600-660 Elizabeth Street, Redfern - Mixed Use

I don't believe that 66 car spaces are enough for 355 units, 80 staff who will be working in your head office on site and for staff and patrons of PCYC. Parking in this area is near on impossible now!
I object to the 100+ year old paper bark trees being marked for removal in Walker St given that these trees are well outside of the property boundary, in good health and should be maintained for privacy and cooling.
I object to the height of the building, 14 stories and the reduced daylight/sunlight we will lose with shadow cast

REDWatch generally supports the proposal but our submission raises a number of issues for investigation during the assessment by the Department.

Shelter NSW supports the Development Approval proposal for Redfern Place but is calling for a reconsideration of a residential building design element and for the increased requirement for all social and affordable dwellings to be built to a gold level accessibility standard.

600 Elizabeth Street Redfern is land set aside for many decades for public housing. We are in the middle of housing crisis and to see the Government raiding this land for a quick profit is not in the interests of the people of NSW.
Build and extend public housing do not privatise it.
Recently when King Charles 111 was here you said that “I was pleased to welcome His Majesty King Charles III to public housing that the Government is building in Glebe. Quite genuinely, His Majesty had a real passion for not just the provision of affordable housing, which he spoke about fondly, but also the provision of sustainable building design and beautiful public homes that last.’”
The minister for housing then went on to say the NSW Gov had a great interest and love of public housing in distinction from the LNP and now you are out LNPing the LNP!
Build and extend public housing
We point to the quote from NCOSS
NCOSS chief executive Cara Varian said Hawke’s pledge was not as ambitious as it sounded to many. “In a country like Australia where we have incredible wealth and great infrastructure, child poverty is preventable,” she said.
“That means kids having food , making sure they have a stable place to live, and making sure they have access to health and well being services.” Smh nov25 2024

I think it is entirely inappropriate to sell of land that was used for public housing to developers at any time, let alone when there is a cost of living and housing crisis. Having a safe roof over your head is a Human Right!
Instead of selling this land public housing should be redeveloped and increased, especially in inner city areas where communities form and services are available. What sort of heartless government would do such a thing.
Please do not sterilise our cities from public housing tenants but build truly mixed communities.

Department of Planning and Environment NSW,

My postcode is: 2204

I am making a personal submission.

I have no political donations to report.

I oppose this proposal to privatise public land at 600-660 Elizabeth Street Redfern.

The NSW Government and Homes NSW must commit to retaining public ownership of 600-660 Elizabeth St and developing it as 100% public housing.

This proposal would see approximately 60% of the final 355 homes end up in private hands. There is also no commitment to manage any of the remaining 40% of homes publicly. This means that a site that was formerly 100% public housing, will likely become 0% public housing.

The proposal is therefore in clear breach of NSW Labor’s election promises and party policy as voted by delegates at the 2022 NSW Labor Party Conferenc​e [1]. NSW voters are clearly opposed to privatisation, making their feelings clear at the 2023 election. Privatisation, whether through ownership or management, is not in the public interest.

Any development of 600-660 Elizabeth St must, at minimum, meet the demands of the Redfern Waterloo Aboriginal Housing Campaign: more than 10% of all housing devoted to Aboriginal households and Aboriginal employment targets for both construction and ongoing services. This is essential to address the displacement of Aboriginal people from Redfern over the past several decades due to state-sponsored gentrification.

It is a serious failing of the proposal that in the "Analysis of Alternatives", there is no attempt to compare the proposal with an option where all 355 homes are built, owned and managed by Homes NSW. Were this to be done, it would be found that public housing would provide better value for money through economies of scale, and better outcomes for tenants.

It is for these reasons that this proposal must be rejected, and a new proposal for 100% public housing on the site be created for public consideration.

This submission has been sent to the Department of Planning and the Housing Minister, Rose Jackson. I request a response from the Minister.

[1] http://www.redwatch.org.au/issues/public-housing/221016alp

The conversion of the commons to real estate has driven competition & economic growth. That has made some people rich, but It has made others welfare dependant & stigmatised.

That reliance on perpetual economic growth to feed both the profit motive & trickle down benefits is socially & environmentally unsustainable.

For sustainable development, cooperation instead of competition must grow.

Only by preserving & expanding "the commons" can there be a foundation where an increasing number of people can live without the win/lose force of having to compete for life...for shelter...for dignity

Unless we preserve & expand PUBLIC housing, this will not be possible.

