UON City Campus Student Accommodation

Please refer to the attachment

We strongly object to the proposed development on the site of 20 Civic Lane, Newcastle NSW 2300 for the following reasons:

- Current proposal with a height of 40+ metres will dominate the foreshore and significantly impact the outlook of properties including 489 Hunter Street
- This loss of visual amenity will directly and detrimentally impact the value of existing residential properties along Hunter Street
- The current proposal unnecessarily exceeds the 30 metre mapped height limit as per Council guidelines
- The current proposed design with cooling towers and plant on top of the proposed building is both unnecessary, unimaginative and at odds with all other developments along the foreshore
- The current proposed design does not include consideration of a basement which would provide the additional room for plant and equipment and mitigate some of the loss of amenity for neighbouring residences
- The current proposed design fails to consider the opportunity presented by such prime real estate close to the foreshore in the heart of the city
- The current proposed design appears focused solely on function - a missed opportunity to create an innovate or visionary space befitting of the site's potential

We ask that the designers reconsider the current proposal and look for alternative designs which intrude less and inspire more, coexisting with instead of overpowering the available site.

Assessing officer,

Please find grounds of objection outlined in attached objection.

Regards,
Paul McLean

The site is mapped as per Council to be a 30 meter building, where there is an additional 10 meters added to that.

It seems as thou the plant room is going to be over 2 stories high on top of the currently approved 9-story building, where the additional plant room becomes more than 33% of the Council environment planning set out for this site additional added.

All of the other recently built structures in the adjourning area where able to be planned and built to their height limits, why can't the same be applied here.

The Council has very good reason for placing these height limits. The stepping up of these heights is designed to be for the benefit of all. Sticking to these limits allows for the sharing of Newcastle harbour.
Every other building is designed by the rules, this one is not. Is the University special, I hope not.

As to why it is part of the building plan:
As per the Design Moves 4 City Block Articulation this I want to be special is down to:
"Push the height of the City Block up on the west to provide a city marker and campus identity. Increased height allows the plant room to be integrated within the development and accommodated within the additional height."

This going over this limit is all just to create a "city marker and campus identity" not a valid reason to be breaking the rules.
Then it continues; as now that we have broken the rules, we can use that additional space for the plant room.

This marker of here we are, looks just like a 11-story building where a 9-story building should be.
This campus identity been achieved is then not shown out in the rest of the impression diagrams.

The reason why it looks like a 11-story building as this marker is just bland building material. Is not making your latest design be a green space on the roof - a much more better looking marker to be seen and admired.
Then other ideas could be explored like where other buildings in the area have gone under ground for their building services, why not in this case.

This sizable exceeding of the height limits for no real reason needs to be re-planed.

Please refer to attached letter

I hereby formally object to the proposed additional levels of the University of Newcastle building opposite Worth Place.

I am an owner on level 12, 489 Hunter St Newcastle. I recently completed the purchase of that unit and at the time of the purchase was aware of the proposal by Newcastle University, however it has recently come to my attention that the proposal now appears to have been changed to increase the height of the Newcastle Uni building.

The site appears to be mapped by the Council for a 30m building height.

I'm advised that the elevation however on the drawings lodged with DA-2502 shows ceiling level of the 9th floor would fit within that 30m height but the top of the parapet would appear to be almost 4m higher. It seems that substantial plant areas may be 6m or 7m above the mapped height limit, with the top of the cooling towers shown at 10.9m above the LEP mapping

I am advised that this exceeds the LEP mapped allowance by 36%.

The design report (page 37) suggests that the raising of the building level is "to provide a city marker and campus identify" which i do not understand and of which does not seem to make any sense.

The substantial increase in what will be the height now, that was not available to the public previously, means that significant loss of view and amenity relating to the view from level 12 489 Hunter St will now occur, this not being apparent at the time of my purchase.

The features now added to the existing building height envelope, do not appear to add anything other than unnecessary bulk and scale to the proponents building and considerably block visual amenity to the harbour from the top levels of the 489 Hunter St building, not anticipated in respect of the current or existing DA.

I request this objection be noted when considering the current status of the development proposed.

