 years & see no advantage to anyone except Sydney Uni & developers. Such a gross overbuilding for such a minimal, non return for the Aboriginal & other local communities.

The attempt at a community meeting was taken over by a few individuals. There has not been an attempt to reconvene a new meeting on these matters.

6 Stories is more than enough & I urge the rejection of this underhand proposal.

Maria Mulley

RE: SSD 8135 Pemulwuy Project Redfern - New Student Accommodation Building

I write in support of the proposal for the student housing building proposed to precinct 3 of the Pemulwuy Project proposed by the Aboriginal Housing Company (AHC).

I have been spokesperson of the local community group REDWatch that has supported Aboriginal Housing on the Block since it was set up in 2004. I have also sat on the Redfern Waterloo Authority's Built Environment Ministerial Advisory Committee and during the fight over planning controls for the block was part of the AHC's Pemulwuy Visioning Taskforce.

For years, I have been involved in trying to see Aboriginal Affordable Housing rebuilt on The Block and watched the AHC's attempts to try to gain funding for the project after the NSW Government withdrew funding when they could not control the redevelopment. In the absence of government, funding to build the housing I understand the AHC has no other alternative than to leverage their landholding adjacent to the Block alongside the railway line to fund the affordable housing component.

Affordable Housing is not market housing and hence its construction is not commercially fundable under the current investment settings. This is particularly so when the land is iconic, like Redfern's Block, and hence subject to sovereign risk for any commercial lender.

Affordable housing in the city of Sydney area is built with contribution funds from developer contributions from Pyrmont Ultimo and Green Square. In the absence of external funding Aboriginal organisations have to find ways to use their land assets to sustainably self-fund socially beneficial projects like Affordable Housing.

I note contrary to the Q&A produced by the DPE that the AHC application was to increase the approved 6-storey building to 16 storeys. The DPE Q&A says that the application from the AHC was for a 24-storey building - this is not correct. This mistake has led some people to misunderstand what the AHC requested and how it became the 24-storey project on exhibition.

The AHC requested a height and floor space roughly in line with the zoning on the other side of the railway line. This approach is in line with current government thinking that density should be placed in close proximity to railway stations like Redfern. UrbanGrowth are proposing significant uplift on the planning controls at North Eveleigh to allow up to 20 storeys a much greater distance by foot from Macdonaldtown station with access to just a single platform. UrbanGrowth have argued that placing such buildings along the railway line can lessen the impact of such large buildings as is seen in the shadow diagrams for this development, which fall predominantly across the railway line in mid-winter.

It is important to understand the context within which the planning controls for both sides of the railway line were set. The Redfern Waterloo Authority (RWA) removed both areas from Council control because the state government considered them state significant. This removed this area from the Darlington conservation area and determined that the area within which the Pemulwuy project was situated would be treated differently to the surrounding area.

While the eastern side was provided 18-storey and 7:1 floor space the controls on the Block were used by the RWA to try to prevent the AHC's Pemulwuy project - residential floor-space was reduced and commercial floor space increased on land owned by a dedicated housing company. The Government were prepared to fund the project if they controlled the land rather than the AHC. The AHC's rejection of the government's proposal to sign over control The Block for a period saw the government no longer support Aboriginal Housing on The Block. The AHC and the bulk of the Redfern Aboriginal community opposed the transfer of the Block - it was one of the few times I have seen all the key organisations and community leaders in the same room. This struggle between the then Minister for Redfern/Waterloo, Frank Sartor, and the AHC has been well documented on the website of community group REDWatch and in various articles.

Because of this battle over The Block, there is good reason to argue that the zoning produced for the AHC's land by the Minister and the RWA discriminated against the AHC. As the UrbanGrowth, review of North Eveleigh has shown it is also likely a less politicised and more recent rezoning process would allow for much higher zonings on the western side of the railway line in proximity to Redfern Station. It is hence not unreasonable that the AHC should request a variation for that part of the site where that height will have least impact.

Based on this argument the AHC should be able to gain an uplift across the entirety of their site. On that basis, concentrating that potential uplift on the part of the site where it will have least impact should be seen as a reasonable proposal.

