State Significant Development
Pemulwuy Student Accommodation
City of Sydney
Current Status: Determination
Interact with the stages for their names
- SEARs
- Prepare EIS
- Exhibition
- Collate Submissions
- Assessment
- Recommendation
- Determination
.
Consolidated Consent
Modifications
Archive
Request for SEARs (4)
Request for SEARs (5)
EIS (65)
Submissions (2)
Response to Submissions (31)
Additional Information (10)
Recommendation (8)
Determination (2)
Approved Documents
Management Plans and Strategies (5)
Other Documents (12)
Note: Only documents approved by the Department after November 2019 will be published above. Any documents approved before this time can be viewed on the Applicant's website.
Complaints
Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?
Make a ComplaintEnforcements
There are no enforcements for this project.
Inspections
30/04/2020
7/12/2020
7/12/2020
10/12/2020
18/12/2020
24/02/2020
29/04/2020
30/4/2021
3/6/2021
29/6/2021
19/12/2022
8/02/2023
Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.
Submissions
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
As a local resident I have generally supported the redevelopment of Redfern Waterloo over the past 10 years since the release of the initial RWA BEP in 2006.
I support the intent of the Pemulway proposal in terms of student accommodation close to several universities, close to a major transport hub, and provision of bicycle storage rather than car parking. The proposed public domain and public art is high quality and appropriate for the location and history of the site.
However, I must object to the overall height of the current SSD proposal. It is inappropriate for this site, and the FSR has gone from max 2:1 in RWA 2006 to 7.6:1 in the proposal. I assume this overdevelopment is based on the 99 year lease proposed to a private developer.
The current 24 level proposal is even above the 18 storey RWA town centre maximum adjacent to Redfern station. To propose an increase from 6 storeys to 24 makes a mockery of the planning process. The well designed, by Bates Smart, student housing by Igloo currently under construction, is 18 storeys and complies with the Town Centre limit. The Pemulway site was zoned for 6 storeys and not part of the Town Centre.
The current proposal would overshadow the community open space in the morning and the proposed 522 student rooms, some of which are twin share, would require more public domain. The current proposal is also out of scale with the proposed retail and aboriginal housing of mainly 3 storey and max 6 storey developments on the remainder of the site.
I would support a smaller development on the site. I support the involvement of the Government Architect with this project, but cannot agree with the overall height and scale of the current proposal.
Anna Kypreos
Comment
Anna Kypreos
Message
We are also struggling with sunlight. The higher our buildings the less sunlight to all the terraces and lower story buildings.
I strongly oppose the 24-story height modification. We at redfern do not want to become another Green Square or Zetland.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
Secondly, Redfern station struggles to cope at the moment with a number of people passing through, especially during peak student times. It is unforeseeable to continue to add directly to this by placing student accommodation across the road.
Thirdly, this precinct of Redfern already has a significantly high portion of student-only housing, which limits areas for retail development and students typically live a cheap lifestyle.
Fourthly, needing to increase the number of students simply because of funding is a poor reason. The initial development plans should have provided for sufficient funding to build the project.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
A 24 storey building is a drastic change to the previous application of 6 storeys. The surrounding area is predominantly 2 storey terraces with some 3-4 storey buildings. I am normally in favour of progress and new developments. I would have supported a 6 storey building, being a moderate increase on the surrounding buildings; however the suggestion of a 24 storey building is absurd. It would be an eyesore, and tower over all existing dwellings and public spaces. It would make the surrounding areas almost constantly in shade and destroy the amenity of the area.
I also object to this development because of the tactic which the developer has taken. First getting a reasonable building approved and then "creeping" the scope by making an amendment. A change of 6 storeys to 24 storeys cannot be considered an amendment, the original approval should be thrown out and the process restarted. The language of the "amendment" notification implies the changes are small, and I'm sure many people would not have read the detail but later be shocked to discover a 24 storey building. If it were challenged in court, I would be surprised if the definition of this development as an "amendment" was upheld.
Finally I believe that the council has itself been duped or bypassed by this change. I am familiar with state and regional planning laws and approval guidelines and this kind of building, being out of touch with the surrounding area, is exactly what the guidelines are designed to prohibit. I would suggest that a combination of the fact that it is an "amendment" and also the political pressure behind the project has caused this application to bypass some of the usual checks. I request that this development is re-assessed against the usual height restriction / surrounding amenity guidelines in a purely objective manner. That is, is a 24 storey building appropriate in an area of 2 storey terraces? Surely the answer is no.
Donald Ellsmore
Object
Donald Ellsmore
Message
We understand and recognise the vexed gestation of this scheme and we lament the lost opportunities along the way. At so many points in the development of this proposal it was possible to take a direction that would have contributed to the amenity of the area and the future of the local and wider indigenous community - yet now we are asked to comment on a proposal that will bring no good to are, the city or the wider community.
How could anyone seriously believe that the site deserves a 24 storey building? How could anyone believe that a statement of heritage impact supporting this proposal can have any credibility?
