Mary Hanson
Object
Mary Hanson
Object
Margaret Walters
Object
Margaret Walters
Object
Darlington
,
New South Wales
Message
I support the response of RAIDD as below.
Margaret Walters
45 Ivy Street,
Darlington NSW 2008
Application No: SSD 13_6123
Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 for Camperdown-Darlington
RAIDD Response to RtS for SSD6123
Date: 24 August 2014
Name: RAIDD (Residents Acting In Darlington's Defence)
Address: Darlington, NSW, 2008
SHEPHERD ST SERVICE CENTRE
We remain opposed to the proposed Service Centre on Shepherd Street. We understand the rationale behind having principal Service Centres but repeat our suggestion that a more appropriate location for it would be near the intersection of Shepherd and Cleveland Streets.
This would mean the heavy service vehicles could enter and exit from the main arterial road of Cleveland Street and would therefore be kept off residential streets.
EUCALYPT TREES
The number of trees proposed to be retained following the objections of residents to their removal is still insufficient and not acceptable. More should be done to preserve these important trees.
HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS
We repeat the submission that the University should provide a written undertaking to only use 85% of each envelope in its modified CIP and that the Department should specify a maximum of 85% utilization of the envelopes for each building in any approval.
Overall, the height, scale and density of the proposed buildings is still far too great on all suggested precincts. Not only do buildings such as those proposed create overshadowing but also mean loss of light and therefore, loss of wellbeing especially in regard to the Regiment building which is in close proximity to the housing on the corner of Darlington Rd and Golden Grove.
DARLINGTON TERRACES
We vehemently object to the University's proposal to completely infill the backyards of every heritage listed terrace house (bar 3) from 86 - 130 Darlington Road with 3 storey extensions. The University will have used almost every piece of land for building on leaving very little open space, vegetation or light which are all important to the health and wellbeing of humans.
The National Trust has given these terraces an "A" rating - "highly intact". The University should not be allowed to degrade the heritage value of these terraces which are very close to the Golden Grove.
LACK OF COMMUNICATION and CONSULTATION
In its Response to Submissions, the University has in some cases misrepresented and in others totally failed to answer the community submissions in regard to the lack of consultation about and communication in regard to the CIP.
The community submissions were about the fact that the University had not consulted with the community about the CIP during the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as it had been instructed to do by the Director General of the Department of Planning. The University does not address this issue at all.
The University's response refers to "specific and regular email Invitations" to "community drop-in sessions" having been sent out. These were not sent out during the period that the EIS was being developed, which is when the consultation should have taken place, but were sent out well after the EIS had been finalized and only after protests from the community about the insufficient time given to respond to the wealth of documents lodged on the Department's website.
In its Response to Submissions, the University also refers to a specific email from RAIDD dated 20 March 2014, which was actually a reply from two members of RAIDD to an email from Julie Parsons, University of Sydney Project Manager, inviting them to the last "community drop-in session".
The RAIDD members replied that, due to other commitments, they themselves would not be able to attend this session and that they had not been able to attend any of the other sessions. They asserted their view that these "community drop-in sessions" did not in fact constitute the consultation as specified in the Director General's Requirements.
The University has misrepresented the RAIDD email in its response. The University says that RAIDD said in the email that they "would not be seeking alternative arrangements as offered by the University". This is not true. In the RAIDD email nothing was said about not seeking "alternative arrangements as offered". Furthermore, the email which RAIDD was replying to did not contain any such offer. The invitation to the last "community drop-in session" was extended to the wider RAIDD email list.
It is clear that the University has not done the right thing in regard to consulting and communicating with the community about the CIP. In its Response to Submissions the University has not addressed this at all and instead tries to make it appear that it is the community, the people it should have consulted in the beginning, who are being obstructive, when this is not the case at all.
FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROCESS
The point being made in the original submission about the process was that the University had not complied with the Director General's Requirements by not consulting with the community during the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for the CIP and that therefore the "Development Application should not be considered by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure".
The University, in its "CIP Response to Submissions" document, refers on its front page to a "State Significant Development Application" yet chooses to respond in this same document to this in part by saying that "SSD13_6123 is not a Development Application" but rather a "Concept Strategy".
One of the numerous documents lodged on the Department of Planning website by the University is one titled "SSD Completed Application Form 1.pdf". The heading to this form, which bears Greg Robinson's signature, is "State Significant Development Application". This is why it was referred to in RAIDD's original submission as a Development Application.
Even though the University says that SSD13_6123 is not an application, it then goes on to refer to it as one anyway. The Response says "The University lodged a test of adequacy of the DGR's with the DPE (formerly Department of Planning & Infrastructure) prior to officially lodging the Campus Improvement Plan application."
