Hudson Vine Mixed Use Redevelopment

Local resident
19 Vine Street
Redfern NSW 2016

1 May 2025

Thomas Piovesan
Planning Officer
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Locked Bag 5022
Parramatta NSW 2124

Re: Objection to SSD-70066710 – Hudson Vine Mixed Use Redevelopment

Dear Thomas,

I am writing as a resident of 19 Vine Street, Redfern, to formally object to the proposed Hudson Vine Mixed Use Redevelopment (SSD-70066710). After reviewing the Environmental Impact Statement and related documents, I believe the development, in its current form, is wholly inappropriate for our neighbourhood and presents significant adverse impacts on the amenity, character, and liveability of Vine Street and the surrounding heritage precinct.

My concerns are outlined below:

1. Overshadowing of Vine Street Terraces
The proposed building will cause a drastic reduction in solar access to my home and other terraces along Vine Street. Currently, we receive approximately 9 hours of sunlight during winter. The development will reduce this to just 2 hours between 1pm and 3pm—a 55% overall loss and a 66% reduction during the ADG-defined critical window. This is not compliant with the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), BEP1, or Housing SEPP, all of which seek to protect solar access.

As our terraces are heritage-listed, there is no possibility to adapt or renovate to recover this lost sunlight. Our primary living rooms rely entirely on front-facing windows and will become cold and dark as a result of the overshadowing.

2. Inappropriate Height, Bulk and Scale
The proposed building exceeds the intended 5-storey limit, reaching nearly 23 metres in height—more than 7 metres above what is reasonable for this area. This massive scale is out of context with surrounding 2- and 3-storey terraces and contradicts both the visual intent and urban design principles of the Redfern-Waterloo Built Environment Plan (Stage One) and the ADG.

3. Visual Impact and Sky View Loss
Our current outlook includes significant open sky views from our windows and the street. These would be blocked entirely by the proposed development. The visual impact assessment submitted by the applicant omits key perspectives—particularly from Vine and Eveleigh Streets—and fails to provide an accurate representation of the resulting loss of sky, openness, and human-scale character.

4. Privacy Intrusions
The proposal places balconies and windows that overlook the private rear yards and bedrooms of Vine Street terraces and adjoining Abercrombie Street properties. This direct line of sight into our homes is an unacceptable invasion of privacy and is contrary to the Housing SEPP and ADG, which require protection of visual privacy through appropriate building separation and screening.

5. Inadequate Justification for Height Variation
The Clause 16A variation request fails to demonstrate that the height breach is justified. It contains unsubstantiated claims—for example, that the height is “modest” and that there is no solar impact. These are demonstrably false. The proposal does not meet the Wehbe tests, nor does it offer site-specific planning grounds to justify the excessive height. Compliant alternatives—such as adjusted ceiling heights or redistribution of floor space—are clearly available.

Conclusion and Request
This development poses unacceptable impacts on residential amenity, heritage character, and environmental sustainability. Planning controls and design guidelines exist to protect exactly these values. Allowing this proposal to proceed in its current form would undermine the integrity of our planning system and set a harmful precedent for overdevelopment in sensitive heritage areas.

I respectfully request that the application be refused or significantly amended to ensure:
• Full compliance with 3- and 5-storey height limits;
• Maintenance of solar access for neighbouring terraces;
• Preservation of privacy and outlook for existing homes;
• Visual impact assessments from all key public viewpoints;
• A revised Clause 16A request grounded in facts and site-specific reasoning.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Yours sincerely,
Local Resident, 19 Vine Street
Redfern NSW 2016

I am writing to make a formal submission objecting to the proposed Hudson Vine Mixed Use Redevelopment (SSD-70066710). As a recent purchaser and resident of a heritage terrace on Vine Street, I am extremely concerned by the scale, intensity, and non-compliance of this development, and the severe impact it would have on our home, amenity, and the broader neighbourhood.

Key impacts include:
• Overshadowing of heritage terraces on Vine Street, including our home. This directly breaches Section 3.1.4 – Solar Access of the DCP, which requires adjoining properties to receive a minimum of three hours of direct sunlight to living room windows and private open space between 9am and 3pm mid-winter. This development would eliminate natural sunlight for most of the day.
• Visual dominance and bulk, replacing sky views with an imposing wall of brick and concrete. This contravenes Section 4.2.1 – Building Form and Massing of the DCP, which seeks to ensure new buildings respond to the scale and character of their context, particularly in areas with established low-rise residential forms.
• Loss of privacy, with commercial balconies and windows overlooking our private spaces. This is inconsistent with Section 3.9 – Visual Privacy of the DCP, which requires developments to avoid direct overlooking of neighbours’ windows and backyards.
• Height non-compliance, with the proposed six-storey buildings exceeding the height of buildings map under the LEP 2012 for this site.

