Skip to main content
Back to Main Project

Part3A Modifications

Determination

Mod 2 - Design Changes

City of Sydney

Current Status: Determination

Attachments & Resources

Application (46)

Submissions (1)

Response to Submissions (22)

Recommendation (2)

Determination (3)

Submissions

Filters
Showing 1 - 20 of 47 submissions
Name Withheld
Object
Newtown , New South Wales
Message
To Whom It May Concern,

I am a parent of a child attending Darlington Public School as well as a local resident. I object to this proposal for two key reasons:

1) The exhaust stack for the underground carpark has been designed to output toxic fumes just 9 metres from the kindergarten classrooms. This is an obvious health concern for our children. The exhaust stack should be relocated further from the school, and I imagine at a higher location so emissions can more readily disperse far above head height.

2) Parents and teachers at our school have been in "community consultations" with the university for many years now in relation to this project. However many of the assurances that the university made, the measures they agreed to take to minimise impact on the school, are not being carried out. The current Project Manager uses "I wasn't involved back then" as an excuse to ignore our concerns that these measures are not being put in place.

These issues relate to the health, safety, and wellbeing of children being educated at the school next to the building works. While we understand that there will always be a certain amount of inconvenience when building works are taking place, there are measures and strategies that can significantly minimise the impact. We have discussed these measures with the university, they agreed to them, yet they are not delivering on them.

Key issues relate to noise, air quality, dust, car park spaces, ongoing monitoring of potentially contaminated soil, and traffic.

No further works or modifications should be agreed to until the university has met their prior responsibilities to safeguard our school.

Regards,

L
katharine vanderwal
Object
sydney , New South Wales
Message
The architect & university have designed the exhaust stack of the carpark to output fumes just 9 meters from the kindergarten classes - this is outrageous and unnecessary.
The university has not been meeting the agreements it made during community consultations with the school to minimise noise and dust impact on the school. The guys with hoses are only sometimes there, the mounds of dirt are only partially covered, there is a massive amount of dust coming out of the IXL garage at 9am every morning when I pass. Both my children say it is noisy during the day. However I am most concerned about the health aspects - my daughter's asthma has markedly worsened since building started - she has gone from seasonal asthma to needing daily doses of flixotide and ventolin several times a week.
Rosie Wagstaff
Object
, New South Wales
Message
Application No: MP07_0158 MOD 2
Abercrombie Street Precinct University of Sydney



I object to these modifications for the following reasons:-
1. Deletion of conditions B9, D1 and G1 related to ESD green star rating
I object to the conditions B9, D1 and G1 related to green star being deleted in the proposed modification. These conditions specifically refer to the building achieving a minimum 5 star green star rating (4 star = Best Practice, 5 star = Australian Excellence, 6 star = World Leader).

The condition states:

Ecologically Sustainable Development
B9. The project shall identify all reasonable and feasible design, operational and construction measures required to target a minimum 5 star green star rating. Details are to be clearly identified in relevant construction plans and construction management plans

Abandoning the green star standard would be a breach of the University's own Environmental Policy which states in part:-

"1. Policy Statement
The University of Sydney is committed to environmental best practice, and to the continual improvement of its environmental performance, recognising its obligations both locally and globally.
The University aims to lead in defining best environmental practice, and will set its own demanding standards where none exist."

and

 
"2.4 The University Estate
The University is committed to sustainable design principles in land-use, transportation, landscape and building planning and construction.
The University aims to minimise adverse environmental impacts of University buildings, landscaping and developments over the whole of their lifespan."

At a recent community information session on 5 September 2013, the Project Director from John Holland said that these conditions should be deleted because the University will not be able to afford the ongoing costs of maintaining the building if they have to meet these conditions. This would be a very unsatisfactory reason for the University to abandon its own key principles "in defining best environmental practice".
The University has committed to building this massive complex and should therefore commit to the conditions that have previously been approved by the Department of Planning in regard to the minimum 5 star green star rating. If the University cannot commit to a minimum 5 star green star rating then perhaps they should scale down the building to a more appropriate size with less costly ongoing maintenance in order to achieve a minimum 5 star green star rating.
I do not believe these conditions should be deleted or watered down in any way. The University has described the proposed new Business School as a "world class facility". The onus should therefore be on the University to set world class standards in regard to environmental sustainability with this new building.

2. Modifications to Level 4, increasing building height and bulk
I strongly object to the proposed change which indicates the addition of a dining area on level 4 in the C pod of the K-shaped building directly opposite residential houses on Abercrombie Street. There was absolutely no built structure or rooms of any kind at all on this level on the plan contained in the Preferred Project Report approved by the Department of Planning in November 2012. The addition of the dining area increases the height and bulk of the building along Abercrombie Street. Residents have always objected to the height and the bulk of the building and, after consultations with the University, accepted what was approved by the Department of Planning.

I also object to the increase in the floor area in the B pod on level 4. Again, this will increase the height and bulk of the building.

I believe that it is unfair and unreasonable of the University now to attempt to increase the size of the building with these modifications. The University should not be allowed to increase the height and the bulk of the building from what has originally been approved by the Department, especially where the building is directly facing residential homes.

I object to the changes on level 4 because it will also mean an increase in the number of people using these areas and therefore an increase in noise affecting residents living close to them.