During the course of 2013 the University had held meetings with the local community, at RAIDD's request, in regard to the Abercrombie Precinct Development, the Abercrombie Street Student Accommodation and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy. The University had asked people for their names at these meetings. They did not, however, ask permission for these names to be subsequently made public.
Despite this, the University went ahead anyway and listed all of these names in Appendix N of the EIS which related back to a section headed "Community Consultation".
One of the submissions from the community expressed outrage at having their name used in this section of the CIP EIS. The University's response does not address this at all and merely quotes what was said in Section 10.2 of the CIP EIS in regard to the meetings that the people in the list had attended. These meetings had nothing to do with the CIP EIS.
The clear implication of referencing these community members' names from a section of the EIS called "Community Consultation" is that the University had consulted with the community in regard to the EIS of the CIP, when this was not the case at all. The community members had no idea about the CIP when they attended those meetings.
The implication that the required community consultation had taken place was obviously conveyed successfully to the Department as the University goes on to say in its Response that "On 18 December 2013, DPE determined that the CIP satisfactorily addressed the DGRs for the purposes of public exhibition."
Clearly the Department believes that the community was consulted in the development of the EIS for the CIP when it is equally clear to the people who should have been consulted that they had not been.
The absence of any consultation with the community about the EIS for the CIP during its development is not addressed at all in the University's Response.
The University chose to ignore the Director-General's Requirements in relation to community consultation. Not only that, it then hoodwinked the Department by making it appear in the EIS that the required consultation had actually taken place.
Margaret Walters
45 Ivy Street,
Darlington NSW 2008
Application No: SSD 13_6123
Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 for Camperdown-Darlington
RAIDD Response to RtS for SSD6123
Date: 24 August 2014
Name: RAIDD (Residents Acting In Darlington's Defence)
Address: Darlington, NSW, 2008
SHEPHERD ST SERVICE CENTRE
We remain opposed to the proposed Service Centre on Shepherd Street. We understand the rationale behind having principal Service Centres but repeat our suggestion that a more appropriate location for it would be near the intersection of Shepherd and Cleveland Streets.
This would mean the heavy service vehicles could enter and exit from the main arterial road of Cleveland Street and would therefore be kept off residential streets.
EUCALYPT TREES
The number of trees proposed to be retained following the objections of residents to their removal is still insufficient and not acceptable. More should be done to preserve these important trees.
HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS
We repeat the submission that the University should provide a written undertaking to only use 85% of each envelope in its modified CIP and that the Department should specify a maximum of 85% utilization of the envelopes for each building in any approval.
Overall, the height, scale and density of the proposed buildings is still far too great on all suggested precincts. Not only do buildings such as those proposed create overshadowing but also mean loss of light and therefore, loss of wellbeing especially in regard to the Regiment building which is in close proximity to the housing on the corner of Darlington Rd and Golden Grove.
DARLINGTON TERRACES
We vehemently object to the University's proposal to completely infill the backyards of every heritage listed terrace house (bar 3) from 86 - 130 Darlington Road with 3 storey extensions. The University will have used almost every piece of land for building on leaving very little open space, vegetation or light which are all important to the health and wellbeing of humans.
The National Trust has given these terraces an "A" rating - "highly intact". The University should not be allowed to degrade the heritage value of these terraces which are very close to the Golden Grove.
LACK OF COMMUNICATION and CONSULTATION
In its Response to Submissions, the University has in some cases misrepresented and in others totally failed to answer the community submissions in regard to the lack of consultation about and communication in regard to the CIP.
The community submissions were about the fact that the University had not consulted with the community about the CIP during the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as it had been instructed to do by the Director General of the Department of Planning. The University does not address this issue at all.
The University's response refers to "specific and regular email Invitations" to "community drop-in sessions" having been sent out. These were not sent out during the period that the EIS was being developed, which is when the consultation should have taken place, but were sent out well after the EIS had been finalized and only after protests from the community about the insufficient time given to respond to the wealth of documents lodged on the Department's website.
In its Response to Submissions, the University also refers to a specific email from RAIDD dated 20 March 2014, which was actually a reply from two members of RAIDD to an email from Julie Parsons, University of Sydney Project Manager, inviting them to the last "community drop-in session".
The RAIDD members replied that, due to other commitments, they themselves would not be able to attend this session and that they had not been able to attend any of the other sessions. They asserted their view that these "community drop-in sessions" did not in fact constitute the consultation as specified in the Director General's Requirements.
The University has misrepresented the RAIDD email in its response. The University says that RAIDD said in the email that they "would not be seeking alternative arrangements as offered by the University". This is not true. In the RAIDD email nothing was said about not seeking "alternative arrangements as offered". Furthermore, the email which RAIDD was replying to did not contain any such offer. The invitation to the last "community drop-in session" was extended to the wider RAIDD email list.
