90-102 Regent Street, Redfern - Student Accommodation

Sydney Trains has no comment on this proposal as it is some distance from it rail corridor/assets.

I am writing to submit my concerns regarding the 90-102 Regent Street development. The proposed building will be built in front of the newly built affordable housing building effectively blocking half of the occupants of the affordable housing views. Making their appartments looking out into the adjacent building. I am concerned at the over development of Redfern with no plan for recreational areas for occupants. Covid social restrictions have highlighted the need for such infrastructure in the area. Also the densely build area has created unsafe laneways behind and between the five current buildings. I see no need for more student housing given the current opportunities on Regent street and at the block. There are currently 7 high rise appartments buildings on two blocks of land and this will create a ghetto in the coming years. I have had to suffer through two construction sites during Covid and it has been a major struggle. I don't know if I can suffer more construction on an already crowded and under resourced site. Where are the greening spaces. This smells like over development of a once liveable suburb. Many thanks.

I object to this project for the below reasons:

There is an existing student accomodation building (Iglu) at 66 Redfern St which houses 370 students. Iglu is building a second building next door at 80 Regent St which will house another 295 students. This proposed building (to house 408 students) is directly across the other side of Marian Street from these buildings. Across these three student accomodation buildings that are all within a 50 metre span of each other, the student population will be 1073.

With so many students within such a small place, the area has the potential to turn into a party zone with increased alcohol and drug usage (which may lead to violence or other things requiring police or medical intervention), as well as increases in late night noise which awakens other residents in the area.

There is another building being built at 11 Gibbons St (so this will be the third building to be built across these two blocks) comprising of 160 apartments (which could house another 480 people, or more).

These two buildings being built and this additional proposed building will bring approximately 1183 new people to this area (across two blocks, and all the buildings are within a 50 metre walk of each other).

Parking is already a huge issue in this area and this additional building will not help that.

Many will also use the train station which is already crowded in the mornings during peak hour (in non-COVID times). There are not enough trains to handle this increase in population in Redfern, and it will become a Green Square situation.

Please find attached EES response

Please refer to response letter.

Ausgrid notes the requirement for additional load to the development and recommends the proponent make the necessary connection application to Ausgrid as soon as practical.

Please find attached submission of objection to the proposal.

SUMMARY
The community consultation has been deficient and the proposed development proposal is therefore inconsistent with the objects and general terms of the EP&A Act.

The EIS is also inadequate in that it considers the proposal in isolation but does not consider the cumulative impacts that the proposal adds to the large number of projects already completed, under construction or planned for the immediate precinct between Regent and Gibbons Streets.

BACKGROUND

I am the owner of an apartment in Katia residential complex, 1 Margaret St. The apartment is a family residence.


STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

The Elton Community Consultation and Engagement Report (Elton) states in Section 2.1(p5)

“Key stakeholder groups and individuals identified were owners and/or residents of the following properties” which included “ Strata management and residents of the ‘Katia’ residential complex, 1 Margaret St”

However, no direct community engagement that I am aware of was attempted with the residents of 1 Margaret Street.

Elton state in Table 1 (p6) “Email was sent to each of these stakeholders”. I certainly received no email from Elton although the proponent apparently did contact the property manager via email.

A circular (from the proponent) was forwarded by email by the managing agent. It was not obvious that the intention of this circular may have been to obtain community feedback. In fact the circular concludes in Next steps “The EIS and DA are to be publicly exhibited in late 2020 with community feedback invited during the exhibition period”

Elton state (p6) that a Doorknock was conducted on 11 September to:
“Provide verbal overview of the project
Provide initial opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback
Provide contact details for further information, to ask questions or provide feedback
Hand out written information about the proposal
Letterbox drop ‘sorry we missed you’ cards if not available at time of doorknock”

However Elton make it clear in Doorknock Engagement Section (p8) that the doorknock and letterbox campaign specifically excluded the residents of 1 Margaret St. This exclusion is clearly evident from both the descriptive text and the doorknock catchment plan (p8). Interestingly the majority of the sites included in the doorknock catchment plan are under construction or vacant and would have provided extremely limited capacity for community engagement/feedback.

Elton have identified that the residents of 1 Margaret Street are key stakeholders but then largely excluded them from access to the EIS consultation process. There has been no attempt at direct access to residents or offers of public explanation sessions or meetings. This lack of community involvement is clearly in violation of the EP&A Act “To provide increased opportunity for community participation in environmental planning and assessment”.

The statement in the EIS (p34) of “An inclusive public consultation strategy has been implemented throughout the project design process” is untrue and without basis.

I (and other impacted residents) have not been provided with an adequate opportunity to provide an input to the EIS process and therefore the current application is deficient.




ERRORS OF DEFINITION IN PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Even a cursory overview of the opening pages of the EIS Project Description brings up a number of errors and inconsistencies which creates some doubt about the overall quality of the EIS.

For example in the EIS (P11)
“The site currently comprises a former pub building on the corner of Regent Street and Margaret Street”
This is incorrect unless the proposed project has been relocated south away from Marion St.

Or again (p12) “Further south of Margaret Street comprises a heritage-listed church and two-storey mixed use terraces with commercial uses along the ground floor”. My property on Margaret St is actually a four-storey residential only complex with another four-storey residential only complex immediately to the south. Again the EIS is in error.

This lack of attention to the reality of the situation together with the failings in the Community Consultation process suggests the proponent has only made superficial attempts to understand the local community issues or concerns.


PROJECT CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Although I have a number of concerns with the proposal, my major issue is with the cumulative impacts of the large number of construction projects completed, currently underway, approved and proposed for the small precinct bounded by Gibbons and Regent Streets and immediately to the south of Marion Street.

I do not believe the current EIS takes into account the cumulative impact particularly of construction activities and disruption over many years - the projects are not being implemented concurrently and this disruption to local residents and commercial activities has already taken place and will continue to occur for many years as the pipeline of projects continues to proceed in the immediate area. These disruptions include noise, vibration, transport, traffic, parking, air quality, visual amenity and public access restrictions.

The EIS does not acknowledge that the cumulative duration of disruption and substantial amenity loss for immediate neighbours is not just the ~2 year duration of this proposal but potentially 6-8 years depending on the eventual construction timelines of all the projects in the affected precinct. Given the duration of this timeline, the disruptive impacts on the neighbourhood become substantially greater than if only this proposal project was to occur and no consideration has been given for any ameriolation of this extended disturbance.

This disruption has become even more acute during 2020 in that a higher proportion of the community are currently working from home and therefore subjected to much more pronounced periods of disruption from these construction activities.

Objection letter is attached.

Dear officer,

I write in respect to SSD 10382 at 90-102 Regent St and object on grounds that we are directly impacted by the issue of overshadowing it creates for our units.

As shown in your study, if approved, we will not be able to get the minimum. 3 hours of light during the winter solstice. This will have a direct effect in the enjoyment of the space, not to mention its desirability and value.

Kind regards,
Raymon So

A copy of the TfNSW response letter is attached.

Please see attached

Heritage NSW comments for Aboriginal cultural heritage matters attached.

See attached