3. Re-orientation of pods A and B fronting Codrington Street
I am concerned about the "re-orientation of pods A and B fronting Codrington Street". It appears that the angle of the 2 pods is proposed to be much more acute and therefore could possibly have a negative effect on the health of the large Sydney Blue Gum tree which stands between them. The Approval conditions stipulated that this great tree should be retained. The City Of Sydney Council battled along with the community to have this tree preserved and it would be devastating if the tree were now to be damaged in the construction of the new building.

4. Amended landscape and public domain design
The Landscape Design Statement attached to the Modification Application refers to the planting of "locally endemic Blue Gum trees" in Blue Gum Park on the corner of Abercrombie and Codrington Streets. I welcome the planting of many trees in and around the whole Abercrombie Precinct Development (APD) site to replace those cut down to make way for the construction of the APD.

5. Consolidation and centralisation of rooftop plant
I object to the modification which refers to the "consolidation and centralisation of rooftop plant" if this means that increased noise will be generated by the building. Plant equipment will be running 24 hours per day, seven days a week and should be located as far as possible from residential buildings and surrounded by noise attenuation material.


6. Proposed location of café
I object to the proposed location of the cafe in the APD being on the ground level of the B pod of the K-shaped building and facing into Abercrombie Street. It would bring with it increased noise, a large increase in the number of pedestrians on Abercrombie Street, and would generate an excessive amount of rubbish. It would also take trade away from local businesses along Abercrombie Street, many of which are run by local families who will suffer financially if the café is located on Abercrombie Street.

The cafe should be internal to the APD and well away from Abercrombie Street or at least contained within the A pod which points towards Codrington Street and the Sports Centre.
I object to the cafe operating outside of normal business hours. It is unfair of the University to propose to generate further unnecessary noise in the neighbourhood after business hours.

7. Proposed position of open terraces
I object to all open terraces on the B and C pods in the APD which are oriented towards residents' houses on Abercrombie Street. They would adversely affect the amenity of local residents through a large increase in noise caused by people using the terraces. In addition these terraces would impinge on the privacy of those residents living in close proximity. The terraces should be moved to the side of the building facing the existing Economics and Business Building and restricted to use in business hours only.

The University, where possible, should keep its noise within the confines of the University grounds, which is consistent with the University's own Environmental Policy.

As an affected local resident, I hope that the Department will take the objections I have raised into consideration when making its decision on this application.

Yours faithfully
rosie wagstaff
Name Withheld
Object
Darlington , New South Wales
Message
I am concerned regarding the environmental impacts upon children at Darlington Public School (2 of which are my own, in classrooms with windows facing the subject site) during the construction phase of the project. The works are currently having a negative impact on learning outcomes of the children. This negative impact will become worse as warmer weather approaches, unless adequate measures are undertaken to cool and ventilate in order to mitigate noise disturbance.

Please ensure that future approval requires these measures to be undertaken.

Please ensure that the existing approval conditions are met.

Further potential health impacts due to wind blown contaminated dust during the demolition phases of the project are unknown. Construction dust, from current works is evident within the school.
Name Withheld
Object
Turrella , New South Wales
Message
MP 07_0158 MOD 2 - Abercrombie Street Precinct
To Whom It May Concern
I am writing as a parent of a child that attends Darlington Public School to object to the
proposed development by the University of Sydney, MP 07_0158 MOD 2 - Abercrombie
Street Precinct, Syd Uni. The school is directly adjacent to the western border of the project.
I have major concerns that relate to the impact of the development on Darlington Public
School. Significant issues were raised in earlier consultation in relation to the noise impacts
of the project's demolition and construction phase on the Darlington Public School.
The University has failed to consider the potential impacts of the construction's noise, dust
and vibration on the operation of the school and the safety and wellbeing of the children.
In the period following the Planning Assessment Committee determination, consultation with
Darlington Public School community did not occur until 6 August 2013, which was after work
on the site had started.
Noise, dust and contaminant levels have already been shown to be above the limits set for
the development through the approval process. The standards that the development is
required to meet, prior to and during construction, are not adequate for a development
located beside a primary school. Higher standards need to be set to ensure the children
are protected from the impact of noise, dust and contaminants, as they will be in
close proximity to the development over a long period of time.
Children aged between 3 years old to 12 years old will be subject to high levels of dust,
contaminants and noise for long days - potentially from 8.30 am to 6 pm - for a period in
excess of 18 months (Business School) and longer with a subsequent development on site
(Student accommodation).
The School faces the development site, it is designed with louvre windows to capture air and
light, windows and doors are not allowed to be closed throughout the year - this is because
classrooms need ventilation from open windows and doors to stop classrooms from getting
too hot and in winter due to the un-flued gas heaters - the windows and doors need to be
open to prevent dangerous fumes building up.
At the very minimum air conditioning and glazing is required to be installed in
classrooms to mitigate the impact of construction on the operation of the school and
safety of the children.
The monitoring of noise and dust is inadequate, for example it is already showing high levels
of lead dust, but it does not record the accumulated lead dust that is being dumped on the
playground and school desks over a period of time. Complaints were raised during the last
DA process about the way the baseline for the noise monitoring was set for the street
outside the school and not on the school grounds (on the development side). The noise
monitoring cannot accurately measure the impact on the School. An independent
assessment needs to determine the appropriate standards and monitoring for this
development being done this close to this School.
Page 2 of 2
The lack of consideration for the health of the school children is demonstrated in the
University locating the car park exhaust and ventilation system within 9 metres of the
kindergarten classroom and playground. The car park exhaust and ventilation system
needs to be moved as far away from the children as possible - this is an unacceptable
risk for small children and designed to minimise any impact on them.
Darlington School playground contains asbestos and this has been covered and managed
by the Department with asphalt and woodchips. The excavation of the driveway will cut past
this area within 2 metres. The excavation and work adjacent to the playground needs to
be done during school holidays and have a specific management plan for that area
that manages the asbestos risk during the excavation and any subsequent clean-up
to ensure the safety of the children.
The following five conditions need to be met before the development can continue:
1. Higher standards need to be set to ensure the children are protected from the
impact of noise, dust and contaminants, as they will be in close proximity to
the development over a long period of time.
2. At the very minimum, air conditioning and glazing is required to be installed in
classrooms to mitigate the impact of construction on the operation of the
school and safety of the children.
3. An independent assessment needs to determine the appropriate standards and
monitoring for this development being done this close to this School.
4. The car park exhaust and ventilation system needs to be moved as far away
from the children as possible and designed to minimise any impact on them.
5. The excavation and work adjacent to the playground needs to be done during
school holidays and have a specific management plan for that area that
manages the asbestos risk during the excavation and any subsequent clean-up
to ensure the safety of the children.
Tim Ayres
Object
Darlington , New South Wales
Message
I am writing as a parent at Darlington public primary school. And as a local resident.