It is clear that the University has not done the right thing in regard to consulting and communicating with the community about the CIP. In its Response to Submissions the University has not addressed this at all and instead tries to make it appear that it is the community, the people it should have consulted in the beginning, who are being obstructive, when this is not the case at all.
FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROCESS
The point being made in the original submission about the process was that the University had not complied with the Director General's Requirements by not consulting with the community during the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for the CIP and that therefore the "Development Application should not be considered by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure".
The University, in its "CIP Response to Submissions" document, refers on its front page to a "State Significant Development Application" yet chooses to respond in this same document to this in part by saying that "SSD13_6123 is not a Development Application" but rather a "Concept Strategy".
One of the numerous documents lodged on the Department of Planning website by the University is one titled "SSD Completed Application Form 1.pdf". The heading to this form, which bears Greg Robinson's signature, is "State Significant Development Application". This is why it was referred to in RAIDD's original submission as a Development Application.
Even though the University says that SSD13_6123 is not an application, it then goes on to refer to it as one anyway. The Response says "The University lodged a test of adequacy of the DGR's with the DPE (formerly Department of Planning & Infrastructure) prior to officially lodging the Campus Improvement Plan application."
During the course of 2013 the University had held meetings with the local community, at RAIDD's request, in regard to the Abercrombie Precinct Development, the Abercrombie Street Student Accommodation and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy. The University had asked people for their names at these meetings. They did not, however, ask permission for these names to be subsequently made public.
Despite this, the University went ahead anyway and listed all of these names in Appendix N of the EIS which related back to a section headed "Community Consultation".
One of the submissions from the community expressed outrage at having their name used in this section of the CIP EIS. The University's response does not address this at all and merely quotes what was said in Section 10.2 of the CIP EIS in regard to the meetings that the people in the list had attended. These meetings had nothing to do with the CIP EIS.
The clear implication of referencing these community members' names from a section of the EIS called "Community Consultation" is that the University had consulted with the community in regard to the EIS of the CIP, when this was not the case at all. The community members had no idea about the CIP when they attended those meetings.
The implication that the required community consultation had taken place was obviously conveyed successfully to the Department as the University goes on to say in its Response that "On 18 December 2013, DPE determined that the CIP satisfactorily addressed the DGRs for the purposes of public exhibition."
Clearly the Department believes that the community was consulted in the development of the EIS for the CIP when it is equally clear to the people who should have been consulted that they had not been.
The absence of any consultation with the community about the EIS for the CIP during its development is not addressed at all in the University's Response.
The University chose to ignore the Director-General's Requirements in relation to community consultation. Not only that, it then hoodwinked the Department by making it appear in the EIS that the required consultation had actually taken place.
Rachel Wolfgram
Comment
Rachel Wolfgram
Comment
Darlington
,
New South Wales
Message
Dear Peter,
I would like to make the general comment that the university is putting up new buildings with no apparent vision for the future. I'm sure the uni would claim it does have a plan but from the point of view of a local resident they are just stuffing as many buildings onto an already overcrowded campus as they can. Rather than put yet another building along Shepherd St I think it would serve the uni, the students and the community better if the plan was to eventually remove the lowish building between the current grove of trees and the green space surrounding the old Darlington School building and create a contiguous green space (with NO parking). I think the building is called LNR or PNR. I would think it's obvious that the current engineering buildings and workshops to the left of the grove of trees (as you enter from Shepherd St) are probably no longer fit for purpose - or have a very limited time left for being useful. If the uni is allowed to whack up another building where the grove is - how long will it be before there's is a plan to replace the engineering buildings? There seems to be a very high risk that the whole of the uni side of Shepherd St will be one tall facade after another with no capacity for creating, restoring or maintaining green space. I would also like to emphasise that I have no faith in the uni when it comes to air-conditioning noise. There is already persistent, irritating, noise and I understand the uni simply half-pie acknowledges the problem and waits for residents to give up. Sydney uni is a university for goodness sake. How can such an organisation not come up with a a convincing solution to this problem?