(See how participants in PUBLIC housing could become a great asset in EVERY neighbourhood- https://landrights4all.weebly. com/neighbourhoods-that- work.html

This is public land. It should not be sold. It should only be used for public housing. It is only available because public housing was demolished. The current NSW government made a comittment to retain all public land in public hands - why is this being handed to private owners and a CHP?

Please see the attached.

Redfern already has a lot of social and affordable housing. The Redfern park in front of the project has plenty of junkies doing drugs. Belongings theft from parking lots is widespread. Adding more social housing in the area will only make the area more dangerous.

Please see attached submission

While I support the project, particularly the provisions for affordable, disablity and social housing, as well as the improvements to the community facility, I would like to provide comment, and would be keen to be contacted with specific answers to my concerns. I live directly across Phillip St and will have significant impact during the building process and once the building is completed.
Building Process
Asbestos - from both the PCYC and the rest of the land. How will this be contained to ensure that there is no impact living next door, how will we be protected?
Monitoring of movement of our building across the road - noise, vibration from the excavation and building have the potential to damage our building. Can you please ensure that there is a report on the neighbouring residences prior and following the builidng works.
Construction impact - dust into our building, particularly the open terraces needs to be addressed - will you supply covering for the open windows on our garage, and what about the need for additional cleaning to our spaces?
Noise impact - I am an emergency services shift worker and the noise from the construction I expect to be VERY discruptive to my sleep patterns, particularly the need to sleep while construction work is going on. I know some of this is unavoidable, but I am conscious that tradespeople and vehicles may choose to park, idol, socialise, take breaks across the road and particularly down the laneway on Beaumont St. How will you stop this from happening and what will you be able to offer to mitigate the impact on my ability to manage my fatigue and not put myself or the patients I treat at increased risk.
Parking - where are the tradespeople and trucks intending on parking. The area is already challenging to find parking. It would be unacceptable for parking to occur on beaumont lane as there are many garages there, which are already regularly blocked. I would actively complain to council and police should parking occur on that street.
Flood work - where is this water to be redirected to and will the footpath on the south side of Phillip street be repaired at the same time, I note there are LOTs of water issues on that side of the road which may get worse with repairs on the north side, and these must be considered at the same time.

The Building itself
The buildings S4 and S3 are closer to the roadway on Phillip street than the current building, despite the design stating that the footpath is being widened, with the loss of the parking spots on Phillip Street the buildings will actually make the roadway feel much smaller and cause increased noise reverberation to the surrounding houses - this is already a significant imposition with the increasing numbers of buses on Phillip Street (and I note there was a very vague proposal to have the light rail extend along Phillip street which would be entirely unacceptable with a narrower roadway and the buildings much closer together). The vibrations from the buses and trucks on Philip st can already be felt and have the potential to cause damage to the heritage listed buildings on the south side. Moving the footprint to be in line with the current building would widen both the road, and the amount of sky available to people walking on Philip street, which will mean there is more light and improve safety for those on Philip St.

I note the south facing balconies in Building S4. These will look directly onto our open terraces and living spaces. As set back southfacing blaconies these would be very dark and damp. The design and locations of particulary the one bedroom apartment there should be reconsidered and balconies would be best placed being east or west facing for amenty of the resident of the apartment and the established buildings. I note that the layout in S4 ouf the units labelled S4 102/202/302 & 103/203/303 have terrible access for a disable person and for an ambulance stretcher to move patients in and out of the apartments, particularly when you compare them to the apartments 113 etc at the mirror end of the building.

S3 being 7 stories has significant impact on the residents of both Phillip and Walker street - both from a shadowing and view point of view. The buildings are MUCH closer to the opposite side of the stree than the current building and basket ball courts, with the height causing an additional imposition. Again in this building particularly in unit 105 the access for an ambulance stretcher is compromised.

For the community building, the police begin directly off the youth hub seems inappropriate, I would swap this with the kitchen ensure proximity for the police to improve collaboration, but not to have the youth feel they are being ‘watched” by the police as I expect this will stop them attending the facility, which is against the ethos of the PCYC and the aim of having the police collocated. It would be great to see a bigger, more community based kitchen and share space. The community would benefit from having a cafe on site too, this should be considered by the project, in a similar view to 107 or the cafe in the park.