I am concerned about a number of the changes in the document but most particularly the relocation of the filters to the car park to a place very close to the year 6 and kindergarten classrooms. It is unacceptable to place children at risk of exposure to the toxic fumes of cars in a car park of this capacity. This should be moved away from school children as a matter of priority.

I have concerns as to the conduct of the university in the present demolition work and the health risks posed to children who are unable to escape the dust. Unacceptable levels of dust have been streaming into my children's classrooms. The response of the university has not responded adequately to genuinely-held parent concerns about the health of the children (aged from from 4-12) who spend between 6 and 10 hours in the school each day (including OOSH Care). The University has made no move to assist the school to seal windows from dust. As there is no air conditioning in the school it is impossible for teachers not to have windows open at all times, especially during terms 1 and 4.

I request that the University work with the school and the DEC to come up with a remediation strategy urgently for the health of the children.
Lisa Campton
Object
Tempe , New South Wales
Message
MP 07_0158 MOD 2 - Abercrombie Street Precinct

To Whom It May Concern

I am writing as a parent of a child that attends Darlington Public School to object to the proposed development by the University of Sydney, MP 07_0158 MOD 2 - Abercrombie

Street Precinct, Syd Uni. The school is directly adjacent to the western border of the project.

I have major concerns that relate to the impact of the development on Darlington Public School. Significant issues were raised in earlier consultation in relation to the noise impacts of the project's demolition and construction phase on the Darlington Public School.

The University has failed to consider the potential impacts of the construction's noise, dust and vibration on the operation of the school and the safety and wellbeing of the children.

In the period following the Planning Assessment Committee determination, consultation with Darlington Public School community did not occur until 6 August 2013, which was after work on the site had started.

Noise, dust and contaminant levels have already been shown to be above the limits set for the development through the approval process. The standards that the development is required to meet, prior to and during construction, are not adequate for a development located beside a primary school. Higher standards need to be set to ensure the children are protected from the impact of noise, dust and contaminants, as they will be in close proximity to the development over a long period of time.

Children aged between 3 years old to 12 years old will be subject to high levels of dust, contaminants and noise for long days - potentially from 8.30 am to 6 pm - for a period in excess of 18 months (Business School) and longer with a subsequent development on site (Student accommodation).

The School faces the development site, it is designed with louvre windows to capture air and light, windows and doors are not allowed to be closed throughout the year - this is because classrooms need ventilation from open windows and doors to stop classrooms from getting too hot and in winter due to the un-flued gas heaters - the windows and doors need to be open to prevent dangerous fumes building up.

At the very minimum air conditioning and glazing is required to be installed in classrooms to mitigate the impact of construction on the operation of the school and safety of the children.

The monitoring of noise and dust is inadequate, for example it is already showing high levels of lead dust, but it does not record the accumulated lead dust that is being dumped on the playground and school desks over a period of time. Complaints were raised during the last DA process about the way the baseline for the noise monitoring was set for the street outside the school and not on the school grounds (on the development side). The noise monitoring cannot accurately measure the impact on the School. An independent assessment needs to determine the appropriate standards and monitoring for this development being done this close to this School.

Page 2 of 2

The lack of consideration for the health of the school children is demonstrated in the University locating the car park exhaust and ventilation system within 9 metres of the kindergarten classroom and playground. The car park exhaust and ventilation system needs to be moved as far away from the children as possible - this is an unacceptable risk for small children and designed to minimise any impact on them.

Darlington School playground contains asbestos and this has been covered and managed by the Department with asphalt and woodchips. The excavation of the driveway will cut past this area within 2 metres. The excavation and work adjacent to the playground needs to be done during school holidays and have a specific management plan for that area that manages the asbestos risk during the excavation and any subsequent clean-up to ensure the safety of the children.

The following five conditions need to be met before the development can continue:

1. Higher standards need to be set to ensure the children are protected from the impact of noise, dust and contaminants, as they will be in close proximity to the development over a long period of time.

2. At the very minimum, air conditioning and glazing is required to be installed in classrooms to mitigate the impact of construction on the operation of the school and safety of the children.