The Planning process has failed the community very badly. The system is broken. It is time to take stock. Ditch this proposal and go back to the point when this site was viewed as being a community site, with potential to heal a wounded group of first Australians. It is time to show courage and belief in a better society - not a ghetto for overseas students who want nothing more from our society than a symbol of their wealth and aspirations for status.
It is time for the bureaucrats in the planning process to look beyond the easy and popular and stand up for quality and integrity.
Please do not let this proposal proceed.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
1. The building is 24 stories when most of the surrounding suburb is 2-story, historic terraces. This is too tall and will dominate the skyline. At the moment, the area is a flourishing, preserved, historic village and this would threaten that rare combination.
2. The design/look of the building is very different to buildings in the surrounding area and, in my opinion, visually incongruent. The surrounding area is mainly Victorian-era terraces whereas the proposed design is ultra modern. It will clash with the neighbourhood.
3. I think the specialized use (student housing) is risky and may cause the building to become a slum in the future. Looking forward, it is possible that many more courses will be delivered online and physical accommodation will no longer be in such high demand as it is today. Re-purposing the studios and shared rooms envisaged in this application would be difficult and would result in accommodation that would, most likely, be considered small and undesirable for people who are not students. This could create a concentration of slum-like dwellings which would adversely affect the area. For these reasons, I don't think the amount of student housing should be increased from the original 2009 concept.
I request that my name be withheld from the list of submitters (I have ticked the relevant box in the form) and request for my personal information not to be disclosed.
Regards,
Chris Osborne
0438 898 227
not include any of your personal information in your
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
Eveleigh Street and the surrounding area is a signicant place for Aboriginal people and holds a significant place in history for Aboriginal people. It appears that as usual, zero consideration is given to First Nations People in Australia, and regardless of historical or cultural significance, government continues to displace Aboriginal people to benefit their own agenda.
I believe that given the cultural and historical significance, a certain percentage of residential properties should be returned to this site, to compensate for the homes lost prior to the demolition of such homes, to make way for the redevelopment.
ETBAHA Pty Ltd
Object
ETBAHA Pty Ltd
Message
1. Visual impact on the surrounding historical conservation area, notably the relatively small dimensions of the transport hub of the quaint Redfern train station, situated centrally on the bridge which spans the railway line, with the surrounding streets of terraced houses and warehouse conversions, sloping away from this central point, with a height of 2-3 stories. The existing development proposal has a height of 6 stories which already dwarfs the surrounding area and fails to harmonize with the architectural context. We see the proposed block of 4 times that height as preposterous. The only explanation for this proposal is the desire to squeeze out the maximum short-term profit out of the project.
2. Demographic impact. To inject an additional 600 students into an area the size of one urban block, and into a housing development which already plans to house an additional 62 families, plus an area of commercial lots, would negatively impact the population density and circulation of people and cars from the adjoining streets. This situation is already under stress. Parking is already in very short supply and surrounding houses generally rely on street parking. The streets, being of historical value, are narrow. It is impossible to create the necessary infrastructure to accommodate this tower.
We oppose the proposal for a 24 storey tower which ignores the aesthetic and historical value of the surrounding area and the wellbeing of its neighbours. .
Samantha Rich
Object
Samantha Rich
Message
In addition, the housing provided to the current Redfern community is minimal. I believe more resources, such as public amenities and housing to cater for the Aboriginal community would make this proposal more appropriate.
Deidre Mitchell
Object
Deidre Mitchell
Message
It is too tall which will make it dark, and windy.
Make more social housing for Indigenous police, nurses, ambos, eg. public servants.
The area is losing its diversity.
It will lose its community / village vibe, like a lot of other high residential areas.
Lets have more green spaces/
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
James Lidis
Object
James Lidis
Message
Michael Leggett
Support
Michael Leggett
Message
More importantly if managed professionally, the cash flow will enable borrowings for the essential housing for aboriginal people, the true custodians of this Redfern land.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
It is completely out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood west of the rail line, which is characterised by generally terraced housing and low scale apartment buildings on a human scale. There is no transitional zone between the existing dwellings and this proposal, as Precinct 1 is thankfully on a much smaller scale and the distances between this proposed building and the existing surrounding terraces is too small for a meaningful transition between a tower block and terraced housing. The height and scale of the proposal will have an enormous and deleterious impact on Redfern Railway Station, which is a state heritage listed building. The impact of the presence of this large angular building, and also the shadow cast by this building over the station will be severe.
The proposal will also cast a massive shadow over Caroline St and surrounding areas during the morning, and I note there have been inadequate shadow diagrams submitted to verify the extent of this overshadowing. It would be appreciated if these could be submitted.The proposal will also lead to a massive loss of privacy to the surrounding terrace houses, which at present cannot be overlooked by large numbers of people. This will change if this proposal is allowed.
The building has minimal articulation on any facade, leading to a dominant and unattractive aspect when viewed from any public space or the rail line, which is travelled by hundreds of thousands of people daily. What a lost opportunity this is to provide a building that could be a landmark of good design, but as currently proposed provides a poor design outcome on this visually prominent site . Moreover, it appears far too large for the site on which it will be built. Although no site dimensions have been provided, it appears that the 22-24 storey elements of the design will be contained in are area with a maximum width of between 17-28 metres. It would be appreciated if plans showing all dimensions, including height, width and site dimensions could be provided to verify both this, and the overall height of the proposal.