I am of the view that the AHC's initial proposal for similar controls to the Gibbons Regent Streets belt is a reasonable request. Do I like the 18 storey buildings on either side? Not really, but if a developer can build them on the eastern side then I see no reason why an aboriginal not for profit developer should not be able to build a similar density on the other side of the railway line.

As the increased height, above the height controls on the eastern side of the lines, has come from the design excellence process I think this has to be dealt with in a different way to how it would be dealt with had that been the initial application. The use of buildings onto Eveleigh Street as a podium improves the presentation and ascetics of the revised proposal and this should be assessed based on the design process set by DPE and the Government Architect.

While the AHC is a not for profit Aboriginal housing provider it is important that this development be assessed purely on its merits. DPE has been undertaking work with Land councils about how they can best leverage their land assets for their communities' advantage. I am aware from one Sydney University forum at which DPE presented, that Aboriginal development projects often attract a higher number of objections than similar non-Aboriginal developments.

This application is even more complex as it is an application for student housing which aims to fund an Aboriginal Affordable Housing project. If this proposal falls over then it puts at risk the Aboriginal housing. There are some within the community who would prefer the Pemulwuy Project not to go ahead and for The Block to remain vacant and stopping this project is potentially a way of killing off the Pemulwuy Project.

It is important to also understand that the Redfern Aboriginal Community is in fact a number of communities with a range of views and historical connections and animosities to organisations, clans, families and individuals.

These differences also come into play in the engagement and exhibition phases of this development. It should already be apparent from the pre-submission consultation report that the AHC has some very vocal Aboriginal opponents within the community. The pre-submission report makes it clear that at the community meeting, which needed to be shut down, the AHC did not even get as far as presenting the architects report on what was proposed before presenters were shouted down and the meeting ended. Much of this opposition seems aimed at the AHC over historical differences and seems to have little to do with the actual details of Pemulwuy project.

As some of the issues above will come into play in submissions, it is important that the Department deal with the application on its planning merits and not on the level of the noise.

While it would be nice if there was funding that would allow for the entirety of the project to be Aboriginal, sufficient funding has not been found, so it becomes necessary to fund the affordable project with a commercial student housing arrangement. This stepping away from a handout and be controlled mentality should be welcomed. As a consequence Aboriginal organisations need to look to mainstream commercial options to fund projects and leveraging their land to be able to fund projects is one way of doing this - even if it might not suit the purists.

The Block has stood vacant for too long already when it could have been providing affordable housing for Aboriginal people. I support the student-housing proposal for Precinct 3 because student housing is needed for education institutions in the area and because it will fund the delivery of the much-needed affordable housing component of the Pemulwuy Project in Redfern. In addition, I support the project because it is in line with high-rise developments around railway stations and it is consistent with planning controls on the eastern side of the railway line.

I write to express my concern about the Pemulwuy Project development as a long term Redfern resident.
This proposal has grown in size by more than three times the previous approval. It is now significantly higher than any other site in the area and will even dwarf the buildings at Lawson Square.
This proposal is completely out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood which is characterised by terrace houses and low scale apartment buildings. I am concerned that this will have numerous negative impacts on my local community.
I am very concerned about the shadow this huge building will cast on the Redfern community. How far will the shadow fall?
I am also concerned about the impact on the privacy of current Caroline St residents who will be overlooked by hundreds of residents. Has this been considered?
It is concerning that no extra outdoor or parking space will be provided for the hundreds more residents that will be living in the area. Additional traffic into the area could be catastrophic. Has this impact been assessed?
is it true accurate that the Block has been exempt from Sydney City Council's LEP? If this is accurate why is this?
I am also concerned about the visual impact on the environment- surely this type of building is more suited to the CBD and not a residential community?
Aboriginal Housing in Redfern is a long overdue social justice issue that needs to be addressed however I believe that this monstrosity of a building does not meet the needs of the Aboriginal community effectively and I object to it being built.

a skyscraper on Eveleigh Street, which is historical and culturally significant land, is disrespectful.

Objection

The land has been held by the Aboriginal Housing Company (AHC) for more than 40 years. It was given for Aboriginal housing. Nothing has been built.

It was bad enough that approval was given for a mixed-use development several years ago, but having Deicorp Ltd apply for a 24 storey student accommodation block on Precinct 33 is a very disturbing development.