3. An independent assessment needs to determine the appropriate standards and monitoring for this development being done this close to this School.

4. The car park exhaust and ventilation system needs to be moved as far away from the children as possible and designed to minimise any impact on them.

5. The excavation and work adjacent to the playground needs to be done during school holidays and have a specific management plan for that area that manages the asbestos risk during the excavation and any subsequent clean-up to ensure the safety of the children.
Name Withheld
Object
Newtown , New South Wales
Message
To Whom It May Concern

I am a concerned parent with a daughter who goes to Darlington Public School. Since demolition & excavation works started on the Abercrombie Precinct over twelve months ago, significant issues relating to the students health & learning environment have not been addressed by the University project management team. What is of even greater concern is that new and upcoming site works have not been organised & communicated well in advance. The University has not provided the agreed due diligence or action thus far & I have little confidence in it happening in the future.

In order of importance, I believe the following up coming actions need to be agreed upon by all parties involved before further works proceed:-

The main playground at the top of the school has contaminated fill below it. This fill contains various toxic materials including lead & asbestos. The department of education decided that rather than remove the contaminated fill they would seal or cap it with the materials currently in place. The extent of this contamination does not stop at the school boundary. The true volume of the waste is unknown so when John Holland start excavation for the new car park entry / exit adjacent to the playground this hazardous fill could be disturbed. I believe these works need to be completed in the school holiday period, air monitoring set up on the school's Eastern boundary fence line & all necessary precautions taken when dealing with the removal of carcinogenic substances like asbestos.

The demolition of the child care centre adjacent to Darlington school on Abercrombie Street is my next issue. Although various options to minimise the impact of noise caused by construction works have been discussed, nothing so far has been implemented. Although John Holland have set up noise monitoring & acoustic fences, the majority of works belong to the contractor nominated to build the new student residence on the child care site. At this point in time no contractor has been nominated & from my research will not be nominated until at least January next year. Not knowing who is doing the works or when & how it will be done is a worry. Add to this the fact that the University project management team have not been effective communicators with the school leaves a large void in my confidence levels. The University needs to make a consulted decision as to what will be installed to these classrooms to minimise noise & dust whilst ensuring adequate air temperature & flow is maintained before demolition begins.

Next we have the contractor hired to complete the University offices in the existing IXL building located on the South West corner of the school site. Again the University project management team has not been forthcoming with the details of this contractor, programme of works & safety procedures in place. Various students & parents have observed coloured smoke & high noise levels coming from the internal works being conducted in this building. From my own observations, if something was to fall from the roof of this building or through a window it would be catastrophic to any students playing below. I believe the University need to ensure the contractor extends their fence line to encapsulate any debris that might fall & provide a programme of works, site safety plan / risk assessment & sound monitoring similar to that provided by John Holland. Does this building have any asbestos. This has not been communicated by the Universities project management team to the school.

Last but not least the design of the new 82 space car park exhaust system. For what ever reason during the creative brain storming that went into the design of the mechanical systems on the project, it was decided to install the car park exhaust stack adjacent to the school fence. On a considerably tight site layout you could understand a certain amount of compromise regarding this issue but for a project of this size & cost to place an exhaust stack in its current location is careless. Especially when it's next to the main playground not an enclosed building. I believe the design team need to reposition this stack away from it's current location to one that does not affect the health of our kids.

There are other issues that need to be addressed like the removal of existing car spaces & increased traffic congestion into Golden Grove St but in my opinion the items above are of greater concern. The consistent theme since the Abercrombie Precinct's inception has been the lack of communication between the school & the University. I believe John Holland are trying to do the right thing with regards to their portion of the building works but in my opinion the University project management team have not. The University has not carried out the strategies needed to minimise the impact on Darlington Public School during construction & i object to the proposed changes currently being proposed.

