80-88 Regent Street Redevelopment

There are already 2 high rise building in the same block. We embrace personal space and lifestyle in our community. Having another high rise building will block our view, exposure to sunlight and ventilation of our building.

The proposed new building is too close and too tall to our building. There will be noise problems as well.

I totally vote against it.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the submission. I generally support the proposal as it complies with the intent of the Redfern Town centre as set out in SEPP Major Projects 2005.
However, the proposal should be amended to include retention of the existing 2 storey retail facades along Regent street. The adjoining SSD approved development at 60-78 Regent Street has retained all except one of the existing facades along this vital and active local shopping/restaurant strip. The removal of the facades would detract from the whole regent street/botany road retail strip. This is the intent of the 2 storey podium in the SEPP and should be retained. The 18 storey tower complies and is in character with other recent and approved developments in the area.

Wi l l i a m L a n e a c c e s s a n d l o a d i n g d o c k :
T h e b u i l d i n g i s o n l y p r o v i d i n g o n e under s i z e d l o a d i n g d o c k a l o n g W i l l i a m L n
t h a t r e l i e s o n b e i n g m a n a g e d b y t h e
b u i l d i n g m a n a g e r . T h i s c o u l d c r e a t e
c h a o s o n W i l l i a m L n a n d a g a i n b l o c k
a c c e s s t o 1 5 7 R e d f e r n S t . T h e o p e n i n g t o W i l l i a m L n i s a l s o q u i t e s m a l l a s i t
e f f e c t i v e l y o p e r a t e s a s a o n e w a y e n t r y i n t o 1 5 7 R e d f e r n S t . T h e d r a m a t i c
i n c r e a s e i n t r a f f i c w i l l c r e a t e a h a z a r d t o c a r s t u r n i n g i n t o W i l l i a m L n a n d n o
t r a f f i c m a n a g e m e n t s o l u t i o n s h a v e b e e n
o u t l i n e d

I am the owner of a unit in 7-9 GIbbons Street. The new development will block almost 100% of the view and solar amenity to my apartment. Privacy will also be impaired because there will be little separation between the new development and the URBA building.

i object to this development for the following reasons

impact on our ever diminishing views to the south
Marion Street will be continually obstructed as will the entrance to our building
The set back laws have again been overlooked.

council have laws in place but these seem to be overlooked if it doesn't suit the develpoment

The Development infringes on the 8m Regent St set back yet makes no effort to increase the building separation from URBA meaning it will be as little as 11m away ­ less than half the separation it should be at the higher levels (SEPP 65). An increased separation would provide the required privacy to the URBA building, and help to maintain southern views dramatically cut off by this development.

Construction Hours:

The current proposal has provided a preliminary construction plan. It states a weekday and Saturday start time of 7am. This is at odds with restrictions set out for the approved IGLU
development. They should conform to required 7:30am start time and 9am start time for high noise equipment.

With recent approval of Iglu development on Regent street, this inclusion of yet another major project for an 18 storey mixed use site means that we the residents of both Deicota and Urba have to suffer detrimental impact to our way of life. It isn't just about sacrificing a decent unobstructed view but much more serious issues such as lack of direct sunlight to all east facing apartments, no privacy due to encroachment. Other potential problems are traffic and parking issues with substantial population growth in the area and change of historical urban landscape in Redfern.

I am the owner of 1409, 7-9 Gibbons Street, Redfern.

The proposed Iglu development brings very little benefit to Redfern and its surrounds. The need for condensed student housing in the immediate area is low. The impact this building will have on surrounding properties is immense, both in quality of life, value and future prospects. The heritage look and feel of Regent street will be lost with the stark introduction of such a large building right against the street scape.

1. Too close to URBA
2. Too many complex in a very small area
3. Not enough public facilities to accommodate so many residence.

