80-88 Regent Street Redevelopment

Submission attached

Submission attached

Submission attached

Submission attached

Submission attached

Submission attached

Submission attached

Submission attached

I am writing to say that I object to an 18 story high building on this already congested block, an 18 story block would simply just turn this area into an over crowded junction with no extra roads to support additional residential influx.

this whole site has not been in keeping with the heritage listing of the facades the architecture is ugly and haphazard - there has been not thought into any design aesthetics and the buildings are all just thrown in haphazardly. They dwarf all the original beautiful heritage facades into complete insignificance.

This block should be in keeping with historical Redfern - Roses Corner- now its just ugly Redfern Junction.
I completely object to 18 stories and 4 levels under ground parking.

I say give this corner back to the community - keep it 3 levels maximum, this corner should be community facilities a library, a community centre. Coffee shops and restaurants to give back some community atmosphere instead of a mass of concrete towers.

Already those towers block out valuable daylight to all the surrounding terraces and apartment blocks - please reject 18 stories its not logical and Redfern does not need another bottleneck.

All of the new businesses have all kept in line with the local council guidelines and built up fantastic small businesses and have created Redfern's new emergence we don't need another building developer building high-rises that is not in keeping with the fantastic Redfern environment - it will just kill it and all the vibrant small businesses will move on and Redfern will become just another Junction like Bondi and Chatswood.

thank you

Dear NSW Planning & Environment,

I object to this development on several grounds all which goes into making this vibrant residential area untenable to live. I object to:
1) The height of the building which will dwarf and reduce light to area around including my block.
2) The excessive number of apartments that are already being build it the area with no increase in infrastructure.
3) The increase in number of people again deteriorating already breaking point infrastructure such as open areas and transport.

Thank you
Deepak Khuller

Existing (Victorian?) building facades should be retained as has been done with the adjoining development in order to maintain the streetscape and retain the human scale of the structure.

I object to the above DA proposal. The noise level of the current construction site adjacent to my premises is interfering the enjoyment of my property. The proposal mentioned herein will further extend the noise level and disrupt my right to the enjoyment for the extended period.

I make a further submission on the dust from existing construction and raise health concerns for residents with respiratory issues. I have dust covering the outer walls and windows of my balcony, which requires more than the reasonable amount of cleaning at my own expense in order to restore to the reasonable standard of enjoyment.

My final submission concerning the issue of privacy. The close proximity of the proposed construction to my premises has impinged on my rights of privacy in my own resident. This requires on my part to apply DA to construct shutters in my balcony to preserve my rights, the cost will be paid by residents that are affected by this DA including myself, which can be avoided.

I object to the proposed DA mentioned herein!

I am very disappointed with many major development happening in the small parcel of land opposite Redfern station. With many approvals recently, a new one 88 Regent St in particular made me to write this objection. I believe the approval of these huge developments have not taken into account areas such as lighting, overcrowding and perseverance of heritage buildings.
I believe recently 88 Regent St was objected by The City of Sydney (the City) due to non-compliance with the height controls for the site, and also include the functionality of the proposed child care centre.
22 public submissions have been received to date, with 19 objecting to the proposal.
Due to the objections, they have recently revised and submitted a MINOR CHANGES !!
- Introduction of additional commercial floors at the lower levels;
- Reduction in the number of residential apartments from 79 to 56;
- Reduction to the tower floorplate - specifically an increased setback to the northern boundary (to the Iglu student accommodation development).
OUR MAIN CONCERN FOR URBA IS WE WILL LOST ALL OUR NATURAL SUNLIGHT and OVER DEVELOPMENT. NO PRIVACY BETWEEN BUILDINGS. WIND TUNNEL, LOSS SOLAR AMENITY

There should at least be spacing between the two buildings to allow some sunlight to flow into the affected Gibbons Street properties. The high rise buildings should be spaced apart.
The proposal of 18 stories high at small parcel of land is unreasonable and overcrowding showing how greedy the developer is on farming the small parcel of land. The building should be lower, more harmonious and slanted.