I am an apartment owner directly opposite the proposed development, unit 802 489 Hunter St Newcastle.

Our concern is the substantial exceedance of the LEP mapping height limit.

While significant attention appears to have been paid to the impact on views from existing apartments at 522-526 Hunter Street, there appears to have been no consideration to loss of visual amenity from existing apartments at 489 Hunter Street and 509 Hunter Street.

The site is mapped by Council for a 30m building height and as such there can be no complaint about a building that is built to that level. The elevation on drawing DA-2502 appears to show that the ceiling level of the 9th floor would fit within that 30m building height. It is unclear why the Top of Parapet should be almost 4m above this level, and why such substantial plant areas should be 6m and 7m above the mapped height limit. The top of the cooling towers, which is the part of the structure that most impacts existing residents at 489 and 509 Hunter Street, is shown at 40.9m AHD, a full 10.9m (or 36% exceedance) above the LEP mapping.



Page 37 of the Design Report seems to suggest that the portion of the building that most impacts the residents of 489 and 509 Hunter St (Diagram 4. City Block Articulation) has been deliberately raised “to provide a city marker and campus identify”, which quite frankly is a nonsense statement. There appears to be little further assessment or justification for this decision. The perspective view on DA-6001 does not illustrate that this substantial additional ‘ornamental’ facade offers any “city marker” or “campus identity” at all. Realistically it looks no better / different from the 9-storey section visible further east along Civic Lane.



We would like to highlight that all the buildings already constructed west of this site along Honeysuckle Drive (18-28 Honeysuckle Drive) were able to build to the mapped height limit without building plant and cooling structures exceeding the mapped height limit.

While the current approval is for a “9-story building plus plant”, I’m sure it was not envisaged that the plant would be 2-3 additional stories, and that a cooling tower would end up exceeding the LEP height mapping by more than a third. No other building in the city has such excessive plant installation located on the rooftop. If no commercial building would be permitted to get away with this sort of exceedance, then why should the university building? There appears to be no consideration as to why the addition of a basement level like most of the other buildings in the area could not be included, which would allow below-ground space for these bulky plant structures currently proposed for the roof and blocking out the city skyline?



And perhaps moving the plant and cooling to a basement level would allow a ‘City Marker and Campus Identity’ to be achieved by adopting a more modern Green-Roof option, that would actually help the building stand out in an otherwise bland building presentation (particularly from the west and south), while also assisting with urban runoff water quality, and with the heat-sink effects of the continued densification of buildings in the city and loss of green space.



In summary, LEP mapping of the site has a 30m height limit, and the approved 9 floors of accommodation fit within this mapping limit. The excessive rooftop plant structures occupy high value inner city space that will have a significant impact on the amenity of the higher level apartments that currently exist to the south and south-west, without any apparent consideration. The LEP height limitations have been strategically developed to ensure that the views of Newcastle Harbour are shared and available to multiple residents and businesses and the stepping of the height limitations reinforces this concept. Totally disregarding the site-specific limitations is unacceptable. There are alternate designs that can reduce or remove these impacts that do not appear to have been considered. The other existing buildings in the precinct have all been able to be designed without excessive plant and cooling towers on their rooftops, and the suggested justification of ‘creating a city marker and campus identity’ is not achieved by the excessive ‘ornamental’ rooftop facade. We request the proponent revisit their design with proper consideration of their impact on the city skyline and the adverse impacts on adjoining properties that have been built with proper regard to the planning limitations and Council’s vision for the city skyline.

The building itself appears to be designed to the correct height, with the ceiling of the upper floor proposed at the 30m height limit, but then the architects appear to have added either a 3.85m parapet wall or a 7.4m rooftop façade to the entire building. These features add nothing visually except unnecessary bulk and scale, needlessly overshadowing surrounding properties and presumably blocking views to the harbour from properties to the south. As it currently stands, the 40.7m structure in the context of a 30m height limit is an unnecessary overpowering blight that the city does not need.

Newcastle deserves better than this. If the university can afford to buy up large chunks of the inner city, it can afford to design a space that is original and interesting. Something more creative that just building significantly higher than the LEP height limit!

The UoN project are a very welcomed part of revitalising the City.