regards,
Rachel Wolfgram
41 Calder Rd
Darlington
I would like to make the general comment that the university is putting up new buildings with no apparent vision for the future. I'm sure the uni would claim it does have a plan but from the point of view of a local resident they are just stuffing as many buildings onto an already overcrowded campus as they can. Rather than put yet another building along Shepherd St I think it would serve the uni, the students and the community better if the plan was to eventually remove the lowish building between the current grove of trees and the green space surrounding the old Darlington School building and create a contiguous green space (with NO parking). I think the building is called LNR or PNR. I would think it's obvious that the current engineering buildings and workshops to the left of the grove of trees (as you enter from Shepherd St) are probably no longer fit for purpose - or have a very limited time left for being useful. If the uni is allowed to whack up another building where the grove is - how long will it be before there's is a plan to replace the engineering buildings? There seems to be a very high risk that the whole of the uni side of Shepherd St will be one tall facade after another with no capacity for creating, restoring or maintaining green space. I would also like to emphasise that I have no faith in the uni when it comes to air-conditioning noise. There is already persistent, irritating, noise and I understand the uni simply half-pie acknowledges the problem and waits for residents to give up. Sydney uni is a university for goodness sake. How can such an organisation not come up with a a convincing solution to this problem?
regards,
Rachel Wolfgram
41 Calder Rd
Darlington
David Laws
Object
David Laws
Object
Darlington
,
New South Wales
Message
Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 for Camperdown-Darlington
RAIDD Response to RtS for SSD6123
Date: 25 August 2014
Name: David Laws
Address: 322 Abercrombie St, Darlington, NSW, 2008
SHEPHERD ST SERVICE CENTRE
I remain opposed to the proposed Service Centre on Shepherd Street. A more appropriate location for it would be near the intersection of Shepherd and Cleveland Streets. This would mean the heavy service vehicles could enter and exit from the main arterial road of Cleveland Street and would therefore be kept off residential streets.
EUCALYPT TREES
The number of trees proposed to be retained following the objections of residents to their removal is still insufficient and unacceptable. Currently I estimate that 100 metres from residents terraces, behind the eucalypt grove, is the two story building. By removing the trees to the extent planned, a 4-6 storey building will be behind one row of trees 20 metres from residents terraces of two stories. Overwhelming.
The meeting of June 2014 related to this tree removal issue was a joke really. I had missed previously submitting anything earlier in the year as I was on Long Service Leave. This meant that I did not hear about the meeting from the Precinct Project but via RAID who are not the responsible party for the meeting, a meeting that should have been advertised to the entire community. A one hour only meeting was held for more information. Hardly enough time. At the meeting there was no agenda. The meeting raised more questions than it answered. These questions were noted by the architect but no date was given as to answers or method. Two months later. Nothing. This is not consultation. It is token consultation only, patronising, and not informative at all.
Example of my question: The plan has `Pedestrian Gateways' out of the engineering new buildings. There is no plan for student/staff movement after leaving the University. Again. Could the university learn from what was imposed on the Business Faculty Building and have at least a movement plan for people? Already students are using Calder and Ivy streets as route from station, so with `gateways' in the plan this will encourage the takeover of quite residential streets.
Example of extemely mixed messages: The VC Spence was quoted in article in the local paper that trees would not be removed. Then there we are at the tree removal meeting. I gave copy of the VC article in the local paper to Tracey Baldwin to show just how mixed the messages were from the Univerisity
I remain entirely opposed to the removal of any of the Eucalypt Grove. The information meeting about this issue was pretty unprofessional and uniformative.
HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS
Overall, the height, scale and density of the proposed buildings is still far too great on all suggested precincts. Not only do buildings such as those proposed create overshadowing but also mean loss of light and privacy
Are the university really proposing a 9 story building on the corner of Shepherd and Abercrombie? This was shown on the plan at the meeting related to the Eucalpyt Grove (see above).
DARLINGTON TERRACES
We vehemently object to the University's proposal to completely infill the backyards of every heritage listed terrace house (bar 3) from 86 - 130 Darlington Road with 3 storey extensions. The University will have used almost every piece of land for building on leaving very little open space, vegetation or light which are all important to the health and wellbeing of humans.
The National Trust has given these terraces an "A" rating - "highly intact". The University should not be allowed to degrade the heritage value of these terraces which are very close to the Golden Grove.
LACK OF COMMUNICATION and CONSULTATION
The community submissions were about the fact that the University had not consulted with the community about the CIP during the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as it had been instructed to do by the Director General of the Department of Planning. The University has not addressed this.
The University's response refers to "specific and regular email Invitations" to "community drop-in sessions" having been sent out. These were not sent out during the period that the EIS was being developed, which is when the consultation should have taken place, but were sent out well after the EIS had been finalized and only after protests from the community about the insufficient time given to respond to the wealth of documents lodged on the Department's website.
These "specific and regular email Invitations" mean that only residents that the University had email addresses for were invited? Is this really consultation with the community when the invitation list is so narrow (ie only those whose emails the University has)? and if i do not submit then I am denied further involvement as is my experience? This is not consultation, its just lazy and dodgy.
So if I am new to the area, how could the University be emailing me invitations? Relying on emails means a reduced number of residents are targeted to know of meetings.