Sunlight - In the diagrams demonstrating sun patterns in winter there is significant loss of morning sunlight to 662-664 until at least midday, which as a shift worker will have impact to the enjoyment of my home and the garden which is established on the terrace gardens. The sunlight diagrams show even more impact to the homes on Phillip st which are heritage listed. I am very concerned about he lack of light and impact on the social housing terraces on Walker street directly next to the larger buildings.

i am unsure what the impact of these buildings on the wind will be, noting that Phillip stree already has a wind tunnel effect, by narrowing the airspace and creating a second “wind tunnel” essentially straight onto my balcony I expect this to be affected.
As someone who has a well established garden on my rooftop terrace my plants will be affected by the change in microclimate and this may add costs to my gardening expenses.

I want it to be noted that my view of the city will be lost, which will impact the value of my home, and the amenity of using the space as the light will change and with the current design there will be people looking over my home. This will drastically impact my privacy. Is there any recourse to this?

Overall, I think this is a great project, much needed in the view of social, disability and affordable housing, but needs to better consider the impact during the development/build and after on those in the immediate surrounds, particularly in regard to light, noise, vibration, building impact, impact from the increase in tradespeople in the area for noise and parking. I would be keen to see direct engagement with those who live immediately next door and understand the factors that have been placed to ensure that those who will have to live through this build. As an emergency services shift worker, I expect my sleep to be affected and would seek to ask how I can work with the builders to find a solution for my need for day time sleeping when there is such dramatic building work going on.

I would ask that I am contacted to further discuss how we can work together to reduce the impact on my important work and my very precious down time, with the work that is being done on this building.

I am objecting to the design and scale of building S3 in the current proposal. I live opposite this site and our roof top terrace is approximately 7m in height (3 stories), so a 13m development (10-14 stories) will overshadow our light (reducing sunlight in winter), create shade on our terraces and also we will have people looking into our terrace from the south-side balconies. Can the design be adapted to move the S3 building back further on the site to reduce the impact on us as direct neighbours. The current proposal states S3 will be setback 4.2m from Phillip Street, can this be increased to offer more privacy to our existing homes? I also note that the S3 primary entry is proposed on Phillip Street which will substantially increase the foot traffic on our street. Clause 7.7.2 states that Philip Street will be impacted by overshadowing and our properties will be impacted in morning hours. The diagrams on page 92 of the EIS show we are impacted from 9am to 3pm.

In relation to the S4 building at 4 stories above ground (we are currently 3) how will our privacy be impacted by any south-side balconies in the design? It seems S4 Level 4 communal terrace will look down on to our terrace area.

As an immediate neighbour to this large scale project, I have several concerns:
1. The planning portal documentation contains a remediation plan for asbestos. Clause 4.5.1 mentions identified asbestos-impacted, TRHs and PAH soils at multiple locations. How will we be protected through its removal?
2. Two of our units have large open terraces, and our ground floor garage has open ventilation windows, will we be drowned in dirt and dust for 12 months of earth-works construction? How will we be protected through its removal? The demolition of the PCYC will be right outside our bedroom windows.
3. In early community consultation we requested monitoring on our site (as an older building) for noise and vibration to ensure the project stayed within the guidelines. This has not been responded to with us directly as yet.
4. During the built of the TOGA site at Cleveland/Baptist, we had trucks parked along Redfern Oval from 4am waiting to load, this was extremely disruptive and noisy. The construction depature route incorporates Phillip Street.
5. I note this comment, 7.9.6 no construction worker car parking will be provided. Workers will be using public transport. How are tools carried to and from site with no parking? I don't know many tradies who use public transport? I can foresee many utes/vans taking local parking for the duration of the project.
6. Nosie monitoring for Phillip Street was recorded (daytime) at 53, with clause 7.10.3 showing construction noise will nearly double 89, this will impact shift workers trying for day time sleeping.Appendix I – Mitigation Measures Table is not very specific on what actions would be taken to mitigate noise.

I note from the pictures that you are building the buildings right up to the front of the property and the pathways. This is old practice. New practice is to leave a good amount of front lawn, filled with trees, in front of the building, so that the experience of being on the pavement is shady and pleasant, not with the sun beating down from bricks inches away.