1. The Building Separation between the development and URBA. The Development infringes on the 8m Regent St set back yet makes no effort to increase the building separation from URBA meaning it will be as little as 11m away less than half the
separation it should be at the higher levels (SEPP 65)
2.View loss and solar amenity.
With the approval of IGLU views and solar amenity have already been severely affected. This
development would completely entomb the surrounding apartments, cutting out solar access
well below the minimum 2 hours of direct sunlight. More importantly a building that close,
combined with the approved IGLU development cuts out any ambient solar amenity that
exposure to the open sky provides. This increases the need for artificial lighting and negatively impacts the energy efficiency of the apartments, which is at odds with the city of Sydney's objectives. All eastern views from URBA would be lost and the remaining southern views from 157 Redfern st will be dramatically reduced
3. Childcare centre drop off/parking:
While their plans to add a childcare centre to the area are commendable, they have provided almost no drop off parking, proposing only 2 spots instead of the required 8 for a centre of this size. This will create a major hazard of a morning and afternoon blocking Marion St/William Ln
and potentially parking access to 157 Redfern St. The development needs to provide a better parking plan and more temporary drop off locations.
4. William Lane access and loading dock:
The building is only providing one undersized loading dock along William Ln that relies on being managed by the building manager. This could create chaos on William Ln and again block access to 157 Redfern St. The opening to William Ln is also quite small as it effectively operates as a one way entry into 157 Redfern St. The dramatic increase in traffic will create a hazard to cars turning into William Ln and no traffic management solutions have been outlined.
5. Marion St garbage collection:
The new development is providing garbage collection off Marion St. This will mean the loss of a number of short stay, off street parks along Marion St which act as defacto visitor parking for the surrounding buildings. Also the entering and leaving of large collection trucks having to turn out
of the restricted space will create further hazards on an already crowded Marion St which services two large developments currently and shortly a 370 person student accommodation with it's own host of retail loading dock issues. A better solution needs to be proposed
6. Construction Hours:
The current proposal has provided a preliminary construction plan. It states a weekday and Saturday start time of 7am. This is at odds with restrictions set out for the approved IGLU development. They should conform to required 7:30am start time and 9am start time for high
noise equipment. As this building has a large basement area there will be a large amount of excavation noise
7. Restrictions applied to the IGLU development:
Proposed development hours of operation are outside those those for the IGLU development
8. The use of high noise plant and equipment and that impact placed on residents would be unbearable and the amenity impeached

I have a few concerns about this development. Firstly in document 7241C_11.2_Request SEARS_Final_150522.pdf in Section 2.3 Description of Surrounding Development.

The incorrect details are given for the buildings to the East of this proposed development. It says there is a mixed use 6 storey building and various two storey commercial terraces.

I believe they are referring to 13-17 Cope street as the mixed use building, which is in fact completely residential with a storage unit on the ground floor.

The other terraces on Cope street are commercial and the terraces along Turner street are also residential.

I am concerned about the solar access for all these residential properties. I don't see anything showing the reduction in solar access for these residential properties.

My other concern is the noise that could come from the rooftop terrace that is proposed. I believe there should be restrictions concerning playing music and late night noise.

Also it would be nice if someone could actually enforce the building time restrictions during the development of this property.

I am one of the owners of 7-9 Gibbons Street Redfern.

I object to the construction of the proposed development on the following grounds:

1. Complete removal of sunlight to the URBA and surrounding buildings.

With the approval of the IGLU building next door, views and solar amenity have already been severely affected. This development would completely entomb the surrounding apartments, cutting out solar access well below the minimum 2 hours of direct sunlight. This building alongside the approved IGLU building completely cuts out any ambient solar amenity that exposure to the open sky provides. All eastern views from URBA would be lost as well as from the neigbouring buildings.

2. The Building Separation is insufficient between the development and URBA:

The Development infringes on the 8m Regent St set back yet makes no effort to increase the building separation from URBA meaning it will be as little as 11m away less
than half the separation it should be at the higher levels per stated guidelines (SEPP 65). An increased separation would provide the required privacy to the URBA building, and help to maintain southern views cut off by this development.

3. Excessive congestion and disruption to William Lane by the proposed loading dock:

The building is only providing one undersized loading dock along William Ln that relies on being managed by the building manager. This could create chaos on William Ln and again block access to 157 Redfern St. The opening to William Ln is also quite small as it effectively operates as a one way entry into 157 Redfern St. The dramatic increase in traffic will create a hazard to cars turning into William Ln and no traffic management solutions have been outlined.

4. Parking inadequacies with proposed childcare centre drop off/parking:

Only 2 drop-off parking spots are planned to facilitate the childcare centre being planned, while 8 spots are usually required for a building of this size. This will create a major hazard of a morning and afternoon blocking Marion St/William Lane. The development needs to provide a better
parking plan and more temporary drop off locations.