In its Response to Submissions, the University also refers to a specific email from RAIDD dated 20 March 2014, which was actually a reply from two members of RAIDD to an email from Julie Parsons, University of Sydney Project Manager, inviting them to the last "community drop-in session".
The "community drop-in sessions" do not in fact constitute the consultation as specified in the Director General's Requirements.
It is not the community who are the poor communicators, it is the Precinct Project Team of the University.
FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROCESS
The University had not complied with the Director General's Requirements by not consulting with the community during the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for the CIP and that therefore the "Development Application should not be considered by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure".
The University, in its "CIP Response to Submissions" document, refers on its front page to a "State Significant Development Application" yet chooses to respond in this same document to this in part by saying that "SSD13_6123 is not a Development Application" but rather a "Concept Strategy".
One of the numerous documents lodged on the Department of Planning website by the University is one titled "SSD Completed Application Form 1.pdf". The heading to this form, which bears Greg Robinson's signature, is "State Significant Development Application". This is why it was referred to in RAIDD's original submission as a Development Application.
Even though the University says that SSD13_6123 is not an application, it then goes on to refer to it as one anyway. The Response says "The University lodged a test of adequacy of the DGR's with the DPE (formerly Department of Planning & Infrastructure) prior to officially lodging the Campus Improvement Plan application."
Regards
David Laws
322 Abercrombie St Darlington
RAIDD Response to RtS for SSD6123
Date: 25 August 2014
Name: David Laws
Address: 322 Abercrombie St, Darlington, NSW, 2008
SHEPHERD ST SERVICE CENTRE
I remain opposed to the proposed Service Centre on Shepherd Street. A more appropriate location for it would be near the intersection of Shepherd and Cleveland Streets. This would mean the heavy service vehicles could enter and exit from the main arterial road of Cleveland Street and would therefore be kept off residential streets.
EUCALYPT TREES
The number of trees proposed to be retained following the objections of residents to their removal is still insufficient and unacceptable. Currently I estimate that 100 metres from residents terraces, behind the eucalypt grove, is the two story building. By removing the trees to the extent planned, a 4-6 storey building will be behind one row of trees 20 metres from residents terraces of two stories. Overwhelming.
The meeting of June 2014 related to this tree removal issue was a joke really. I had missed previously submitting anything earlier in the year as I was on Long Service Leave. This meant that I did not hear about the meeting from the Precinct Project but via RAID who are not the responsible party for the meeting, a meeting that should have been advertised to the entire community. A one hour only meeting was held for more information. Hardly enough time. At the meeting there was no agenda. The meeting raised more questions than it answered. These questions were noted by the architect but no date was given as to answers or method. Two months later. Nothing. This is not consultation. It is token consultation only, patronising, and not informative at all.
Example of my question: The plan has `Pedestrian Gateways' out of the engineering new buildings. There is no plan for student/staff movement after leaving the University. Again. Could the university learn from what was imposed on the Business Faculty Building and have at least a movement plan for people? Already students are using Calder and Ivy streets as route from station, so with `gateways' in the plan this will encourage the takeover of quite residential streets.
Example of extemely mixed messages: The VC Spence was quoted in article in the local paper that trees would not be removed. Then there we are at the tree removal meeting. I gave copy of the VC article in the local paper to Tracey Baldwin to show just how mixed the messages were from the Univerisity
I remain entirely opposed to the removal of any of the Eucalypt Grove. The information meeting about this issue was pretty unprofessional and uniformative.
HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS
Overall, the height, scale and density of the proposed buildings is still far too great on all suggested precincts. Not only do buildings such as those proposed create overshadowing but also mean loss of light and privacy
Are the university really proposing a 9 story building on the corner of Shepherd and Abercrombie? This was shown on the plan at the meeting related to the Eucalpyt Grove (see above).
DARLINGTON TERRACES
We vehemently object to the University's proposal to completely infill the backyards of every heritage listed terrace house (bar 3) from 86 - 130 Darlington Road with 3 storey extensions. The University will have used almost every piece of land for building on leaving very little open space, vegetation or light which are all important to the health and wellbeing of humans.
The National Trust has given these terraces an "A" rating - "highly intact". The University should not be allowed to degrade the heritage value of these terraces which are very close to the Golden Grove.
LACK OF COMMUNICATION and CONSULTATION
The community submissions were about the fact that the University had not consulted with the community about the CIP during the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as it had been instructed to do by the Director General of the Department of Planning. The University has not addressed this.
The University's response refers to "specific and regular email Invitations" to "community drop-in sessions" having been sent out. These were not sent out during the period that the EIS was being developed, which is when the consultation should have taken place, but were sent out well after the EIS had been finalized and only after protests from the community about the insufficient time given to respond to the wealth of documents lodged on the Department's website.
