See attachment

See attachment

Thanks for the referral, I've had a look at the documents and as the site
is not within the curtilage of any State Heritage Register (SHR) items
or historic archaeology. Therefore, there are no concerns or issues to
raise from the Heritage Division as no impacts to SHR items or State
or local archaeological remains. Please note that the Heritage Council
(ie Heritage Division) does not need to be consulted on future stages
or modifications for these two projects.

Other Divisions of Office of Environment and Heritage may however
provide separate comments relating to Aboriginal cultural heritage.

PLEASE DO NOT PUBLISH MY PERSONAL DETAILS.

I have not made a reportable political donation.

QUERY - RE THE APPLICATION

Further to my previous comments, I note a number of the key images in
the visual assessment analysis are still difficult for the public to
understand - ie white massing against a white-coloured sky.

As such, many people in the wider public will not be able to
understand the potential impact.

Given the cost of the application it's difficult to understand why
this is the case, and why the concerns raised last month have not been
addressed.

Yours sincerely,

Jeanette Brokman

Further to our conversation, I'm confirming my request for an extension
in time for the public exhibition period for this application, for the
following reasons:

- This application is of wider public interest, given its location and
the potential impact to the existing World Heritage Listing (WHL) for
Government House and Parramatta Park, and success of a future WHL
which the Opposition announced on 17 February, it would pursue as a
matter of priority should they win government next month (as part of
its Heritage Policy).
- The images in the Visual Impact Assessment (and Heritage) reports
seek to make the comparison with the massing and scale for future
tower buildings for Urban Growth's plans for North Parramatta's
historic Cumberland Hospital Precinct. However the government recently
confirmed that its plans for the precinct are being reviewed.
Consequently any comparisons as to the visual impact are simply
assumptions and could be misconstrued in terms of the public's
understanding of the plans.
- The Visual Impact Assessment and Heritage reports are key documents
on public exhibition. However, a number of images that show the visual
impact at key locations cannot be understood given white massing
against a white background is used to show the visual impact. To this
end, the images should be corrected, and re-exhibited before
submissions to the EIS close to enable sufficient time for public
comment.
- Reference is consistently made to a 17 storey building when the
actual building is 18 storeys. This should be corrected.
- The exhibition period started mid-January during annual summer
school holidays. This has consequently limited time for the public to
review the documents and comment.

In summary, given the application's sensitivity and the wider public
interest, the exhibition period should be extended. Appreciate your
follow up with the Department's senior staff.

See attachment

SE-51206
Further to our conversation, I'm confirming my request for an extension
in time for the public exhibition period for this application, for the
following reasons:

- This application is of wider public interest, given its location and
the potential impact to the existing World Heritage Listing (WHL) for
Government House and Parramatta Park, and success of a future WHL
which the Opposition announced on 17 February, it would pursue as a
matter of priority should they win government next month (as part of
its Heritage Policy).
- The images in the Visual Impact Assessment (and Heritage) reports
seek to make the comparison with the massing and scale for future
tower buildings for Urban Growth's plans for North Parramatta's
historic Cumberland Hospital Precinct. However the government recently
confirmed that its plans for the precinct are being reviewed.
Consequently any comparisons as to the visual impact are simply
assumptions and could be misconstrued in terms of the public's
understanding of the plans.
- The Visual Impact Assessment and Heritage reports are key documents
on public exhibition. However, a number of images that show the visual
impact at key locations cannot be understood given white massing
against a white background is used to show the visual impact. To this
end, the images should be corrected, and re-exhibited before
submissions to the EIS close to enable sufficient time for public
comment.
- Reference is consistently made to a 17 storey building when the
actual building is 18 storeys. This should be corrected.
- The exhibition period started mid-January during annual summer
school holidays. This has consequently limited time for the public to
review the documents and comment.

In summary, given the application's sensitivity and the wider public
interest, the exhibition period should be extended. Appreciate your
follow up with the Department's senior staff.

SE-51167
PLEASE DO NOT PUBLISH MY PERSONAL DETAILS.

I have not made a reportable political donation.

QUERY - RE THE APPLICATION

Further to my previous comments, I note a number of the key images in
the visual assessment analysis are still difficult for the public to
understand - ie white massing against a white-coloured sky.

As such, many people in the wider public will not be able to
understand the potential impact.

Given the cost of the application it's difficult to understand why
this is the case, and why the concerns raised last month have not been
addressed.

Yours sincerely,