5. Proposed construction hours are outside current regulations:

The current proposal has provided a preliminary construction plan. It states a weekday and Saturday start time of 7am. This is at odds with restrictions set out for the approved IGLU
development. They should conform to required 7:30am start time and 9am start time for high noise equipment. As this building has a large basement area there will be a large amount of excavation noise.

This is not a state significant site. There is nothing important on this land to warrant this designation. I specifically object to the development on the following grounds.

These 4 towers are too close and do not meet the minimum set back requirements.

No affordable housing has been included.

An recylcing/ewaste room needs to be included.

Not enough storage for each apartment, nor for common property storage.

No building managers office. No meeting room for owners.

Not enough space on the street for drop off parking for the child care centre.

No solar panels have been included.

The scale is wrong for the size of the land- too tall and skinny. Needs to be lower height so that there is some variance with the surrounding blocks.

The exterior finishes and design is like a boring box - surely you can do better.

Submission attached

Submission attached

No comments on the proposal

Attached

Objection to the new development at 80-88 Regent St Redfern

Reference is made to the above mentioned building application DP-105824.

I am the owner of an Apartment within 7-9 Gibbons St Redfern (URBA).

I am writing to you in objection for the proposed development for this side. My reasons for this are:

1: The Building Separation between the development, Regent St and the existing 18m storey building URBA (7-9 Gibbons St):

The Development infringes on the 8m Regent St set back. Furthermore the proposed building tower is only 12 m away from the eastern side of the URBA building and infringes the 18 metre separation required to help maintain privacy between the two towers. The 18 m separation which is the "standard" will provide the required privacy to the URBA building and at least provide some southern views dramatically cut off by the proposed development.

2: View loss and Solar amenity:

With the approval of IGLU development (68-70 Regent St) views and solar amenity have already been severely affected. This development would significantly entomb the surrounding apartments on the eastern side, cutting solar access, well below the minimum 2 hours of direct sunlight. More importantly a building that close, combined with the approved IGLU development cuts out any ambient solar amenity that exposure to the open sky provides. This increases the need for artificial lighting and negatively impacts the energy efficiency of the apartments, which is at odds with the city of Sydney's objectives. All eastern views from URBA would be lost and the remaining southern views from 157 Redfern St will be dramatically reduced:

3: William Lane access and loading dock:

The building is only providing one undersized loading dock along William Ln. This could create chaos on William Ln and again block access to 157 Redfern St. The opening to William Ln is also quite small as it effectively operates as a one way entry into 157 Redfern St. The dramatic increase in traffic will create a hazard to cars turning into William Ln and no traffic management solutions have been outlined.

1. The Building Separation between the development and URBA. The Development infringes on the 8m Regent Street set back yet makes no effort to increase the building separation from URBA meaning it will be as little as 11m away less than half the separation it should be at the higher levels (SEPP 65)
2. View loss and solar amenity. With the approval of IGLU views and solar amenity have already been severely affected. This development would completely entomb the surrounding apartments, cutting out solar access well below the minimum 2 hours of direct sunlight. More importantly a building that close, combined with the approved IGLU development cuts out any ambient solar amenity that exposure to the open sky provides. This increases the need for artificial lighting and negatively impacts the energy efficiency of the apartments, which is at odds with the city of Sydney's objectives. All eastern views from URBA would be lost and the remaining southern views from 157 Redfern Street will be dramatically reduced
3. Childcare centre drop off/parking:
While their plans to add a childcare centre to the area are commendable, they have provided almost no drop off parking, proposing only 2 spots instead of the required 8 for a centre of this size. This will create a major hazard of a morning and afternoon blocking Marion St/William Lane and potentially parking access to 157 Redfern Street. The development needs to provide a better parking plan and more temporary drop off locations.
4. William Lane access and loading dock:
The building is only providing one undersized loading dock along William Ln that relies on being managed by the building manager. This could create chaos on William Ln and again block access to 157 Redfern Street. The opening to William Ln is also quite small as it effectively operates as a one way entry into 157 Redfern Street. The dramatic increase in traffic will create a hazard to cars turning into William Lane and no traffic management solutions have been outlined.
5. Marion St garbage collection:
The new development is providing garbage collection off Marion St. This will mean the loss of a number of short stay, off street parks along Marion St which act as defacto visitor parking for the surrounding buildings. Also the entering and leaving of large collection trucks having to turn out of the restricted space will create further hazards on an already crowded Marion St which services two large developments currently and shortly a 370 person student accommodation with it's own host of retail loading dock issues. A better solution needs to be proposed
6. Construction Hours:
The current proposal has provided a preliminary construction plan. It states a weekday and Saturday start time of 7am. This is at odds with restrictions set out for the approved IGLU development. They should conform to required 7:30am start time and 9am start time for high noise equipment. As this building has a large basement area there will be a large amount of excavation noise
7. Restrictions applied to the IGLU development: Proposed development hours of operation are outside those for the IGLU development