These "specific and regular email Invitations" mean that only residents that the University had email addresses for were invited? Is this really consultation with the community when the invitation list is so narrow (ie only those whose emails the University has)? and if i do not submit then I am denied further involvement as is my experience? This is not consultation, its just lazy and dodgy.
So if I am new to the area, how could the University be emailing me invitations? Relying on emails means a reduced number of residents are targeted to know of meetings.
In its Response to Submissions, the University also refers to a specific email from RAIDD dated 20 March 2014, which was actually a reply from two members of RAIDD to an email from Julie Parsons, University of Sydney Project Manager, inviting them to the last "community drop-in session".
The "community drop-in sessions" do not in fact constitute the consultation as specified in the Director General's Requirements.
It is not the community who are the poor communicators, it is the Precinct Project Team of the University.
FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROCESS
The University had not complied with the Director General's Requirements by not consulting with the community during the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for the CIP and that therefore the "Development Application should not be considered by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure".
The University, in its "CIP Response to Submissions" document, refers on its front page to a "State Significant Development Application" yet chooses to respond in this same document to this in part by saying that "SSD13_6123 is not a Development Application" but rather a "Concept Strategy".
One of the numerous documents lodged on the Department of Planning website by the University is one titled "SSD Completed Application Form 1.pdf". The heading to this form, which bears Greg Robinson's signature, is "State Significant Development Application". This is why it was referred to in RAIDD's original submission as a Development Application.
Even though the University says that SSD13_6123 is not an application, it then goes on to refer to it as one anyway. The Response says "The University lodged a test of adequacy of the DGR's with the DPE (formerly Department of Planning & Infrastructure) prior to officially lodging the Campus Improvement Plan application."
Regards
David Laws
322 Abercrombie St Darlington
Rosie Wastaff
Object
Rosie Wastaff
Object
Darlington
,
New South Wales
Message
See separate email from me to Peter McManus
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Darlington
,
New South Wales
Message
I remain opposed to the following
1. SHEPHERD ST SERVICE CENTRE
The rationale behind having principal Service Centres has merit but the location would be better served if it was located nearer the intersection of Shepherd and Cleveland Streets.
This would mean the noise and traffic impact of heavy service vehicles at all hours of the day and night would be kept away from residential streets.
2. HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS
The University should provide an undertaking to only use 85% of each envelope in its modified CIP and that the Department should enforce this utilization for each development application covered by this program.
The height, the scale and the density of the proposed buildings is still far too great on all suggested precincts. The result of these proposed buildings is overshadowing, loss of light and loss of amenity not only for local residents surrounding the university but also within the university grounds.
1. SHEPHERD ST SERVICE CENTRE
The rationale behind having principal Service Centres has merit but the location would be better served if it was located nearer the intersection of Shepherd and Cleveland Streets.
This would mean the noise and traffic impact of heavy service vehicles at all hours of the day and night would be kept away from residential streets.
2. HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS
The University should provide an undertaking to only use 85% of each envelope in its modified CIP and that the Department should enforce this utilization for each development application covered by this program.
The height, the scale and the density of the proposed buildings is still far too great on all suggested precincts. The result of these proposed buildings is overshadowing, loss of light and loss of amenity not only for local residents surrounding the university but also within the university grounds.
Jennifer Sams
Object
Jennifer Sams
Object
Darlington
,
New South Wales
Message
I remain opposed to the following
1. SHEPHERD ST SERVICE CENTRE
The rationale behind having principal Service Centres has merit but the location would be better served if it was located nearer the intersection of Shepherd and Cleveland Streets.
This would mean the NOISE and TRAFFIC impact of heavy service vehicles at all hours of the day and night would be kept away from residential streets.
2. THE REMOVAL OF THE EUCALYPT TREES IN SHEPHERD STREET.
The number of trees proposed to be retained needs further clarification. The university's modification is ambiguous and insufficient. More should be done to preserve these important trees.
3. HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS
The University should provide an undertaking to only use 85% of each envelope in its modified CIP and that the Department should enforce this utilization for each development application covered by this program.
The height, the scale and the density of the proposed buildings is still far too great on all suggested precincts. The result of these proposed buildings is overshadowing, loss of light and loss of amenity not only for local residents surrounding the university but also within the university grounds.
4. DARLINGTON TERRACES
The University's proposal to completely infill the backyards of every heritage listed terrace house (bar 3) from 86 - 130 Darlington Road with 3 storey extensions was and continues to be appalling.
The National Trust has given these terraces an "A" rating - "highly intact". The University should not be allowed to further degrade the heritage value of these terraces.