I have an interest in a property at 1806/7-9 Gibbons Street Redfern and have friends who own live in the property next door and as result, I wish to place my strongest objection to this 'amended' application. And these amendments are mainly internal and minimal in the oval view of the building envelope.

Despite receiving 126 submissions opposing the development next door at 60-78 Regent Street, the Planning Assessment Commission approved that development in August 2015.

My major concern with this proposal at 80-88 Regent Street is that it joins the development at 60-78 Regent Street and as a result, Gibbons Street residents will lose ALL their natural direct eastern sunlight.

Apart from it being an over development for the site, there should at least be spacing between the two buildings to allow some sunlight to flow into the affected Gibbons Street properties, similar to what has been created around Darling Harbour, where the high rise buildings are spaced apart.

The properties located on the eastern side of Gibbons Street will also suffer a great loss of privacy.

The community's major concern is when we have the opportunity of transforming Redfern into a warm area in which people can live, high rise `cold' buildings are being approved, similar to the ghettoes up in Kettle Street which we approved in the 1960s.

60-78 Regent Street should never have been approved and this application should also be declined in its present form, because of its bulk and the affectation on the neighbouring buildings, residents and the community in general.

Yours faithfully,
Stephen Sim
Tele: 0419 275 275

See attached

IGLU: Despite receiving over 200 submissions opposing the development at 60-78 Regent Street, the Planning Assessment Commission approved that development in August 2015.

A summary of the assessment process for two State significant developments in Regent Street Redfern is provided below:
Building 1 - Mixed Use Student Accommodation at 60-78 Regent Street, Redfern (SSD 6724)
Construction commenced on site.
· the Department completed a thorough assessment of the proposal including agency and community consultation. The City of Sydney was generally supportive of the proposal, however as 126 submissions were received the application was referred to the Planning Assessment Commission (the Commission) for determination.
· on 12 August 2015 the Commission held a public meeting and heard from six registered speakers all opposed to the proposal.
· on 25 August 2015, the Commission determined the development be approved subject to a number of conditions.
· the Department is aware of the compliance issues raised by Mr Tyson Donnelly and has completed an investigation into matters of possible non-compliance. An Official Caution has been issued to the applicant and the contractor to ensure notification requirements for Asbestos Removal (Condition D8) are appropriately addressed. The investigation found the applicant was generally compliant with all other requirements, however the Department will continue to monitor operations on the site.
· no further compliance action has been undertaken.
Issues with IGLU.
The department has taken no responsibility for managing this development since they sweepingly approved it. It has proved near impossible to get clear answers out of any one in relation to the final certified plans. The compliance team has taken over 2 months to answer 4 simple points which are:
1. An historical archaeological assessment not being undertaken prior to demolition works commencing and the details of the excavation director not being forwarded to the Heritage Council as per condition C3.

2. Construction and Environmental Management Plan not submitted to the Certifying Authority (identified below as Steve Watson & Partners), the Department of Planning and Environment and City of Sydney Council as per condition C11.

3. Notification of asbestos removal both in writing and signage as per condition D8 not being undertaken.

4. The site notice not describing the details of the project as per the requirement of condition D27.
Answers which I still do not have. The biggest problem is the Department of planning dismisses my questions as the council's problem and then the council has no idea about the particulars of the project as it was all approved at a state level. This leaves many gaps in accountability. Teritus Greyling and Simon Truong have been particularly obstructionist ever since I called into question the accuracy of their responses to me.

Building 2 - Mixed Use development, 80-88 Regent Street, Redfern SSD 7080
Application currently being assessed.
This proposal is currently being rigorously assessed by the Department. The assessment process to date has included:
· agency and community consultation. The City of Sydney (the City) has objected to the proposed development largely due to non-compliance with the height controls for the site. Additional issues raised include, adequate solar access, appropriate setbacks, podium design and the functionality of the proposed child care centre.
· the Department has coordinated two meetings with both the applicant and the City to discuss the issues identified.
· 22 public submissions have been received to date, with 19 objecting to the proposal. The Department has written to objectors located in adjacent buildings offering a site visit to further discuss issues raised and assess potential view loss as a result of the proposal.
· on 1 April 2016, Departmental representatives visited Ms Juliana Jo's apartment at 157 Redfern Street, Redfern to discuss the potential impacts of the proposal.
· The Department understands the applicant is currently working to address issues raised in public submissions and by the City.