As recent homeowners, we purchased in good faith based on the planning protections in place for this heritage streetscape. The approval of this development in its current form would not only undermine the planning framework Council is bound to uphold, but would severely damage the liveability, privacy, and long-term value of our home.

This is not a case of minor variation or infill — it is a significant overdevelopment that sets a dangerous precedent for heritage and low-rise areas across the City of Sydney.

We strongly urge Council and the Department of Planning to refuse this proposal. Should it proceed, major amendments must be made to ensure full compliance with the LEP and DCP controls, as well as meaningful protections for existing residents.

Please confirm receipt of this submission and keep us informed of all updates regarding SSD-70066710.

I have grown up my whole life living between 15 and 17 vines st redfern.
This planned development poses many issues of which a few are listed below.
-The development will change the whole atmosphere of the area and will risk the area becoming an entertainment precinct which it is not.
-Overshadow heritage terraces on Vine Street, eliminating natural sunlight for most of the day — including in living rooms, bedrooms and backyards. We will be loosing at least 5 hours of sunlight due to this and retaining only 4 hours. This will negatively affect our household as we will be more reliant on overhead lighting and heating to counteract the cold/ dim environment this loss of sunlight will contribute to.
My household pets are reliant on sunlight entering the household to maintain normal photoperiods and without the natural sunlight entering the house I will have to then leave lights on all day even when I am not at home for the day. This will increase energy costs which we are luckily keeping reasonably low at the moment, but we would not be able to say the same if this development goes ahead as is currently planned .
-Block out views of the sky, creating a looming wall of brick where residents currently enjoy light and openness and privacy.
-Invade privacy, with direct lines of sight from commercial windows and balconies into our homes.
-Breach multiple planning rules, including height controls, solar access guidelines, and urban design principles meant to protect neighbourhood scale and character. The area is predominantly made up of 2-3 storey homes, and this building would be overpowering the area.
Planning policy exists to ensure growth does not come at the cost of liveability which this plan threatens for many members of the neighbourhood.
Please consider this objection and amend this planned development.
From a very concerned Kara Vasylenko (and all her pets)

To Whom It May Concern,

We, the undersigned residents and community members living in close proximity to the proposed development at 2-14and 16-30 Vine Street and 32-34 Everleigh Street, wish to lodge a formal objection to the current application.
1. Inadequate Parking Provision

The existing commercial building already generates overflow parking, with employees routinely using surrounding residential streets, the local basketball court, and small green space for parking and informal breaks. The proposed development will introduce 23 residential apartments along with increased commercial space, yet only provides 24 undercover parking spaces. Critically, there is no additional parking for office staff or visitors.

Although the proximity to the train station is often cited as a justification for limited parking, in practice, this has increased the local parking burden over the last two decades. Many commuters now drive to the area and park all day before catching the train to the city. This trend continues to displace residents and create daily congestion.

If the development proceeds without increasing parking capacity, we urge Council to consider implementing parking meters or timed restrictions in the surrounding streets to prevent further overflow and commuter parking.
2. No Provision for Green or Recreational Space

The development makes no provision for green space or recreation, despite adding both residential dwellings and commercial tenancies. The nearby small green space and public basketball court are already under pressure and were never intended to serve as substitute break areas or private amenity space for commercial tenants. The absence of new landscaping, play areas, or indoor recreation spaces reflects a disregard for the wellbeing of future occupants and the existing community.
3. Inappropriate Scale and Visual Impact

While the proposed height may comply technically with planning controls, the staggered massing up to 6 storeys is out of keeping with the low-rise character of the neighbourhood. The design appears visually harsh and unsympathetic to nearby heritage buildings and surrounding homes. It risks overshadowing and dominating the streetscape, negatively affecting local amenity and community character.
Conclusion

We are not opposed to thoughtful development. However, any proposal must be balanced, inclusive, and respectful of the community it joins.

We respectfully request that Council require the applicant to revise the proposal to:

Increase parking to meet both residential and commercial demand;

Include meaningful green and recreational space for tenants and workers;

Adopt a design that better responds to the local built environment.

I am writing in support of this project. We need more infill development in central Sydney. This project's location within walking distance of the CBD makes it ideal for more housing.