I'm supportive of the project pending appropriate management and planning of the building works period.
Recent major works in Redfern have resulted in Elizabeth Street in Redfern (between Cleveland and Cooper st) being used as an unofficial heavy vehicle idle zone on route to their arrival at a building site. These heavy vehicles and delivery trucks cause significant vibrations within the residential houses and unacceptable traffic noise during idle and revving to start moving.
Please ensure there's appropriate agreement and signage to prevent this from occuring. And to prevent loss of residential parking on surrounding streets.

I use to live in Redfern in 2016 I'd walk to work in Surry Hills it was quite nice. But my only affordable option to rent was a share house. I can't imagine it's any cheaper now. We need more supply in Redfern and this sounds like a great project

It also looks quite nice. I don't think this should be all that important, as the primary purpose of a residential building is housing not eye candy, but it looks nice. I mean the pointed tops are a bit weird, but that's a personal preference and not really important.

Since Australia is having a housing crisis now, rent price goes up month by month, the government does need to use the land of 600 Elizebath Street Redfern to build some affordable housing. I have saw the detail plan of the building project on facebook. I think it is a overdevelopment plan. We somthing quick for affordable housing. People can wait for 5 or 6 years to move into a affordable housing. The state government's plan for 600 Elizebather Street is not practical. The style of building the government design is not in harmony with the neighbourhood building, looks very absurd. It will take a long time to build from the looks of the plan. You will need to demolish the PCYC house from the start of the contruction, then where will all those PCYC members go to do their activities. I think 600 Elizebathe street Redfern only need a simple 6 level brick unit building in harmony with the rest of the public housing nearby, and it will be quick to be built up, and less destruction to the local sewage system. Massive public housing is a heaven for drug dealers, and corrupted politicians. A drug dealer only need to get into one of those buildings, and get some regular customers, repeat income of selling drugs. It is a easy work for drug dealer, save their time to running around. But it is not good for the public housing tenants. Most of them are disvantage young men and young women, they are very volunerable, and very easily be lured by drug dealers. Corrupted politicians will send some one into such big public housing building to bride the residents to vote for them, it will create an unjustic political environment. I am living in 43 morehead street Redfern, a 16 level, over 100 units public housing building. The tennants in my buildings throw rubbish from up high unit in their home, they event threw glasses, food. The surrounding of the building always are always full of rubbishs, lift often broken, stair case always smell of urine. Public housing department or social housing department will never have the ability to manage such big housing complex, because the tenants and the landlord relationship will never be easy.
When your start the construction, you need to remove the treeses in the corner of Elizebath street and Kettle street , The corner of Philip street and Walker street, so that construction vehicles can access the site easily and less desrruption on the traffic nearby. Those community reserve or street closure on both corners are built by the selfish local public housing tenants. they want to have a quiet street and more parking for themselves, but it cause traffic mayhem elsewhere. A lof of public housing tenants are very selfish and greedy, it could be an act from the drug dealers too, so that polic cars can not access to those buildings quickly. Redfern doesn't need those street clousure and trees, Redfern Park is right next to them, there are so many trees in Redfern Park and chairs.

I'm writing to express my feedback on the proposed development at 600-660 Elizabeth Street, Redfern. I believe it's crucial to ensure a balanced mix of private and public housing in the new apartments.
Creating a diverse community where people from different socioeconomic backgrounds can live together is essential for fostering social inclusion and breaking down stereotypes associated with concentrated public housing. A mixed housing model can also contribute to improved safety outcomes for all residents by reducing the stigma associated with public housing, potentially leading to lower crime rates and a greater sense of shared responsibility for safety.
Integrating public housing within a larger development can improve the overall health of the neighborhood, including better access to amenities, services, and opportunities for residents of all income levels. A mixed housing approach can also contribute to the revitalisation of the area and enhance its image. By avoiding the concentration of public housing, the development can attract a wider range of residents and businesses, leading to economic growth and an improved perception of the neighborhood.
Furthermore, a diverse mix of residents can support local businesses and contribute to the economic sustainability of the area. I urge you to consult with community stakeholders and housing experts to ensure the successful implementation of this mixed housing model.

I strongly support this proposal - it looks very good and is well placed for more housing, and we desperately need more social and affordable housing like this. It is right on a public park, across from a woolworths, and a 12 minute walk to Waterloo metro. Nearby is the major Bourke st cycleway, theres medical centres, pre schools. It's well connected and an ideal place for higher density.