I understand that this project has a total height of around 40m, where as the approved max height is 30m. Even at 30m, the project already adversely impacts homes around it, with their views and access to long line of sight vision severely impacted. The proximity of the project to surrounding homes exacerbates the problem, a high building very close to existing homes, means that the existing homes are going to be impacted. There should be restraints and mitigations in place:
- Retain the max height to 30m.
- Put the plant room underground and out of sight.
- Make the building's exterior more attractive as hundreds of neighbouring properties are going to be staring at this for years to come.
- There's no need for a huge sign and especially no need for nighttime neon style lights that are going to impact the homes around it.

This project is going to go ahead, I am supportive of UoN's expansion in the CBD and brining life and business and longevity to the benefit of NCC and the Hunter. Consideration of the impacts should not be collateral.

Thank you.
-Joe.

Submission Opposing the Proposed Student Accommodation Development

I am writing to formally oppose the proposed construction of additional student accommodation by the University of Newcastle, particularly the development of a "9-story building plus plant." While I understand the need for student housing, I believe this development will have a negative impact on Newcastle for the following reasons:

1. Inadequate Infrastructure to Support the Development
Newcastle's infrastructure is already struggling to keep pace with the growing population. Specifically parking - The area is currently experiencing inadequate parking facilities. Adding more people without addressing parking shortages will only worsen the problem. The removal of parking spaces to accommodate the building adds further strain.

2. Impact on Newcastle's Aesthetic and Tourism
The increase in apartment buildings, including the proposed student accommodation, is leading to the gradual loss of Newcastle’s charm and natural beauty, which are vital to the city's appeal for tourism. The area is becoming overdeveloped, with little thought given to preserving its unique character.

3. Height Exceedance and Aesthetic Concerns
While the current approval is for a "9-story building plus plant," it is concerning that the plant itself could add an additional 2-3 stories. This would significantly exceed the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) height limits, with the cooling tower surpassing the height mapping by more than a third. No other buildings in the city have such excessive rooftop installations, and it raises the question of why this exceedance should be permitted for the university building, particularly when commercial developments would not be allowed this latitude.

4. Lack of Consideration for Alternative Designs
The proposal does not seem to consider the option of incorporating a basement level, which could house the bulky plant structures currently planned for the rooftop. Many other buildings in the area have basement levels, and this would be a more practical and aesthetically pleasing solution. By placing these structures underground, the city skyline could be preserved, ensuring that Newcastle maintains its unique visual appeal.

Conclusion
In summary, the proposed student accommodation is not compatible with the existing infrastructure and aesthetic of Newcastle. There has been little consideration for the long-term impact on parking, tourism, and the city skyline. I respectfully request that the development be reconsidered or moved to where the negative impact of the proposed development would be mitigated.

Thank you for considering my submission.

I am commenting on the Parking and Transport strategy. With an aim, in accord with the strategy of Newcastle City Council, of promoting active commuting by walking or cycling, the provision of approx. 80 bicycle spaces seems inadequate. There is a comment that additional spaces are available in NuSpace and the Q building, but does not mention the number, or the current level of use. These spaces may come under more pressure as both light rail stops are further away than the 100m mentioned in the document. As someone who lives nearby, and uses both light rail stops, I can say they are more like 300-400m away, as can be confirmed on Google Maps. A simple error such as this does not imbue confidence in the rest of the document - rather that it is attempting to justify a proposal which requires more scrutiny. To promote active commuting by the future residents of this building, a vastly increased number of bicycle spaces is required. This in turn could assist in limiting the number of students who might consider the need for a vehicle, and the resulting pressure on the proposed "park and ride" service provided by the NuSpace shuttle. I urge serious consideration be given to promoting the use of cycling by increasing the number of spaces for bicycles.

I would like to make a submission about the proposed UoN inner city student accommodation building. While the design appears to efficiently provide for its purpose (i.e. to squeeze as many students into the space as possible), my concern is the apparent lack of architectural creativity applied to the design. The University has a unique opportunity to produce an imaginative architectural outcome with its inner-city campus. Something a bit special. Something iconic. Something more than just ‘adequate’.