Very briefly the main changes, as I understand them are:
- Introduction of additional commercial floors at the lower levels;
- Reduction in the number of residential apartments from 79 to 56;
- Reduction to the tower floorplate - specifically an increased setback to the northern boundary (to the Iglu student accommodation development).

THESE ARE VERY MINOR CHANGES!

My major concern with this proposal at 80-88 Regent Street is that it joins the development at 60-78 Regent Street and as a result, we will lose ALL our natural direct eastern sunlight.

Apart from it being an over development for the site, there should at least be spacing between the two buildings to allow some sunlight to flow into the affected Gibbons Street properties, similar to what has been created around Darling Harbour, where the high rise buildings are spaced apart.

The properties located on the eastern side of Gibbons Street will also suffer a great loss of privacy.

The community's major concern is when we have the opportunity of transforming Redfern into a warm area in which we can live, high rise `cold' buildings are being approved, similar to the ghettoes up in Kettle Street which we approved in the 1960s.

60-78 Regent Street should never have been approved and this application should also be declined in its present form, because of its bulk and the affectation on the neighbouring buildings, residents and the community in general.


These are the main issues with the new development:
80-88 Regent St
I strongly object to this development. This is another example of how developers take advantage of the SSD scheme. Developments that would otherwise be subject to City of Sydney planning framework or provide benefit to the community are given a near free pass by the State Department of Planning, a department that cares very little for the needs and lifestyle of existing residents and community members.

There are a host of reasons this development should not go ahead including:

● The Building Separation between the development and URBA and DEICOTA
● View loss and solar amenity
● Wind Tunnel
● Childcare centre drop off/parking:


The Building Separation between the development and URBA:
This Development infringes on the 8m Regent St setback yet makes no effort to increase the building separation from URBA. The development wants all the benefits of a wider building while doing nothing to lessen the impact on the surrounding buildings. This building will be less than 11m away from living spaces in the URBA development and dramatically block views and solar access. It also violates the RFDC building separations that should increase with height, which reduces the impact of towering buildings and also provides increasing levels of privacy. If this development wishes to directly tower over Regent st it should add those gained meters to the back of the development increasing separation from URBA and maintaining surrounding amenity.

View loss, Solar amenity and Privacy:
With the approval of IGLU, views and solar amenity have already been severely affected to both the 157 Redfern st `DEICOTA' building and the 7-9 Gibbons st `URBA' building. This development would completely entomb the surrounding apartments, further cutting out solar access well below the minimum 2 hours of direct sunlight to a significant number of apartments in both buildings (DEICOTA and URBA).

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. View loss is severe, all eastern views from URBA would be lost and the remaining southern views from 157 Redfern St DEICOTA will be dramatically reduced. I note on the provided visual impact analysis the misleading nature of `maintained view areas'. The views indicated at the top of the diagrams do not exist as they would be completely blocked by IGLU, the only way any apartment from `Deicota' could look anywhere but the now reduced southern view is if they leaned over their balcony. The apartments from URBA would have no NE view at all.


Privacy is a major concern for the URBA development. There would be an imposing development only 11m away allowing a clear, intimate view into the private space of existing residents. While an adequate distance away from the `Deicota' development this building will completely enclose the bulk of apartments on the eastern side. This is not New York or Hong Kong, I don't see the need to encase so many residents within walls of concrete.

Wind Tunnel:
The wind analysis provided is inadequate. The impact on the `Deicota' Building is likely to be severe. Southerly winds already batter these apartments, the creation of a wind tunnel when both Iglu and this new development are built would create unliveable and dangerous conditions. I ask that a more in-depth study be conducted as the Redfern area is currently suffering major wind issues. Especially Redfern st between Gibbons and Regent.

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. No matter the justification that people would "catch the train" we know this is not a reality for many busy and working parents. This will create a major hazard in the 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 that do not impact existing public space.

Please see attached. I object to this submission.