1. SHEPHERD ST SERVICE CENTRE
The rationale behind having principal Service Centres has merit but the location would be better served if it was located nearer the intersection of Shepherd and Cleveland Streets.
This would mean the NOISE and TRAFFIC impact of heavy service vehicles at all hours of the day and night would be kept away from residential streets.
2. THE REMOVAL OF THE EUCALYPT TREES IN SHEPHERD STREET.
The number of trees proposed to be retained needs further clarification. The university's modification is ambiguous and insufficient. More should be done to preserve these important trees.
3. HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS
The University should provide an undertaking to only use 85% of each envelope in its modified CIP and that the Department should enforce this utilization for each development application covered by this program.
The height, the scale and the density of the proposed buildings is still far too great on all suggested precincts. The result of these proposed buildings is overshadowing, loss of light and loss of amenity not only for local residents surrounding the university but also within the university grounds.
4. DARLINGTON TERRACES
The University's proposal to completely infill the backyards of every heritage listed terrace house (bar 3) from 86 - 130 Darlington Road with 3 storey extensions was and continues to be appalling.
The National Trust has given these terraces an "A" rating - "highly intact". The University should not be allowed to further degrade the heritage value of these terraces.
St Andrew's College
Support
St Andrew's College
Support
19 Carillon Ave
,
New South Wales
Message
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the University of Sydney's Response to Submissions. We note that the College is referred to at various points in the University's response, but wanted to focus our comments on the references in the section between pages 44 and 48 of the University's response.
1. (p45) We acknowledge that the amended envelope matches that of the adjoining RPAH.
2. (p45) We acknowledge the fact of the consultation with USYD, and the scope of that consultation.
3. (p45) We note the promise of future discussions with USYD regarding Cadigal Ln/Western Ave, ground floor alignment and pedestrian connection.
4. (p45) We note the agreement by USYD to address our concern about the single access point for loading and parking in the original CIP, and acknowledge USYD's central strategy to reduce through campus vehicle movement.
5. (p46) We acknowledge the setback solution proposed by USYD in the revised envelope.
6. (p46) We retain our preference for a N-S alignment of buildings, to minimise shadow impact upon the College's Harper Building, and look forward to reviewing this aspect in the next stage of the detailed Application process.
7. (p47) We note that the amended CIP includes shadow plans which demonstrate satisfactory compliance levels.
We note and acknowledge USYD's preparedness to consult and amend, and look forward to participating in this iterative process in the next stage of the Development application.
1. (p45) We acknowledge that the amended envelope matches that of the adjoining RPAH.
2. (p45) We acknowledge the fact of the consultation with USYD, and the scope of that consultation.
3. (p45) We note the promise of future discussions with USYD regarding Cadigal Ln/Western Ave, ground floor alignment and pedestrian connection.
4. (p45) We note the agreement by USYD to address our concern about the single access point for loading and parking in the original CIP, and acknowledge USYD's central strategy to reduce through campus vehicle movement.
5. (p46) We acknowledge the setback solution proposed by USYD in the revised envelope.
6. (p46) We retain our preference for a N-S alignment of buildings, to minimise shadow impact upon the College's Harper Building, and look forward to reviewing this aspect in the next stage of the detailed Application process.
7. (p47) We note that the amended CIP includes shadow plans which demonstrate satisfactory compliance levels.
We note and acknowledge USYD's preparedness to consult and amend, and look forward to participating in this iterative process in the next stage of the Development application.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Unknown
,
New South Wales
Message
Dear Peter
I write to you as an owner and resident of Darlington in relation to the development proposal of SSD 13_6123 USYD campus improvement program 2014-2020 for camperdown-Darlington. I have noted some concerns and objections to this proposal:
1. Increase density of students housing, and the management of students living in such high density and with close proximity to family residences; and the potential for increase in student parties and the like.
2. Increased traffic (cars and pedestrian), parking issues and pollution
3. Increased noise pollution generated from such major increase in density (in particular from 24hr cooling towers). Due to the height the noise will travel unabated 24/7.
4. The set back of buildings is too close to property boundaries, therefore causing shadowing, privacy and noise issues. The height of the building seems out of character for the area.
5. The removal of established trees, and the increased sun exposure in some cases will require additional air conditioning, at cost to residents and the environment. Thermal heat from these buildings may also cause issue. There should be a green buffer of trees between the buildings and residents.
6. The impact and damage to heritage listed properties for more students housing along Darlington road seems out of touch with community concerns and the need to maintain local heritage and character.
7. The very limited and primitive consultation for such large scale development in such a small neighbourhood.
8. The removal of the preschool, Sydney University has not proposed any benefits to the community. There is no offering to the community to replace such a vital social infrastructure.