In my opinion there is a reasonable presentation to the north into the campus precinct, but from the documentation provided, the only apparent attempt to do anything ‘creative’ to make the building look interesting from any other angle is to add a substantial façade to the roof that puts the building well over the 30m LEP height limit. The design report claims this additional height creates ‘a city marker and campus identity’, but this comes across as a lazy argument fabricated to justify lazy design to attempt to hide bloated plant installations positioned on the roof to save money instead of designing into the building or basement where they would have less impact on the skyline and view and amenity of other city residents.

The building itself appears to be designed to the correct height, with the ceiling of the upper floor proposed at the 30m height limit, but then the architects appear to have added either a 3.85m parapet wall or a 7.4m rooftop façade to the entire building. These features add nothing visually except unnecessary bulk and scale, needlessly overshadowing surrounding properties and presumably blocking views to the harbour from properties to the south. As it currently stands, the 40.7m structure in the context of a 30m height limit is an unnecessary overpowering blight that the city does not need.

A university campus should strive to achieve greatness in design, to create a space that stimulates the minds of students, and inspires the community to respect and value the University as an institution. There are countless examples from around the world of university buildings that are creative, original and imaginative. Even the University building on Hunter Street, while not being to everyone’s palate, is a good example of what a university building can be. Not every building needs to be to this extreme, and I understand these sorts of options may be more expensive than what is currently on exhibition for the student accommodation building (I’m not an expert in pricing these buildings, but the current looks cheap so presumably it is cheap). But budget alone should’t mean that there should not be a better attempt to design the proposed accommodation building, hopefully to look like something more appealing than a modern prison tower block.

In my opinion, the northerly aspect of the proposed building has a reasonable appearance with the ground-floor terrace, lounge building and curved feature stairwell breaking up the monotonous tower behind. It would be hard to argue that there is anything stimulating or inspiring in the appearance of the main building, and thus the overall presentation when looking from the east, south of west. I’m sure if they were asked, most of the final year architectural students could come up with a more appealing design! Maybe a redesign of this proposal could be assigned as the 2025 final year architecture projects and we might get something with a little more creativity?

The same could be said for the ‘Q building’ – the first attempt the Uni made at construction in this precinct. While it was trumpeted as architecturally significant primarily because it was constructed partially with timber, realistically the end product still has the same boring generic appearance as any other multi-story building – a glass façade box atop a stark plain concrete podium, and with large south and east facing plain concrete monolith walls as the primary presentation to the south and east back into the Uni precinct.

Let’s not make the same mistakes with the remaining buildings. Newcastle deserves better than this. If the university can afford to buy up large chunks of the inner city, it can afford to design a space that is original and interesting. Something more creative that just building significantly higher than the LEP height limit!

29Sept 2024

Reference to Application No. SSD-61618229
Location: 20 Civic Lane Newcastle NSW 2300

We wish to provide a submission regarding the proposed development by the University of Newcastle (UoN) for a 9 story, 445 Bed student accommodation building.

We live in an apartment which will look directly onto the proposed development.

Newcastle has changed greatly over the last couple of decades. The development of shopping centres in the suburbs has seen the city centre evolve into a precinct that now provides homes rather than just business buildings. The harbour foreshore has transformed from wharves servicing commercial shipping to a vibrant eating and entertainment strip. This has seen a massive increase of suburban residents attracted into the city to enjoy its renewal. It is that lifestyle that enticed us to move from a suburban home into city apartment living.

The NSW Government privatised the public bus network and the ‘service’, now run by Keolis Downer bears little to no resemblance to what used to be outstanding. The main railway was then cut from running to the top of town and now terminates in Newcastle West. A light rail was constructed, but rather than utilizing the existing rail corridor, it was run up the main street (Hunter St). Prior to this, Hunter St had 2 lanes running in each direction with curb-side parking on BOTH sides of the road. The light rail has reduced this to one lane each way with parking on only ONE side of the road.

The loss of available street parking has been greatly exacerbated by the closure and demolition by Newcastle City Council of its inner city multi-story carpark and the closure of other privately run inner city multi-story carparks.

The site proposed for the UoN student accommodation building currently provides 43 car spaces. This parking is ALWAYS in high demand.