Regards,

Ben Daggar
Name Withheld
Object
Darlington , New South Wales
Message
I object to these modifications for the following reasons:-
1. Deletion of conditions B9, D1 and G1 related to ESD green star rating
I object to the conditions B9, D1 and G1 related to green star being deleted in the proposed modification. These conditions specifically refer to the building achieving a minimum 5 star green star rating (4 star = Best Practice, 5 star = Australian Excellence, 6 star = World Leader).
I do not believe these conditions should be deleted or watered down in any way. The University has described the proposed new Business School as a "world class facility". The onus should therefore be on the University to set world class standards in regard to environmental sustainability with this new building and world class standards are 6 star not 4 star.
2. Proposed location of café
I object to the proposed location of the cafe in the APD being on the ground level of the B pod of the K-shaped building and facing into Abercrombie Street. It would bring with it increased noise, a significantly large increase in the number of pedestrians on Abercrombie Street, and would generate an excessive amount of rubbish. It would also take trade away from local businesses along Abercrombie Street, many of which are run by local families who will suffer financially if the café is located on Abercrombie Street.
The cafe should be internal to the APD and well away from Abercrombie Street or at least contained within the A pod which points towards Codrington Street and the Sports Centre.
I object to the cafe operating outside of normal business hours. It is unfair of the University to propose to generate further unnecessary noise after business hours that will further reduce the amenity of local residents.
3. Proposed position of open terraces and dining area
I strongly object to the proposed change which indicates the addition of a dining area on level 4 in the C pod of the K-shaped building directly opposite residential houses on Abercrombie Street. There was absolutely no built structure or rooms of any kind at all on this level on the plan contained in the Preferred Project Report approved by the Department of Planning in November 2012.
I object to all open terraces on the B and C pods in the APD which are oriented towards residents' houses on Abercrombie Street. People using the terraces will generate noise that will adversely affect the amenity of local residents. In addition these terraces would impinge on the privacy of those residents living in close proximity. The terraces should be moved to the side of the building facing the existing Economics and Business Building and restricted to use in business hours only.
The University, where possible, should keep its noise within the confines of the University grounds, which is consistent with the University's own Environmental Policy.
4. In addition, I am concerned about the consolidation of rooftop plant with respect to noise generation. I do not read anything in the modifications that guarantees that noise from this plant running 24 hours per day and seven days a week will be less and will not impact the amenity of local residents.
As an affected local resident, I hope that the Department will take the objections I have raised into consideration when making its decision on this application.
Rudi Soman
Object
Chippendale , New South Wales
Message
MP 07_0158 MOD 2 - Abercrombie Street Precinct To Whom It May Concern
I am writing as a parent of a child that formerly attended Darlington Public School to object to the proposed development by the University of Sydney, MP 07_0158 MOD 2 - Abercrombie Street Precinct, Syd Uni. The school is directly adjacent to the western border of the project.
My family and I regularly visit the area as my son attends a karate school on Abercrombie Street very near to the development.
I have major concerns that relate to the impact of the development on users of Darlington Public School. Significant issues were raised in earlier consultation in relation to the noise impacts of the project's demolition and construction phase on the Darlington Public School.
The University has failed to consider the potential impacts of the construction's noise, dust and vibration on the operation of the school and the safety and wellbeing of the children.
In the period following the Planning Assessment Committee determination, consultation with Darlington Public School community did not occur until 6 August 2013, which was after work on the site had started.
Noise, dust and contaminant levels have already been shown to be above the limits set for the development through the approval process. The standards that the development is required to meet, prior to and during construction, are not adequate for a development located beside a primary school. Higher standards need to be set to ensure the children are protected from the impact of noise, dust and contaminants, as they will be in close proximity to the development over a long period of time.
Children aged between 3 years old to 12 years old will be subject to high levels of dust, contaminants and noise for long days - potentially from 8.30 am to 6 pm - for a period in excess of 18 months (Business School) and longer with a subsequent development on site (Student accommodation).
The School faces the development site, it is designed with louvre windows to capture air and light, windows and doors are not allowed to be closed throughout the year - this is because classrooms need ventilation from open windows and doors to stop classrooms from getting too hot and in winter due to the un-flued gas heaters - the windows and doors need to be open to prevent dangerous fumes building up.
At the very minimum air conditioning and glazing is required to be installed in classrooms to mitigate the impact of construction on the operation of the school and safety of the children.
The monitoring of noise and dust is inadequate, for example it is already showing high levels of lead dust, but it does not record the accumulated lead dust that is being dumped on the playground and school desks over a period of time. Complaints were raised during the last DA process about the way the baseline for the noise monitoring was set for the street outside the school and not on the school grounds (on the development side). The noise monitoring cannot accurately measure the impact on the School. An independent assessment needs to determine the appropriate standards and monitoring for this development being done this close to this School.
Page 1 of 2
The lack of consideration for the health of the school children is demonstrated in the University locating the car park exhaust and ventilation system within 9 metres of the kindergarten classroom and playground. The car park exhaust and ventilation system needs to be moved as far away from the children as possible - this is an unacceptable risk for small children and designed to minimise any impact on them.
Darlington School playground contains asbestos and this has been covered and managed by the Department with asphalt and woodchips. The excavation of the driveway will cut past this area within 2 metres. The excavation and work adjacent to the playground needs to be done during school holidays and have a specific management plan for that area that manages the asbestos risk during the excavation and any subsequent clean-up to ensure the safety of the children.
The following five conditions need to be met before the development can continue:
1. Higher standards need to be set to ensure the children are protected from the impact of noise, dust and contaminants, as they will be in close proximity to the development over a long period of time.
2. At the very minimum, air conditioning and glazing is required to be installed in classrooms to mitigate the impact of construction on the operation of the school and safety of the children.
3. An independent assessment needs to determine the appropriate standards and monitoring for this development being done this close to this School.
4. The car park exhaust and ventilation system needs to be moved as far away from the children as possible and designed to minimise any impact on them.
5. The excavation and work adjacent to the playground needs to be done during school holidays and have a specific management plan for that area that manages the asbestos risk during the excavation and any subsequent clean-up to ensure the safety of the children.
Name Withheld
Object
Newtown , New South Wales
Message
I believe that the plans for the business school are acceptable and am overall in favour of the development however I have concerns over the extent of noise, vibration and dust during the construction phase. My children are at Darlington Public School and Boundary Lane Childcare centre. The levels of noise and dust so far during the construction have been high and would not be considered acceptable if they continue in the long term. I understand that some noise and dust is to be expected however the stipulated levels of 10,000micrograms/m3 of dust and 63dBa of noise seem very high if experienced over several weeks and months. These levels seem appropriate only if experienced occasionally.

I am asking that consideration be made to change the terms of the planning persmission granted to reduce the acceptable noise and dust limits and strict locations for monitoring are stimulated. Perhaps an average daily level of dust and noise could be use in conjunction with the peak limits. This would reduce the risk of long term exposure to noise and dust experienced by my kids and others at the school and childcare centre.