It does not appear that any additional open space has been provided for the proposed massive increase in residents, which will lead to a decreased quality of life for proposed occupants, as the area of open space was not generous to begin with.The courtyard itself will be overshadowed by the 9 storey tower for a significant portion of the day, although again, shadow diagrams would be useful in ascertaining the exact amount.
The layout of the building appears to promote isolation and lack of interaction between occupants, which is not healthy, especially given the rates of youth suicide and the fact that many of these students may well be isolated from their families and support networks.
No detail appears to have been provided as to the impact of additional traffic and parking generated as a result of the proposed massive increase in population, in what are small and narrow streets. No detail has been provided as to why, all of a sudden, the only way to make the Pemelwuy project work is to shoehorn a building better suited to Barangaroo into a closegrained terraced community characterised by modest terrace housing.
In conclusion, this proposal is completely out of character with the existing locality, is significantly taller than any other surrounding building, provides a poor design outcome for a visually prominent site and will significantly reduce the amenity of surrounding residents through overshadowing and loss of privacy, in addition to the visual impact of such a large and over bearing tower. It will have a significant and deleterious impact on the state heritage listed Redfern Railway Station and will provide a poor quality of life for residents of the tower. basic details, such as dimensions, shadow diagrams and justification for the increase have not been provided.
The provision of affordable housing for Aboriginal people in this locality is well overdue, and construction of this should have started years ago. However, to attempt to claim that it can now only be provided if the local community acquiesces to this monstrosity of a building is utterly unacceptable."
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
Local infrastructure is at or over capacity and this will tip the balance in a bad way.
This is not good development.
Clare Lewis
Object
Clare Lewis
Message
Belinda Davey
Object
Belinda Davey
Message
The proposed 24 storey height is completely out of scale and character with the surrounding area. It is 6 storeys higher than the tallest buildings located within the Redfern Town Centre, land zoned Business Zone--Commercial Core. It will cause significant detriment to the character and amenity of the adjacent low rise residential area to the west, including the 3 storey and 5 storey buildings approved for Precincts 1 and 2. It does not provide a transition from the Redfern Town Centre to the low density residential land adjacent, as the currently approved development does.
Neither the architectural plans or Urban Context Report include an elevation from Lawson Street showing the building in relation to the three storey building in Precinct 2 and the adjacent low rise terraces to the west. The terraces to the west along Lawson Street are notably located within a heritage conservation area.
The removal of the community gallery and retail land use components from Precinct 3 is not consistent with the Business Zone--Mixed Use zoning of the land, which seeks to support development with a mix of employment, educational, cultural and residential opportunities. This also reduces the vitality and safety of the precinct with a less active street frontage proposed. Apart from lobbies, which are just pass through spaces, there will be substations, hydrant boosters, water meters and a loading dock occupying much of the frontage. The Environmental Impact and Assessment Statement refers to the relocation of the gallery to Precinct 1 (page 19). One questions whether this requires additional permission.
The proposal deletes the approved bridge widening at Lawson Street with its creation of a more substantial public space in the front of the building creating a visual connection from Redfern Station through the site to the existing community centre in Louis Street. This aspect of the proposal was considered by the Director General to create a vibrant pedestrian space, a gateway to the site, and provide enhanced levels of safety through passive surveillance. There is no reason the new wall built as part of the widening could not be painted by Danny Eastwood and other local artists as envisioned in the Public Art Strategy, whilst maintaining the positive aspects of the approved development.
The proposal does not provide any car parking which is unacceptable for accommodation for 596 students and 13 staff. There is already significant demand for kerbside car parking in the area.
The provisions for waste storage and removal within the site appears to be extremely tight.
The approved development had a community focus, this proposal is a money grabbing excercise and takes away from the community based aspect. The social impact of the increase in the itinerant students on the area and immediate pathways will be hugely negative for the community.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
I work closely with the Aboriginal community, and it's become very clear to me that they do not want this proposal to go ahead.
Traditionally , as you well know, Eveleigh street was Aboriginal land, especially the block. The community have made it very clear to myself, others and YOU, that they do not wish to be surrounded by hundreds of International students, and neither would you want this to occur, if it was happening in YOUR street.
There appears to be a very CORRUPT situation happening here with the housing company, which your department appears now to be in collusion with. It is a tradgedy that you, our government continues to sell out the NSW community, when there is such clear opposition.
There needs to be an investigation done into the Redfern Housing Company, and perhaps you could have a good look at the way your Department conducts its business at the same time. Sadly our country is being sold out to the highest bidders, and I hope in the future when all is lost that the department person reading this feels a sense of guilt, as you are all responsible for what is occurring here.
To destroy this community like you are is devastating for them. SHAME ON YOU.
Gabrielle Richardso
Object
Gabrielle Richardso
Message
There is no reason to gradually move further and further away from this lands best use, affordable Aboriginal housing.