We are extremely concerned of the impact this development will have on our local amenity. It is beyond belief that a development of such magnitude would be considered without ANY carparking provision. To suggest 82 bicycle spaces will be adequate beggars belief. If we assumed conservatively that ONLY 1 in 10 of the students had a car, that, and the displaced 43 cars would account for nearly another 90 vehicles trying to find already scarce parking in our locality.

To make matters worse, the current development proposal further flags another three major buildings (D,E & F) immediately adjacent this proposed building running along the old rail corridor. ALL that area is currently car parking and as can be seen in the Google Earth photo (attachment), provides a massive amount of car spaces, ALL of which are fully utilized. Newcastle will lose ALL that parking if UoN is allowed to proceed with no thought to what impact their institution will have on local residents.

We already have difficulty when we invite relatives and friends in to visit finding parking within an easy walking distance. Our building has a very limited amount of visitor parking so more often than not, parking has to be found on the street. This proposal will greatly compound an existing, but currently manageable problem.

Do we think our submission will make any difference when we consider the following?

UoN is Newcastle’s biggest employer.

They carry a huge influence over our Local City Council.

The Sydney based bureaucracy has created an empty rail corridor for land sale and has been instrumental in enabling these developments to occur.

Were they aware that the developer/s would provide zero carparking?

Did they consider that their previous decision of the Light Rail caused the loss of the carparking off one side of Hunter Street?

Are they now taking into consideration that the closure of Inner-city multi level carparks has brought a focus on the big problem our city now has with the lack of inner city parking?

Are they aware that the lack of car parking already has a significant impact on existing inner-city residents?

At 68, I was born and bred in Newcastle. I’ve seen the changes that has moved us from a dirty industrial city dominated by the BHP Steelworks to a thriving city where people are attracted to live ‘in town’. These developments without proper consideration of the community that surrounds them will have a detrimental impact on why we chose to move here.

Unfortunately, the decision makers don’t reside here and will not have to deal with poor decision making.


Chris Raine and Jo Geddes
U902 509 Hunter Street
Newcastle NSW 2300
Mob: 0458 514410

The main basis for our concern is the substantial exceedance of the LEP mapping height limit. While significant attention appears to have been paid to the impact on views from existing apartments at 522-526 Hunter Street, there appears to have been no consideration to loss of visual amenity from any other existing properties - the most obviously effected include apartments at 489 Hunter Street and 509 Hunter Street.

The site is mapped by Council for a 30m building height and as such there can be no complaint about a building that is built to that level. The elevation on drawing DA-2502 appears to show that the ceiling level of the 9th floor would fit within that 30m building height. It is unclear why the Top of Parapet should be almost 4m above this level, and why such substantial plant areas should be 6m and 7m above the mapped height limit. The top of the cooling towers, which is the part of the structure that most impacts existing residents at 489 and 509 Hunter Street, is shown at 40.9m AHD, a full 10.9m (or 36% exceedance) above the LEP mapping.

Page 37 of the Design Report seems to suggest that the portion of the building that most impacts the residents of 489 and 509 Hunter St (Diagram 4. City Block Articulation) has been deliberately raised “to provide a city marker and campus identify”, which quite frankly is a nonsense statement. There appears to be little further assessment or justification for this decision. The perspective view on DA-6001 does not illustrate that this substantial additional ‘ornamental’ facade offers any “city marker” or “campus identity” at all. Realistically it looks no better / different from the 9-storey section visible further east along Civic Lane.

We would like to highlight that all the buildings already constructed west of this site along Honeysuckle Drive (18-28 Honeysuckle Drive) were able to build to the mapped height limit without building plant and cooling structures exceeding the mapped height limit. As such it would appear to be either lazy or greedy design that this building should take such a substantial exceedance of Council’s planned outcome for the precinct. If all these other buildings can effectively be designed within the height limit by more efficient or realistic designs, then why can’t the UoN building?

