See Attached objections to SSD 13_6123.

Dear Peter,

I have been granted an extension until 31 March 2014 to make a submission in regard to the above State Significant Development (SSD) application.

I object to the University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020 State Significant Development (SSD 6123) for the following reasons:-

1. Firstly and most importantly, the University of Sydney has not complied with the Director General's Requirements which were requested from the Department of Planning in September 2013.

In the Director-General's Requirements documents there is a requirement which says "During the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), consultation must be undertaken with the relevant Commonwealth Government, State or local authorities, service providers, community groups and affected landowners. In particular you must consult with: ...RAIDD - Residents Acting In Darlington's Defence."

In the EIS itself at Section 10.2 it states ""The University has been engaging with the local community throughout 2013 on the Darlington Campus Abercrombie Redevelopment Project. This has resulted in meetings with key stakeholders and local community with the University providing regular communication regarding the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy. Details of these community stakeholders can be found at Appendix N."

Section 10.2 then goes on to state "Through this engagement the University has been able to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University". However, at no stage in this engagement was there any mention by the University representatives present that they were trying "to identify the major issues of importance to the community in relation to the operations of the University" nor was there any mention of the Campus Improvement Program (CIP). The engagement referred was specifically about the development of the Business School, the Abercrombie Student Accommodation project and the Darlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Strategy.

Section 10.2 of the EIS then goes on to say "These issues have all been considered and provided for in the development of the CIP through the following inclusions detailed in Table 11". Table 11 then has 2 columns: one headed "Issue Raised" which lists the things the University has identified as issues for the community (without having checked these with the community); and one headed "CIP Response" which is presumably how the University will address those issues, which it itself has identified, in the CIP.

This table is included to address another requirement laid down by the Director-General that "The EIS must describe the consultation process and the issues raised, and identify where the design of the development has been amended in response to these issues. Where amendments have not been made to address an issue, a short explanation should be provided."

Clearly, the intention of Section 10.2 is to convince the Department that the University has complied with the Director-General's Requirements and has consulted with RAIDD in regard to the preparation of the EIS. However, no such consultation has ever taken place.

The Vice Chancellor has himself agreed that the community has not been consulted about the CIP. Referring to the engagement mentioned above he has said "There is no suggestion that these community stakeholders were being consulted about the CIP" (see attached).

Because of this I submit that this Development Application should not be considered by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. The University should be instructed to abide by the Director-General's Requirements and consult properly with the local community, taking into account any issues raised and showing the changes made to address each issue, before resubmitting a new State Significant Development Application to the Department.

2. I object to the height, scale and bulk of the proposed building program which are more suited to an inner-city location and are far too big for the low rise heritage conservation residential precinct in which the University sits.

3. I object to the University's proposal to completely infill the backyards of every heritage listed terrace house from 86 - 130 Darlington Road with 3 storey extensions. The University should not be allowed to degrade the heritage value of these terraces.

4. I object to the proposed massive increase in the student population from 49,500 to 60,000 by 2020 because the local infrastructure cannot cope with the existing number of people. The increase in University population would put further stress on off street parking in residential streets as there would be an increase in the number of students and University staff parking their cars in local streets.

5. I object to the removal of an important strand of eucalyptus trees on the campus Shepherd Street car park facing houses in Shepherd Street and Calder Road and its replacement with a substantial 3 storey building overlooking resident's homes.

6. I object to the potential increase in noise from plant equipment such as large 24/7 air conditioners and cooling towers on proposed University buildings close to resident's homes.

7. I object to the proposed Service Centre on Shepherd Street as it will bring heavy, loud vehicles onto a residential street.

Regards,

Colin Sharp

Please see attached.

See attached.

Please find attached a copy of my letter regarding a submission to the University of Sydney's Campus Improvement Program 2014-2020, State Significant Development (SSD 6123).

Regards,


Dr Allan Bull