This proposal, along with the recently approved 60-78 Regent Street, is contributing significantly to the sweeping changes that are impacting on the area of Redfern. Towering over the main activity Street of Redfern, this development and others along Regent Street are encroaching into a community that has a historical, cultural and integral connection with this part of the city: our Aboriginal community. Considering this, this development is not appropriate in its current condition and nor does it give the appropriate considerations to its impacts on the Aboriginal community, and its social impacts at large.

Norma Ingram, a long-time indigenous resident of Redfern has observed the change of the area, stating:
"The society wants to grow out now and the Aboriginal community is in their way, so they send us all out again to the outskirts of Sydney and they again want us to be fringe dwellers" (http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/02/03/redfern-community-divided-over-benefits-gentrification)
Developments, such as this one, are directly contributing to this `push out' of our vulnerable Aboriginal community. You have a social responsibility to ensure that your development does not contribute to this social malaise.
I urge you to reconsider several factors around your development, to ensure that the social impact it has does not further price out vulnerable people who have built the cultural richness of the area.

Developing a town centre:
The development of 80-88 Regent Street has a number of non-compliances in terms of the general height and setback. It is argued however that these are acceptable considering the zoning objectives that it achieves, one of which is outlined as:

`To facilitate the development of a town centre'

However a town centre is not facilitated by excluding the marginalised people of an existing community. An effective town centre commits to the broader Australian principles of multiculturalism and acceptance of all socio-economic classes, and facilitates a space for socially and culturally diverse and rich area. This building in its current form, does not facilitate this. It mirrors the buildings surrounding it, and with a combined impact, act as a white-wash of Redfern. I urge you to implement policies that encourage a true town centre that celebrates its past and seeks to enrich its original inhabitants, rather than replacing them.
Child care centre:
This proposal argues that it promotes the retail and community benefits of the area by providing a child care centre. However, it is unclear as to whether this child care centre will be affordable for many residents of Redfern. If this proposal is going to argue of its benefits, it must ensure that a certain amount of spots are saved for those in a lower socio-economic bracket. This will ensure that the child care centre is not contributing to the push-out of Redfern's current residents.

Affordable housing:
Redfern, along with the rest of Sydney, has experienced huge increases in property prices over the last few years. This development can address the disadvantages for many of the exorbitant price jumps, in recognising that it is part of the problem as a private developer.
The City of Sydney Council, in which this development in proposed, has a goal of reaching 15% affordable housing. The proposal has stated only that it will grant the minimum 2% contribution to the Redfern-Waterloo Authority, which, as stated will contribute $754,778.92 to the Redfern-Waterloo community. This barely covers the cost of one family home, which is an inadequate amount, despite fulfilling the stated levy.
The rate for the Affordable Housing Contributions Plan 2006 asks only for $76.83 per square metre of gross floor land. I ask that, considering the impacts that this development will have on this community that you increase this contribution significantly to ensure that the community will not be disadvantaged nor pushed out.

Public transport contribution:
Considering that this proposal will add an additional 80 residential apartments to the area, there has not been enough of a contribution to the public transport, including the Redfern train station. This is a heavily used station that is already at capacity, and only further stressed by the over-development of the area. The facilitation of 65 car spaces is not a satisfactory answer as this does not improve the amenity for residents. This will only further impact the already congested traffic and increase air particulates from cars. The location alone, as is suggested in the Environment Impact Statement, is not a sufficient response to maximising public transport patronage. The site's proximity to public transport may encourage patronage, however without any financial contribution to improving public transport, Redfern train station will fast be overburdened. This will decrease amenity significantly, and place undue stress on an already insufficient public transport serviced area.

Non-compliances:
As previously stated, this proposal is asking to be approved with numerous non-compliances or partial non-compliances in building height and setback. It argues that this should be allowed considering all of the benefits that this development will bring the community. I urge you to consider the points I have raised above, which if enacted, will go much further to provide the community benefit that the report suggest it will bring.

I urge you to consider the above factors and to use your development to better serve the community.