While the current approval is for a “9-story building plus plant”, I’m sure it was not envisaged that the plant would be 2-3 additional stories, and that a cooling tower would end up exceeding the LEP height mapping by more than a third. No other building in the city has such excessive plant installation located on the rooftop. If no commercial building would be permitted to get away with this sort of exceedance, then why should the university building? There appears to be no consideration as to why the addition of a basement level like most of the other buildings in the area could not be included, which would allow below-ground space for these bulky plant structures currently proposed for the roof and blocking out the city skyline?

And perhaps moving the plant and cooling to a basement level would allow a ‘City Marker and Campus Identity’ to be achieved by adopting a more modern Green-Roof option, that would actually help the building stand out in an otherwise bland building presentation (particularly from the west and south), while also assisting with urban runoff water quality, and with the heat-sink effects of the continued densification of buildings in the city and loss of green space.

In summary, LEP mapping of the site has a 30m height limit, and the approved 9 floors of accommodation fit within this mapping limit. The excessive rooftop plant structures are a lazy solution that needlessly occupy high value inner city space that will have a significant impact on the amenity of the higher level apartments that currently exist to the south and south-west, without any apparent consideration. The LEP height limitations have been strategically developed to ensure that the views of Newcastle Harbour are shared and available to multiple residents and businesses and the stepping of the height limitations reinforces this concept. Totally disregarding the site-specific limitations is unacceptable. There are alternate designs that can reduce or remove these impacts that do not appear to have been considered. The other existing buildings in the precinct have all been able to be designed without excessive plant and cooling towers on their rooftops, and the suggested justification of ‘creating a city marker and campus identity’ is not achieved by the excessive ‘ornamental’ rooftop facade. We request the proponent revisit their design with proper consideration of their impact on the city skyline and the adverse impacts on adjoining properties that have been built with proper regard to the planning limitations and Council’s vision for the city skyline.

Cooks Hill Community Group is a residents group whose objectives include preserving the amenity of residents of the suburb. Cooks Hill is a residential suburb 250m south of the subject site.
Cooks Hill Community Group objects to the proposed nine storey building to be used for campus student accommodation and retail, primarily in regard to the lack of any on site car parking in the proposal.
We note, according to the applicant's Parking and Transport Assessment (p25) “There is generally a high demand for parking in the locality of the site, both on-street and off-street. This is associated with the close proximity to the Law Courts and Civic Theatre, as well as demands generated by businesses located along Hunter Street and Honeysuckle Drive“. The residential streets of Cooks Hill absorb some of this current demand, negatively impacting resident's on-street parking amenity. The lack of on-site parking in this proposal will increase this demand and further impact residents in Cooks Hill.
In general, the applicant’s Parking and Transport Assessment grossly over-estimates the available parking amenity in the general area that would be able to absorb the increased car parking demand from 445 students living on the proposed site, the demand created by staff and the demand created by the retail component.
The applicant’s Parking and Transport Assessment (p24) is incorrect in stating "The Civic West carpark, at the western end of Gibson Street, south of the site provides capacity for over 470 vehicles". A recent re-development of this site (DA2018/00037), with the addition of residential units, has resulted in a reduction of 133 publicly available car spaces in the Civic West parking station.
The applicant’s Parking and Transport Assessment (p45) is incorrect in stating "As part of the interim stage for the campus masterplan the at-grade car park on the site is to be maintained. This provides an option along with other all day carparking in various locations in the City Centre (eg No 2 Sportsground, The Store carpark) for those staff who choose to drive". With residential development now progressing on The Store DA there is no longer any publicly available car parking on this site. Demand for parking at the No 2 Sportsground parking area has recently increased with City of Newcastle imposing 4hour time limits of previously un-timed car spaces in nearby Union St.
According to the University of Newcastle's Uonnavigtor (https://uonnavigator.com/2024/02/28/uni-hack-parking-transport-options-for-newcastle-campuses/), in relation to parking at the city campus "Most students I’ve talked to park on the street. The biggest obstacle with this is time limits." Cooks Hill residents experience this with student parking impacting the on-street parking availability. The lack of on-site parking in this proposal will increase this demand and further impact residents in Cooks Hill.
There is no evidence provided by the applicant’s Parking and Transport Assessment (p3) to support the uptake of the proposal that “Students who wish to maintain access to a vehicle are able to be accommodated at the Callaghan campus. For these students the University shuttle acts as a Park and Ride to commute to the CBD". We note the NUspace Shuttle between NUspace and Callaghan only operates on weekdays from 7:10am- 10:15pm and takes a significant time to travel between campuses. The option to park a vehicle at Callaghan is likely to be taken up by a limited number of resident students of the proposed accommodation building who are far more likely to seek out un-timed spaces in the nearby residential streets of Cooks Hill, impacting the parking amenity of residents.
The proposed “bike storage facility on the ground floor accommodating 82 bike parking spaces, equating to a rate of 1 space per 5.5 residents" is totally inadequate for 445 residents and ownership of a bike does not mean residents will not own a vehicle. Provision of bike parking does not justify the lack of provision of on-site car parking.
The proposed DA, without any on-site carparking, is not in the best interests of the community and should be rejected.