I object to the parts of the project which involve six storeys. Given the height of the surrounding buildings and the residential nature of the area, six storeys is too high, is out of character and will create overshadowing. I do not believe buildings above four storeys should be permitted. In addition, the streets around the proposed development are narrow and are already utilised for parking, increasing housing density and added retail and restaurants without sufficient parking in the development will create unnecessary strain for the surrounding streets and negatively impact neighbours.

I am objecting due to serious concerns regarding its impact on local amenity, infrastructure, environmental quality, and neighbourhood character:
1. The development will create a visual overdominance, impacting the streetscape and setting an inappropriate precedent for future development.
2. Expanded development will overflow into movement and parking into surrounding residential streets, affecting residents' access and safety.
3. Increased traffic from delivery trucks and commercial loading zones will pose risks to pedestrians and school children.
4. The height and density will result in overshadowing of nearby homes and private open space, reducing sunlight.
5. Increased noise from operations will affect residents' acoustic privacy, especially in the evenings and early mornings
6. No mention of contributions to infrastructure upgrades to accommodate increased demand
7. Excavation and demolition works will create dust, vibration, and soil instability—particularly risky for nearby homes which are mostly older homes.
8. Potential impacts on urban tree canopy, local biodiversity, or drainage patterns
9. This project will lead to over-commercialisation and gentrification, pricing locals out

Please see attached objection.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on SSD-70066710. Please see the attached response and information sheet.

Submission Cover Letter – Hudson Vine Mixed-Use Redevelopment (SSD-70066710)

Dear Council Officers and Planning Assessment Panel,
We write as long-term residents of Vine Street in Redfern, directly opposite the proposed development site. While we are broadly supportive of thoughtful urban renewal, we are deeply concerned that this development, in its current form, will make it extremely difficult for local families to function due to the severe and permanent reduction in available parking.

We recognise and support the City of Sydney’s ongoing efforts to reduce car dependency in the inner city. We have made personal commitments to this goal: our household owns a single compact vehicle, which we use sparingly — primarily for school sport and essential errands. However, the reality is that some car use remains necessary for family life in Sydney.

This development is permitted to include up to 45 car parking spaces under council guidelines. It provides just 23 — barely 51% of the maximum. The developer has informed residents that no further parking was possible within planning limits, but that is demonstrably not the case.

We purchased our home — which has no off-street parking — trusting that the City would balance the needs of residents, businesses, and growth through its own policies and controls. We believe that trust is being eroded.

We are not objecting to the development itself. The architectural design is sensitive. We appreciate the developer’s efforts to consult with local residents. We are willing to endure construction impacts for long-term community benefit.

What we object to is the way the Traffic and Parking Assessment attempts to downplay the real, cumulative impacts on our streets:

- The Environmental Impact Statement highlights over 700 new jobs created, and the Operational Management Plan forecasts 750–900 people onsite at peak times.
- Yet the Traffic Assessment predicts this will result in just 11 vehicle movements per hour during peak times.
- Why? Because their calculations are based only on the number of parking spaces provided — not actual building usage or realistic transport patterns.

This is misleading. In today’s urban context, traffic generation is driven by a mix of car share, delivery services, rideshare, and service vehicles. The fact that parking is underprovided does not mean traffic will be low.

In addition, diagrams in the submission misrepresent existing street conditions. For example, several show five on-street spaces on the south side of Vine Street — but there are only three usable spaces in reality. Occasionally, four compact cars squeeze in tightly. Five, never. These discrepancies erode confidence in the rigour of the report.

As local residents, we understand that private consultants like Varga Traffic Planning are paid to advocate for development approval. But council must serve the broader public good — and in this case, the public interest is not being served by underestimating the true impact of this development.

We therefore respectfully request that council and the Department of Planning consider the following adjustments:

- Increase onsite parking to reflect the full allowable amount under planning controls.
- Commission an independent assessment that reflects realistic traffic generation from a development housing 900 people.
- Protect residential amenity by increasing resident-only parking availability in nearby streets.

We love living in Redfern. We welcome change, and believe this project can be a valuable addition to our neighbourhood — but only if the long-term needs of residents are genuinely considered alongside those of developers.

its been recently purchased and currently renovated and will directly affect its resale , as the building is too high for the area and will block significant sunlight

DO NOT build too high

We are currently renovating a property on Vine Street, recently purchased by a friend for whom we are completing the renovation works. She is unable to make this submission herself, as her English is limited.
The proposed structure will directly impact the resale potential of the property once the renovation is complete, as it appears to be disproportionately high for the area and will significantly block natural sunlight.