What guarantee is there that if the student accommodation does not generate sufficient income, the building will become another unit building? We are concerned that the whole site will be used for units.

The land was given for a specific purpose and the AHC could not fulfil it, the site should have reverted to government ownership and been used for Aboriginal housing.

We request that the planning minister holds a public hearing to examine the whole project and its funding.

If our state government can afford to spend billions on unnecessary stadiums and motorways, it can fund Aboriginal housing on the Block.

The Aboriginal Housing Company has given the student accommodation company a 99 year lease. This is the same as selling it. This is not consistent with the federal government's intention when granting the land for Aboriginal housing.

Barbara and George Carrard

I wish to strongly object to the proposed changes to the student accomodation building in the Pemulwuy Development.

- A height of 24 storeys is simply ridiculous and completely out of keeping with the surrounding area.
- The building has serious aesthetic issues (ie. it is an eyesore)
- Overshadowing issues - nearby terrace housing was built 100 years ago without regard to light amenity, and the overshadowing the 24 storey building will cause will result in loss of light to already dark properties. The student tower will seriously overshadow the affordable housing precinct of Pemulwuy.
- Density issues, overcrowding
- Loss of rental income for nearby properties - with more than 500 extra rooms for students, rental income in Redfern/Darlington are will be seriously affected
- Traffic and parking issues - many of the extra students will attempt to park in nearby streets causing problems for residents in finding parking, which is already difficult
- Not enough open space to comfortably accomodate this huge influx of students. The liveability of the student building will be seriously compromised by the huge numbers. The building will be like a tall and narrow rat warren.

Local residents are mainly unaware of the proposed changes, as people have been confused by the fact that the development has already received approval in a different form.
I feel that these new changes have not gone through an adequate community consultation process.

I support the redevelopment of the Pemulwuy project, However
I am concerned about the following issues relating to the proposed increased height for the Student housing.
That the increased height and density exceeds what is thought to be beneficial for residents in the buildings, or for any potential environmental impact (with regard to carbon emissions, air quality, etc).
That the increased in height will lead to reduced solar access and decreased privacy for surrounding residents.
The design is in conflict with the heritage nature of the surrounding area which is largely modest two and three storey terrace housing.
That increasing the number of residents will increase pedestrian and vehicular traffic, resulting in reduced safety due to the already congested narrow footpaths and roadways.

There are to many students in the area already. This will cause our area to be a low rental area. Urban nest on Cleveland street has plenty of students causing enough issues.

I object to the amount of student living.

I have grave concerns about the proposed Pemulwuy Project in Eveliegh St Redfern.
The proposed building is significantly higher than other sites in the area and is completely out of character with the historic and urban nature of this part of Redfern.
The building will cause significant shadowing issues for the surrounding neighbourhood. This will not only affect the community centres and their public space but also impact on the use of solar energy for surrounding buildings.
The proposed population density will also have implications for traffic flow.
The building is also too large for the site and has entirely too little provision for open space.
The project does not meet the standards of community living and certainly does not meet the requirements of Aboriginal Community living.
The original and continuing objective of this site has been for quality and ongoing affordable housing for Aboriginal Peoples and as a member of the Aboriginal Community I am disgusted at the lack of initiative to supply this objective in the current plans.
Family living for Aboriginal families that are larger and need to cater for extended family need to be factored.
There is no guarantee that Aboriginal Peoples will not be allocated the area near the services such as the garbage bin storage point that so often happens in such developments.
Original plans catered for families, single occupants, cultural spaces, open spaces and Elders' areas.
What we appear to have is at best Aboriginal housing that may supply a cheap, exploited and transient supply of labour to the area rather than a dynamic, valuable, viable and ongoing community.
A 99 year lease supposes that the building will be viable in this form for that period and if not, that Aboriginal People will be dislocated in the future.
It is also contingent on the ready supply of overseas students to the university and the universities acknowledge that this source will change in the near future as Asian countries gain world standard accreditation. The assumption then that could be made by any right thinking person is that the building may suffer the same fate as nearby highrise tenement/apartments that have been classed as urban slums requiring clearance.
The plan is ill conceived, is not supported by the Aboriginal Community and will damage both that community and the wider Redfern community.
It is not culturally nor socially based.
I object outright the proposed development.