I am a resident on Hunter St and holder of resident Parking Permit for Civic Lane.
I do support the Project.
I support the Project on the basis that Resident Parking permits will not be provided to the hundreds of Student residents who will be residing at the new campus student accommodation building.
If Resident Parking Permits were to be provided to the hundreds of Student residents who will be residing at the new campus student accommodation building, it would cause absolute parking chaos for existing residents of Hunter St who are holders of Resident Parking Permits for Civic Lane

I strongly object to the following development proposal for the following reasons:

*Privacy: I live directly opposite the proposed development I've already been impacted by the first uni building and this one will only further impact my privacy with people seeing straight into my bedroom and living areas.
*Sunlight: As I live on the south side my building, it concerns me greatly that this building will obscure further the amount of sunlight I get into my house.
*Noise/anti-social behaviour: I'm concerned about noise that will be caused by the extra 445 student beds near my building, especially if there is common area on the rooftop and other common areas nearby. Additionally I'm worried about the antisocial behaviour that goes along with having that many young people grouped together in a small urban area.
*Traffic/parking: the development will generate a lot of additional students and their visitors to an already strained infrastructure. And this proposal offers very minimal parking spaces. This development should offer at least 50% of the parking spaces of the 445 beds on offer. This development will generate a lot more traffic.
*Environmental impacts: currently every year plovers nest on this property as do other birds. And the development doesn't have enough green space and will generate more rubbish.
* Aesthetics: The current uni building has an unsightly plant and services. Better use of urban architecture and design needs to be in place as it is very visible from my apartment.

Adequate parking needs to be provided. While the project aims to encourage public transport and bicycles, no doubt some or perhaps most residents will own motor vehicles and there will also be frequent and occasional visitors who will require parking as well. The CBD is already rife with parking issues. The current public transport status does not provide practicable solutions for students and their visitors (personal visitors as well as service providers).

Providing 0 provision for car parking within this development is not only unrealistic, it is a failure on part of the University to the people of Newcastle as parking in the CBD is already difficult enough and it is unrealistic to believe that none of these 400+ residents will own a car. Many students live on accommodation because they live far from home, and many still travel to and from work in a car. I believe it would be a gross failure to both the students and residents of Newcastles CBD to give 0 realistic provision for car parking within this development.

The provision for private transport is lacking. I have several concerns and questions.
1. 82 bicycle spaces for 445 beds. This seems to be far too few for accomodation that has no car parking provision.
2. There does not appear to be secure storage for these bicycles. Many of these bikes will be electric which are valued at thousands of dollars and therefore storage will need to be not accessible to the general public with theft deterents in place.
3. Are the 445 students going to be able to gain a resident's parking permit with the NCC? If so, this overflow of additional cars is going to place a huge burden on the already limited car parking for the current residents of Cooks Hill. Parking meters are installed but they only deter day time parkers from parking for an extended time. Locals, especially those who reside in properties that were built in the late 1880s and early 1900s, have no, or limited parking facilites on their own properties. They are already struggling to find parking spaces without the addition of these additional 445 residents in the Cooks Hill vicinity.
4. If the above answer is no to parking permits then there will need to be additional spaces for ebikes, pushbikes and scooters. Considerations need to also be made around the charging of a large number of lithium batteries in this development as students may rely heavily on this mode of private transport.