Australian Museum - Upgrade

Hello DPE,

My name is Francisco Medina and I live in the vicinity of the
Australian Museum. I am a qualified Town Planner and have lived in the
neighbourhood for the past five (5) years.

I wish to express my support to the SSDA for the proposed alterations
and additions to the Australian Museum. I believe the EIS and
supporting documentation provide a thorough assessment of the
environmental impacts associated with the proposed development. Also,
I think that installing new photovoltaic cells on the rooftops of the
Lewis and Vemon Wings is a great initiative and should be pursued more
often, particularly with regards to SSDs.

I only have a couple of comments for your consideration regarding the
removal of trees and the contamination assessment.

a) Tree Removal: The Arborist Report by EHS and Landscape Plan by SBD
identify trees 7, 9 and 10 in need for removal. To compensate for the
loss of trees 9 and 10, I understand that two (2) new trees will be
planted within the William Street road reserve. However, there is no
offset measure for tree 7. I note that this tree has been categorised
as a low category tree. Nevertheless, the amenity value of this tree
suggests hat low-category trees can be replaced within the short term
with new tree planting (refer to p.17 of the Arborist Report). I
suggest to amend the Landscape Plan to include the corresponding
replacement of this tree or include this offset measure as a condition
of consent. Please note that the proposed biodiversity garden will not
specifically offset for the loss of a tree that is not being replaced.

2) Contamination: The Contamination Report by DP mentions that to make
the site suitable for the proposed redevelopment, a hazardous
materials survey is required prior demolition and construction works
(including removal and disposal). Additionally, remediation of soils
may be required post-demolition. A Validation Report upon completion
of investigation and/or remediation should be provided, if necessary.
I suggest this is clearly specified as a condition of consent.

Finally, I suggest that construction works are implemented in
accordance to the recommendations in the Preliminary Construction
Management Plan (CMP), subject to preparation of a detailed CMP, as
typically required for a development of this scale.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on this proposal,
and thank you for your consideration.

Regards,

Francisco Medina
E: [email protected]
M: 0427 410 405

I am writing to express concern that proposed extensions to the
Australian Museum to accommodate blockbuster exhibitions may have a
negative cultural impact on the future of the treasured Pacific
Collections. I understand the benefits of the proposed expansion on
the viability of the Museum for the future. However I believe that
packing up the Pacific collections for storage off site for an
unspecified period indicates poor planning and below standard
collection management practice for what is a world class and unique
cultural asset. The Pacific Collections are unique and of
international interest including to scholars, people of the Pacific,
to international and to local visitors. The collection is also
important for cultural diplomacy and the proposal to relocate and
store offsite does not reflect stated Australian Museum commitments.
I propose that the current EOI is complemented by the commissioning of
a comprehensive cultural impact assessment . This Study should
evaluate the relocation and storage and should be carried out by an
independent expert so that all impacts may be evaluated and
alternative collection management plans and strategies for the Pacific
Collection developed and disseminated.

See email to Ellen Mannix, 18 November, 2018,

I object that the invaluable Pacific collections are being packed up and
removed to inaccessible storage for an undetermined time without due
consultation with the communities.

I urge you to consider moving the Tutankhamun exhibition to a more
suitable venue, and investing $57.5 M more appropriately to support
the already under-funded NSW arts sector.

I wish to register the following objections:
1. The Australian Museum is not a suitable venue for this exhibition -
all that is required is adequate display space. The
exhibition is on show at the California Science Center in Los Angeles
and will then move to the Grande Halle de la Villette in Paris. Both
locations are exhibition spaces not museums, so no alterations or
additions were necessary.

In Sydney, both the Ultimo Powerhouse Museum temporary exhibition
space and the under-utilised Exhibition Centre in Darling Harbour
would be ideal venues.

2. $57.5M would be far better spent on supporting NSW's grossly
under-funded regional museums, as highlighted by the current
Parliamentary Inquiry into Museums and Galleries,
and/ or to reinstate project grants to art institutions recently
withdrawn by the Arts Minister.

3. A museum's primary responsibility is to preserve and exhibit its
collections, yet the Museum's internationally-acclaimed Pacific
Collection is to be stored temporarily, then locked away in new
facilities at Castle Hill, to make way for this exhibition.

4. The Environmental Impact report states that expansion of the Museum
for a ticket office will result in "... alteration to spaces of
medium-heritage significance" This is yet another example of
unnecessary heritage vandalism by the Coalition government.

5 The report states that "Three mature street trees next to Crystal
Hall will be removed to facilitate the provision of the new bus bay
along William Street". Those trees have probably taken 30 years to
reach their current size. This will have a negative effect of the
City's air-quality and habitat for birds, insects and animals, at a
time when every mature tree is of great value. Young `replacement
trees' will not mature until 2050.

6 Implementing the proposed changes will disrupt the routine
operations of the Museum for at east a year, for an exhibition that
lasts six months.

7 The $57.5M "investment" is not cost-effective. With $30 entry
tickets purchased by 800,000 expected visitors to the exhibition would
raise $24M - less than half the cost of the planned alterations to the
Museum and NSW taxpayers.

Unlike exhibition galleries, Museums have collections. The Australian
Museum's primary mission is to maintain, expand, preserve and exhibit
its collections. Temporary roving exhibitions like Tutankhamun belong
in exhibition centres.

Liza Feeney
21/11/2018

Our submission focuses on two elements of this proposed development
which I believe could affect our amenity.

The documents provided are very numerous and also very technical. I
found it difficult to access the information in these documents
relevant to my two issues of concern. Clarity and your consideration
in these matters would be greatly appreciated.

1. My first concern is in relation to the mechanical ventilation, air
conditioning / plant room.

A couple of years ago the Museum upgraded their air conditioning
installing new plant equipment on their roof. We were not consulted
but the impact has been felt ever since. The new units operate 24/7
and at night when all the other air-conditioning units and ventilation
fans are switched off the drone of the museum units fills the night
air.

Our concern is that the increased size of the museum will result in
more noise.

If there is something which can be done to address the current issue
that would be much appreciated. We notice that where the units on the
museum's roof face the Sydney Grammar School there is a wall. I do not
know if this addition has been added for its aesthetic function or is
in fact to baffle some of the noise?

2. Our other concern relates to view sharing and the impact that the
height and setback will have on our view of St Mary's Cathedral

Again, I am not skilled in interpreting the documents provided and as
I mentioned I was overwhelmed by the amount of documentation provided
but from what I did find I could not see where this had been
addressed. Does the issue of noncompliant height relate to the Yurong
St end of the proposed development? And will the increase in height
and size to the proposed building impact our view?

WE support the development of the Museum and would seek further
clarity with regard to the concerns we have raised.

Kind regards

Liza Feeney

52-54 Stanley Street units 1, 2 & 3

As per uploaded document

Please find uploaded submission.

See attached