Re. SSD 16_8135
Modification to Precinct 3 Pemulwuy Development

Dear Sir/ Madam,
I am writing to object to the modication to the D.A for the student accommodation proposed as part of the Pemulwuy project in the Eveleigh st district.

I object to the massive increase in scale now proposed for this development. The change from a medium density, mid-rise building to a towering 24 storey block is totally out of character with the heritage buildings in this residential area, and the rest of the buildings planned for the redevelopment of The Block. This change to the design and height fails to integrate harmoniously within the streetscape, due to its commercial scale. It will dominate and overshadow the area.

The proposed change to the height will also reduce the amenity of the area by placing undue pressure on existing infrastructure with such a large increase in population adding noise, cars and congestion to roads, footpaths, small pocket parks, on-street parking and an already overcrowded Redfern station which can barely handle the number of commuters during peak hours.

This modification should also be considered in relation to other new residential developments planned in the area, such as the large towers planned for the North Eveleigh former railway site, and the new high rise buildings on the east sid of the station, which all have a cumulative effect. All this overdevelopment, along with unsympathetic bland modern designs will impact negatively on existing residents, and the heritage values of the area. There is also the issue of overshadowing, loss of privacy, and social problems that can come with high rise living.

If the project is to best serve the local Indigenous population then providing quality of life in terms of sustainable, desirable quality accommodation with reasonable room sizes, good facilities and open green space is more appropriate than tiny concrete bedsits which alienate students.

I hope you will consider some of the issues raised when considering this proposal.

Dear Sir/Madame,
I oppose the amended submission for the Pemulway student accommodation on the following grounds;
1. The increase in student numbers will cause a bottleneck of people and cars in the area. Parking facilities and roads are not sufficient.
2. Such a high rise does not suit the current neighbourhood that is two - 4 levels hight.
3. Being on the east side of the community, valuable sunlight would be blocked out to a significant proportion of the neighbourhood.
4. The amendment takes away the community centre which was to be a gate way for the local indigenous people to meet with new comers to the area and have a local voice. I believe this local indigenous voice is essential and failing to provide an opportunity for this continued voice, is both a great injustice to the local community as well as a significant loss to the Australian people, students and visiting students.

Best wishes,
Jann Mehmet

This is not an inspired submission about the lack of architectural merit of the project, as I know others are writing about that. This submission is from a long-term resident about what is going to happen.

Trainwreck

 The Pemulwuy Project is not going to be a heart-warming success story. It does not require detailed knowledge of AHC management, its contractual relationships, the financial modelling or the likely interactions between low-income and interstate aborigines with young foreign students to know that this project will fail within 5 - 10 years.

 There are also too many working parts and interests, and not enough common sense and experience for the project to work.

 The only question is how big stuff-up will the NSW Government allow.

Planning laws. What are they good for? Absolutely nothing

 I was not comfortable with the 3 storeys proposed by the Redfern-Waterloo Authority, as it was completely out of context with the area.

 I opposed the 6 storeys in the initial concept plan as an eye saw that created significant overshadowing of the open space.

 The proposed increase from 6 storeys to 24 storeys is completely out of context for the area and extraordinarily optimistic. It suggests that the developer knows something that:
o the Redfern community does not; and
o there was never an intention to limit the project to 6 storeys.

 The four-fold increase in floors adds nothing to the project, creates significant overshadowing, crowding and traffic congestion issues, and is simply an unashamed attempt to increase revenue.

 The project size and design ignores the LEP and is a deliberate affront to the heritage-listed area.

 The proposed increase is universally derided by local residents.

Good luck!

I oppose the concept plan and in particular the proposed increase from 6 storeys to 24 storeys as:
- it will create significant overshadowing of Caroline and Eveleigh Streets;
- it will create significant overcrowding and traffic congestion; and
it is completely out of context with the height and nature of the heritage area.

Approximately 20 years ago I chose Redfern for my forever home and as a proud resident I plan to enjoy the next 20 years here. Almost all rooms of my property have floor to ceiling windows overlooking the the Block and enjoy the balcony living space my well planned building provides. Therefore I am a major stakeholder in any plans to effectively damage my immediate physical environment and social community. I have always believed the any future improvements to this site would be done with respect to the land and its neighbours .