Regards

Heather Clement
Heather Clement
Object
Newtown , New South Wales
Message
In addition to my previous submission I would like to express my disagreement with the deletion of the clauses relating to Green Star. It is reasonable for the University of Sydney to target a 5 star green star eduction rating for this prestigious building and has no reasonable reason to remove these clauses from the planning approval.
I was originally disappointed to see that they were not aiming for a 6 star rating and 5 star should be considered a minimum and very achievable rating for this type of building.

Yours Sincerely

Heather Clement
David Laws
Object
Darlington , New South Wales
Message
Application No: MP07_0158 MOD 2
Abercrombie Street Precinct University of Sydney

Date: 19 September 2013

Name: David Laws and Ray Ziesing

Address: 322 Abercrombie St Darlington NSW 2008 Australia



I object to these modifications for the following reasons:-
1. Deletion of conditions B9, D1 and G1 related to ESD green star rating
I object to the conditions B9, D1 and G1 related to green star being deleted in the proposed modification. These conditions specifically refer to the building achieving a minimum 5 star green star rating (4 star = Best Practice, 5 star = Australian Excellence, 6 star = World Leader).

The condition states:

Ecologically Sustainable Development
B9. The project shall identify all reasonable and feasible design, operational and construction measures required to target a minimum 5 star green star rating. Details are to be clearly identified in relevant construction plans and construction management plans

Abandoning the green star standard would be a breach of the University's own Environmental Policy which states in part:-

"1. Policy Statement
The University of Sydney is committed to environmental best practice, and to the continual improvement of its environmental performance, recognising its obligations both locally and globally.
The University aims to lead in defining best environmental practice, and will set its own demanding standards where none exist."

and

 
"2.4 The University Estate
The University is committed to sustainable design principles in land-use, transportation, landscape and building planning and construction.
The University aims to minimise adverse environmental impacts of University buildings, landscaping and developments over the whole of their lifespan."

At a recent community information session on 5 September 2013, the Project Director from John Holland said that these conditions should be deleted because the University will not be able to afford the ongoing costs of maintaining the building if they have to meet these conditions. This would be a very unsatisfactory reason for the University to abandon its own key principles "in defining best environmental practice".
The University has committed to building this massive complex and should therefore commit to the conditions that have previously been approved by the Department of Planning in regard to the minimum 5 star green star rating. If the University cannot commit to a minimum 5 star green star rating then perhaps they should scale down the building to a more appropriate size with less costly ongoing maintenance in order to achieve a minimum 5 star green star rating.
I do not believe these conditions should be deleted or watered down in any way. The University has described the proposed new Business School as a "world class facility". The onus should therefore be on the University to set world class standards in regard to environmental sustainability with this new building.

2. Modifications to Level 4, increasing building height and bulk
I strongly object to the proposed change which indicates the addition of a dining area on level 4 in the C pod of the K-shaped building directly opposite residential houses on Abercrombie Street. There was absolutely no built structure or rooms of any kind at all on this level on the plan contained in the Preferred Project Report approved by the Department of Planning in November 2012. The addition of the dining area increases the height and bulk of the building along Abercrombie Street. Residents have always objected to the height and the bulk of the building and, after consultations with the University, accepted what was approved by the Department of Planning.

I also object to the increase in the floor area in the B pod on level 4. Again, this will increase the height and bulk of the building.

I believe that it is unfair and unreasonable of the University now to attempt to increase the size of the building with these modifications. The University should not be allowed to increase the height and the bulk of the building from what has originally been approved by the Department, especially where the building is directly facing residential homes.

I object to the changes on level 4 because it will also mean an increase in the number of people using these areas and therefore an increase in noise affecting residents living close to them.

3. Re-orientation of pods A and B fronting Codrington Street
I am concerned about the "re-orientation of pods A and B fronting Codrington Street". It appears that the angle of the 2 pods is proposed to be much more acute and therefore could possibly have a negative effect on the health of the large Sydney Blue Gum tree which stands between them. The Approval conditions stipulated that this great tree should be retained. The City Of Sydney Council battled along with the community to have this tree preserved and it would be devastating if the tree were now to be damaged in the construction of the new building.

4. Amended landscape and public domain design
The Landscape Design Statement attached to the Modification Application refers to the planting of "locally endemic Blue Gum trees" in Blue Gum Park on the corner of Abercrombie and Codrington Streets. I welcome the planting of many trees in and around the whole Abercrombie Precinct Development (APD) site to replace those cut down to make way for the construction of the APD.

5. Consolidation and centralisation of rooftop plant
I object to the modification which refers to the "consolidation and centralisation of rooftop plant" if this means that increased noise will be generated by the building. Plant equipment will be running 24 hours per day, seven days a week and should be located as far as possible from residential buildings and surrounded by noise attenuation material.


6. Proposed location of café
I object to the proposed location of the cafe in the APD being on the ground level of the B pod of the K-shaped building and facing into Abercrombie Street. It would bring with it increased noise, a large increase in the number of pedestrians on Abercrombie Street, and would generate an excessive amount of rubbish. It would also take trade away from local businesses along Abercrombie Street, many of which are run by local families who will suffer financially if the café is located on Abercrombie Street.

The cafe should be internal to the APD and well away from Abercrombie Street or at least contained within the A pod which points towards Codrington Street and the Sports Centre.
I object to the cafe operating outside of normal business hours. It is unfair of the University to propose to generate further unnecessary noise in the neighbourhood after business hours.