9. The current design (Abercrombie st accommodation, business school buildings) of building look cheap and nasty, poor architectural value of the buildings to the community. No legacy in design has been considered for such a major development
10. The university pursuit of $ in creating more student accommodation over its stewardship of the area and consideration of its neighbours. The increase on student accommodation seems excessive, in particular when you consider the recent constructed and approved student accommodation in the area. Sydney university's lack of consideration and consultation of people who live in the neighbourhood who are not students. It appears Sydney University considers Darlington to be its sole domain.
11. The community does not benefit from this development.
As someone who works in the construction and infrastructure industry I understand the need to expand and redevelop areas for the greater good of the city. However I do not believe this is the case in this instance and further review of the scale, design and benefits (both short and long term) needs to be done and openly discussed with the community. In addition the vast increase of student accommodation appears to be cash grab by the university, there are several other student accommodation development recently constructed and more planned or approved ready for construction, so why it so necessary. Information should be provided on the business case for the expansion, as the university is funded by the government and in turn funded by the people. The university should consider remote internet access growth via technology to relief the burden on the inner city neighbourhoods rather than just increase students on campus.
In summary I note that I am not a NIMBY person and i do not have issue with development in general or Sydney University. My issue relates to what i believe is gross overdevelopment and lack of consideration to the neighbourhood. The development could be improved and add better value to everyone if the neighbourhood was genuinely and adequately considered and consulted, and where the community obtains a benefit.
I hope Clover as Lord Mayor as a champion for the people and of the neighbourhood assist in making us heard, and so that action be done to reduce the scale and limit the impact to the neighbourhood, whilst providing benefit to the community. Development is opportunity to strength to the community and be a win for all stakeholders not just the developer.
Your assistance in this matter is warmly appreciated.
Sincerely
I write to you as an owner and resident of Darlington in relation to the development proposal of SSD 13_6123 USYD campus improvement program 2014-2020 for camperdown-Darlington. I have noted some concerns and objections to this proposal:
1. Increase density of students housing, and the management of students living in such high density and with close proximity to family residences; and the potential for increase in student parties and the like.
2. Increased traffic (cars and pedestrian), parking issues and pollution
3. Increased noise pollution generated from such major increase in density (in particular from 24hr cooling towers). Due to the height the noise will travel unabated 24/7.
4. The set back of buildings is too close to property boundaries, therefore causing shadowing, privacy and noise issues. The height of the building seems out of character for the area.
5. The removal of established trees, and the increased sun exposure in some cases will require additional air conditioning, at cost to residents and the environment. Thermal heat from these buildings may also cause issue. There should be a green buffer of trees between the buildings and residents.
6. The impact and damage to heritage listed properties for more students housing along Darlington road seems out of touch with community concerns and the need to maintain local heritage and character.
7. The very limited and primitive consultation for such large scale development in such a small neighbourhood.
8. The removal of the preschool, Sydney University has not proposed any benefits to the community. There is no offering to the community to replace such a vital social infrastructure.
9. The current design (Abercrombie st accommodation, business school buildings) of building look cheap and nasty, poor architectural value of the buildings to the community. No legacy in design has been considered for such a major development
10. The university pursuit of $ in creating more student accommodation over its stewardship of the area and consideration of its neighbours. The increase on student accommodation seems excessive, in particular when you consider the recent constructed and approved student accommodation in the area. Sydney university's lack of consideration and consultation of people who live in the neighbourhood who are not students. It appears Sydney University considers Darlington to be its sole domain.
11. The community does not benefit from this development.
As someone who works in the construction and infrastructure industry I understand the need to expand and redevelop areas for the greater good of the city. However I do not believe this is the case in this instance and further review of the scale, design and benefits (both short and long term) needs to be done and openly discussed with the community. In addition the vast increase of student accommodation appears to be cash grab by the university, there are several other student accommodation development recently constructed and more planned or approved ready for construction, so why it so necessary. Information should be provided on the business case for the expansion, as the university is funded by the government and in turn funded by the people. The university should consider remote internet access growth via technology to relief the burden on the inner city neighbourhoods rather than just increase students on campus.
In summary I note that I am not a NIMBY person and i do not have issue with development in general or Sydney University. My issue relates to what i believe is gross overdevelopment and lack of consideration to the neighbourhood. The development could be improved and add better value to everyone if the neighbourhood was genuinely and adequately considered and consulted, and where the community obtains a benefit.
I hope Clover as Lord Mayor as a champion for the people and of the neighbourhood assist in making us heard, and so that action be done to reduce the scale and limit the impact to the neighbourhood, whilst providing benefit to the community. Development is opportunity to strength to the community and be a win for all stakeholders not just the developer.
Your assistance in this matter is warmly appreciated.
Sincerely