Rather than repeat the obvious objections of the community to this latest scheme, I wish to extend a personal invitation to the appropriate people to visit my home as part of a the necessary due diligence to required to better understand the site in question and how it sits within our environment. This will help them to understand the unsuitability of this new proposal and its impost on immediate neighbours. I

Briefly, some the most serious concerns I have received from other residents, friends and visitors around this proposal relate to

1. Financially unviable. The Provision for Compensation cost payable to homeowners (due to Loss of Amenity etc) would make the building affordable and delay any plans for a suitable alternative.

2. Low cost student housing devalues neighbouring properties.
In an era of million dollar mortgages, any negative impact on home values would need to be fully compensated to avoid loss of community members, bankruptcies etc. and is inconsistent with the beautification of Redfern we have all been working towards for a long time. Others are not seeking compensation , just the normal enjoyment of their properties.

3. The decline in race relations in our community due to many viewing this as an expression of lack of respect, even hostility and contempt by the entire indigenous population for its neighbours and the wider Redfern community.

4. The symbolic physical appearance of a barricade or fortress like structure to separate The Block from the wider community. This is not a good look and sends a poor message to visitors to Sydney.

5. The exploitation of a small slither of land to support an Asian style skyscraper in a brazen attempt to raise money.....not consistent with indigenous values and principles.

6. The main purpose of this building is housing for students (mainly foreign) who have no connection with this land, have little interest in its history or indigenous Australia. Students are temporary, transient residents who are are here to attend university and they have no long term interest in or contribute anything to my social enjoyment . As a former student, I now do not wish to be to live next door to what is essentially a university hall of residence and the associated noise, high traffic, drugs and general way of life these Gen Whatevers regard as fair and reasonable! I look forward to a continuation of the social enjoyment my community gives me and an influx of foreign students in plaque proportions does not fit within my idea of a reasonable lifestyle for a middle aged Australian wishing to continue life in perhaps Sydney's most iconic Australian suburb.

7. Australian taxpayers who have contributed to vasts amount of money towards the improvement of Redfern and building something we can all be proud of. This money must be spent wisely with respect to the land and unite the community and should not seek to damage neighbours lives and livelihoods.

8. Its ironic this site includes the land on which former open air indigenous church services were held.......where have the concept of "Love thy Neighbour " gone?

I have concern about the scale and design of the development compared with the previous proposal, especially overshadowing and overlooking, and a dominating presence on the skyline compared to the previous proposal which was more in scale with the surrounding heritage area.

As a resident of Darlington, I strongly object to this proposal. I experience what it is like to live across the road from student accommodation and it fundamentally changes the nature and character of a residential area. While I understand and acknowledge we need student accommodation, our area is already flooded with it and the thought of an additional 24 stories in such a small area is confounding. The site where it is proposed is also historical and should be allocated first and foremost for Aboriginal housing. The area has a charm for being so close to the city while still maintaining some residential character and a sense of community. Putting in a 24 story building in an area where the height restrictions have managed to be maintained will radically change the area and not for the better - more noise, traffic, loss of sun, space, loss of sense of community, loss of Aboriginal history - once these are gone, they don't come back. What has happened in Central Park should be a lesson - it is tomorrow's wind tunnel. I have recently paid a very high cost to own a property in the area, as have others, on the basis of the character of the area as much as anything and now to have a proposal which will devalue it and change it so radically is beyond disappointing. As a resident, tax payer, rate payer and voter, I strongly object to this development

SSD 8135 Pemulwuy Project Redfern
I object to this project, it will create a great deal of foot and car traffic in the vicinity, as well as further crowd the already overcrowded trains.

I do not agree with the size of this monstrosity. It will cause way too much congestion to the streets of Redfern.

Thank you for referring the above proposal to the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) for consideration.

After reviewing the relevant documents, OEH's Greater Sydney Planning Team has concluded that the matter does not contain biodiversity, natural hazards or Aboriginal cultural heritage issues that require a formal OEH response. We have no further need to be involved in the assessment of this project.

Please note that the Heritage Division in the Office of Environment and Heritage may wish to provide separate comments. The Heritage Division can be contacted at [email protected].