7. Proposed position of open terraces
I object to all open terraces on the B and C pods in the APD which are oriented towards residents' houses on Abercrombie Street. They would adversely affect the amenity of local residents through a large increase in noise caused by people using the terraces. In addition these terraces would impinge on the privacy of those residents living in close proximity. The terraces should be moved to the side of the building facing the existing Economics and Business Building and restricted to use in business hours only.

The University, where possible, should keep its noise within the confines of the University grounds, which is consistent with the University's own Environmental Policy.

As an affected local resident, I hope that the Department will take the objections I have raised into consideration when making its decision on this application.

Yours faithfully,

David Laws and Ray Ziesing
322 Abercrombie St Darlington NSW 2008
parent
Object
arncliffe , New South Wales
Message
MP 07_0158 MOD 2 - Abercrombie Street Precinct
To Whom It May Concern
I am writing as a parent of a child that attends Darlington Public School to object to the
proposed development by the University of Sydney, MP 07_0158 MOD 2 - Abercrombie
Street Precinct, Syd Uni. The school is directly adjacent to the western border of the project.
I have major concerns that relate to the impact of the development on Darlington Public
School. Significant issues were raised in earlier consultation in relation to the noise impacts
of the project's demolition and construction phase on the Darlington Public School.
The University has failed to consider the potential impacts of the construction's noise, dust
and vibration on the operation of the school and the safety and wellbeing of the children.
In the period following the Planning Assessment Committee determination, consultation with
Darlington Public School community did not occur until 6 August 2013, which was after work
on the site had started.
Noise, dust and contaminant levels have already been shown to be above the limits set for
the development through the approval process. The standards that the development is
required to meet, prior to and during construction, are not adequate for a development
located beside a primary school. Higher standards need to be set to ensure the children
are protected from the impact of noise, dust and contaminants, as they will be in
close proximity to the development over a long period of time.
Children aged between 3 years old to 12 years old will be subject to high levels of dust,
contaminants and noise for long days - potentially from 8.30 am to 6 pm - for a period in
excess of 18 months (Business School) and longer with a subsequent development on site
(Student accommodation).
The School faces the development site, it is designed with louvre windows to capture air and
light, windows and doors are not allowed to be closed throughout the year - this is because
classrooms need ventilation from open windows and doors to stop classrooms from getting
too hot and in winter due to the un-flued gas heaters - the windows and doors need to be
open to prevent dangerous fumes building up.
At the very minimum air conditioning and glazing is required to be installed in
classrooms to mitigate the impact of construction on the operation of the school and
safety of the children.
The monitoring of noise and dust is inadequate, for example it is already showing high levels
of lead dust, but it does not record the accumulated lead dust that is being dumped on the
playground and school desks over a period of time. Complaints were raised during the last
DA process about the way the baseline for the noise monitoring was set for the street
outside the school and not on the school grounds (on the development side). The noise
monitoring cannot accurately measure the impact on the School. An independent
assessment needs to determine the appropriate standards and monitoring for this
development being done this close to this School.
Page 2 of 2
The lack of consideration for the health of the school children is demonstrated in the
University locating the car park exhaust and ventilation system within 9 metres of the
kindergarten classroom and playground. The car park exhaust and ventilation system
needs to be moved as far away from the children as possible - this is an unacceptable
risk for small children and designed to minimise any impact on them.
Darlington School playground contains asbestos and this has been covered and managed
by the Department with asphalt and woodchips. The excavation of the driveway will cut past
this area within 2 metres. The excavation and work adjacent to the playground needs to
be done during school holidays and have a specific management plan for that area
that manages the asbestos risk during the excavation and any subsequent clean-up
to ensure the safety of the children.
The following five conditions need to be met before the development can continue:
1. Higher standards need to be set to ensure the children are protected from the
impact of noise, dust and contaminants, as they will be in close proximity to
the development over a long period of time.
2. At the very minimum, air conditioning and glazing is required to be installed in
classrooms to mitigate the impact of construction on the operation of the
school and safety of the children.
3. An independent assessment needs to determine the appropriate standards and
monitoring for this development being done this close to this School.
4. The car park exhaust and ventilation system needs to be moved as far away
from the children as possible and designed to minimise any impact on them.
5. The excavation and work adjacent to the playground needs to be done during
school holidays and have a specific management plan for that area that
manages the asbestos risk during the excavation and any subsequent clean-up
to ensure the safety of the children.
Ifeanna Tooth
Object
Redfern , New South Wales
Message
MP 07_0158 MOD 2 - Abercrombie Street Precinct
To Whom It May Concern
I am writing as a parent of a child that attends Darlington Public School to object to the
proposed development by the University of Sydney, MP 07_0158 MOD 2 - Abercrombie
Street Precinct, Syd Uni. The school is directly adjacent to the western border of the project.
I have major concerns that relate to the impact of the development on Darlington Public
School. Significant issues were raised in earlier consultation in relation to the noise impacts
of the project's demolition and construction phase on the Darlington Public School.
The University has failed to consider the potential impacts of the construction's noise, dust
and vibration on the operation of the school and the safety and wellbeing of the children.
In the period following the Planning Assessment Committee determination, consultation with
Darlington Public School community did not occur until 6 August 2013, which was after work
on the site had started.
Noise, dust and contaminant levels have already been shown to be above the limits set for
the development through the approval process. The standards that the development is
required to meet, prior to and during construction, are not adequate for a development
located beside a primary school. Higher standards need to be set to ensure the children
are protected from the impact of noise, dust and contaminants, as they will be in
close proximity to the development over a long period of time.
Children aged between 3 years old to 12 years old will be subject to high levels of dust,
contaminants and noise for long days - potentially from 8.30 am to 6 pm - for a period in
excess of 18 months (Business School) and longer with a subsequent development on site
(Student accommodation).
The School faces the development site, it is designed with louvre windows to capture air and
light, windows and doors are not allowed to be closed throughout the year - this is because
classrooms need ventilation from open windows and doors to stop classrooms from getting
too hot and in winter due to the un-flued gas heaters - the windows and doors need to be
open to prevent dangerous fumes building up.
At the very minimum air conditioning and glazing is required to be installed in
classrooms to mitigate the impact of construction on the operation of the school and
safety of the children.
The monitoring of noise and dust is inadequate, for example it is already showing high levels
of lead dust, but it does not record the accumulated lead dust that is being dumped on the
playground and school desks over a period of time. Complaints were raised during the last
DA process about the way the baseline for the noise monitoring was set for the street
outside the school and not on the school grounds (on the development side). The noise
monitoring cannot accurately measure the impact on the School. An independent
assessment needs to determine the appropriate standards and monitoring for this
development being done this close to this School.
The lack of consideration for the health of the school children is demonstrated in the
University locating the car park exhaust and ventilation system within 9 metres of the
kindergarten classroom and playground. The car park exhaust and ventilation system
needs to be moved as far away from the children as possible - this is an unacceptable
risk for small children and designed to minimise any impact on them.
Darlington School playground contains asbestos and this has been covered and managed
by the Department with asphalt and woodchips. The excavation of the driveway will cut past
this area within 2 metres. The excavation and work adjacent to the playground needs to
be done during school holidays and have a specific management plan for that area
that manages the asbestos risk during the excavation and any subsequent clean-up
to ensure the safety of the children.
The following five conditions need to be met before the development can continue:
1. Higher standards need to be set to ensure the children are protected from the
impact of noise, dust and contaminants, as they will be in close proximity to
the development over a long period of time.
2. At the very minimum, air conditioning and glazing is required to be installed in
classrooms to mitigate the impact of construction on the operation of the
school and safety of the children.
3. An independent assessment needs to determine the appropriate standards and
monitoring for this development being done this close to this School.
4. The car park exhaust and ventilation system needs to be moved as far away
from the children as possible and designed to minimise any impact on them.
5. The excavation and work adjacent to the playground needs to be done during
school holidays and have a specific management plan for that area that
manages the asbestos risk during the excavation and any subsequent clean-up
to ensure the safety of the children.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Darlington , New South Wales
Message
I object to the addition add of an extra level to the top of the building and immediately adjacent to the school. This additional level will increase overshadowing, bulk and scale to the school. I object under these terms - overshadowing, bulk and scale.

My cursory appraisal suggests there will be an additional shadow thrown of approximately 11.0m at 9am in winter beyond the shadow already approved in the original scheme. Not a great outcome for the school and of great concern that we were not consulted by Sydney University on this prior to submission of the modifications.

Given the absence of any consultation on these modifications I request the application be withdrawn and a proper consultation commenced. As a minimum the school needs to see a series of shadow diagrams for Winter and summer solstice and the equinox at 8am, 9am, 10am, 12pm and 3pm.

I also object to the proposal on the grounds of unacceptable noise and dust pollution generated by construction process. The standards, recording, control and reporting methods are opaque and fail to address fundamental health and wellbeing interests of the school.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Darlington , New South Wales
Message
The University of Sydney is worried about setting a precedent in ensuring the building does to impact on the health of the community and particularly Darlington Public School both in regards to their health and an adequate learning environment.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Erskineville , New South Wales
Message
I'm extremely concerned about the impact of dust and lead pollution from the building site on the health of my children, and having experienced the noise and vibration from the site I am also concerned about the impact on my children's learning at school.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Chippendale , New South Wales
Message
I am really concerned that the car park exhaust system is very close to the school. I don't want my children being exposed to carbon monoxide! I am concerned that the kids will have to suffer through 2 years of construction noise. How are they supposed to concentrate enough through that level of disruption and learn anything?? I am concerned that the developer lied in a meeting at the school when he said he had 12 'blokes' watering down the mounds and mounds of dirt on the site. Evidence was provided to me from a fellow parent that he lied about this. The dirt was not covered up and it was completely dry. The dust blowing into the school grounds is unacceptable. My 5 year old son has developed a nasty cough, and when I wrote to Sydney University (Greg Robinson) he told me it was due to 'Back Burning'??? A level of accountability is needed for this site to progress with minimal disruption to the children and teachers at the school. If what has happened so far is any indication of how they think their 'Management' of this site is acceptable, then they should not be allowed to proceed. I object!
Attachments
Ronald Clarke
Object
Earlwood , New South Wales
Message
see attached letter
Attachments

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
MP07_0158-Mod-2
Main Project
MP07_0158
Assessment Type
Part3A Modifications
Development Type
Educational establishments
Local Government Areas
City of Sydney
Decision
Approved
Determination Date
Decider
IPC-N

Contact Planner

Name
Peter McManus