I write in relation to the planned development at 157-163 Cleveland Street Chippendale (SSD-4949-2011).

I own, and used to live in, an apartment in the block directly opposite the proposed development, at 165-173 Cleveland Street. My apartment faces over Hart Street.

Whilst in principle I support redevelopment and student housing I object to the form of the proposed redevelopment. I feel it will have adverse impacts on the natural and built environment because of the height and scale of the proposal.

I am particularly concerned about the negative effect it will have on my apartment, and those of my neighbours in the block, in terms of privacy and solar access. My apartment is a studio, so it is just one room and quite a small one. The view from the sliding doors overlooking Hart Street was one of the main reasons for purchasing the apartment, in particular because there are views across the neighbourhood as far as Sydney University . These doors onto the balcony are the only fixed clear glass in the apartment, so there is no alternative window. The view and solar access make the apartment feel bigger and brighter, which is important in a small space. The Bates Smart diagrams clearly show that the development will have a negative impact on solar access. In particular, the winter afternoon solar access will be blocked by the new development, which will mean a loss of light and heating.

The prospect of a five-storey tower block with other residents directly opposite is of great concern to me, especially as there is no other room to retreat to when there is a person in a window just across the street. This will adversely affect the privacy of my apartment and the other apartments in the block that face Hart Street.

I am also concerned about the increase in traffic and the negative impact this will have on car parking in the local area. I understand that bicycle use will be encouraged but having up to 461 students living in the new block will undoubtedly increase local traffic when they have visitors or friends pick them up, or they park their own cars. It is unreasonable to think that not one of them will own a car.

I appreciate your consideration of these objections to the proposal.

This is a totally awful looking collection of buildings which are totally out of characture with the rest of the area. The thought of living directly opposite to it fills be with horror. Not only the ugly buildings but all those hundreds of students squeezed into such a small area. All the coming and going, the parking, the rubbish , the noise. Also there seems to be no trees or shrubs to block out the noise or to make it look even slighly more presentable. This is totally against what we are trying to do with this area now. We are trying to maintain some the hertiage in the area not putting ugly building up . This complex of building cannot possibly be accepted in our area. This is just some greedy company who don't care at all about our enviroment just the dollars in brings in for them. We must object to this happening...

I object to the development. .

The reasons are as follows



1. Inappropriate development ....zoned mixed use commercial and residential.

2. Ridiculous persons to livable floor space ratio. [worse than farmed animals]

3. Will create a `Ghetto' leading to noise, antisocial behavior, crime and the like.

4. Disruption to surrounding residential owners and existing tenants and businesses.

5. No loading zone/s or car parking for staff and/or visitors/ students, creating ongoing street blockages

6. No provision for the `off street' collection of rubbish and waste, only direct onto Hudson street with the collection truck/s obstructing the street, with associated `bin noise' from the waste of 461 students + staff.

7. Not enough green space or improvement to streetscape/s [e.g. Trees]

8. No public assess to greened internal areas. Effectively a lock up.

9. The 5 floor towers are far too much taller than the surrounding buildings / flats.

10. No `shopping' amenities for food/goods/café's etc.

11. The frontage onto the corner of Cleveland and Abercrombie Streets is far too dominant and out of character with the surrounding buildings and should be set back from the corner and trees planted. For that matter so should the Cleveland St. frontage.

12. No near by or provision for Bus service. The only public transport is Redfern rail.

13. Conflicts, to some extent, the proposal by the AHC for the `Block' and the central park development.

14. Agony, for years, during the construction phase, around the narrow streets and laneways.

15. The development doesnt appear to have, or comply to, Fire safety and egress in case of fire.



A more reasonable development for this site was the last proposal ....mixed development, opens spaces, public access. It was MP 07_0180 by the Hudson group.


You can see the details here.

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=2202



I could go with the Hudson proposal ....or a variation there of....



I guess my main concern is the creation of a `ghetto' like situation....The RSPCA wouldn't let you farm pigs in such small spaces.

This will cause an ongoing problem with 461 + persons added to a quiet residential and small business area.



Not good

Too greedy.

Dear DoP,

Bravo, bravo, bravo.
If the Haymarket Urbanest facility is anything to go by, then Darlington/Redfern residents can look forward to a well designed and well managed facility that truly sets a new benchmark in quality student accommodation.

I whole heartedly support the Ubanest proposal for 157 Cleveland St. and look forward to hearing that it has been awarded a well deserved approval.

with thanks,
Grahame Rowe

Every year the Future Music event is held with negative impacts on the surrounding residential community. Each successive application seeks a higher level of approved numbers, which I consider should not be granted until the impact on neighbours is better addressed. This Future Music differs from other large scale events at the Racecourse in that it concludes at 10pm which is fixed as it is usually a 'signature' act, with attendees, mostly young, still in the adjoining residential area more than 90 minutes later.

Parking restrictions in the adjoining residential area east of the Racecourse generally only operate Monday to Friday, with a very small area operating on Saturdays until 8pm. Therefore these parking restrictions (resident permits excepted) aren't effective for weekend events at the Racecourse, but Randwick City Council seem unwilling to address this matter, instead promising to do a 'survey' on the day of the 2013 Future Music event, which presumably will only consider on-street parking impacts rather than anti-social behaviour by attendees.

The issue is most usually with those attendees who drive to the event and park in residential streets. While there is the obvious impact is loss of on-street parking, the main impact is post-event when these attendees return to their cars, this being late at night after hours of concert noise exposure and alcohol consumption - low levels of ambient noise late evening (10pm onwards) clash against attendees departure. Even this wouldn't be so bad if it was only for 30 minutes, but attendee exit, due to the numbers involved is slow and unfortunately in some cases the "party" continues in residential streets.

All this late evening impact could be so easily reduced if only attendees who choose to drive were adequately directed to the free parking on-site at the Racecourse on event day (not suggesting this parking be advertised prior to the event), this only needing to be in place between midday and 5pm (event arrival period). Most attendees who drive travel southwards on Alison Road from points north and west (most immediately Anzac Parade and Dacey Avenue). As soon as event attendees see Randwick Racecourse on their right on Alison Road (this being divided with a centre island), attendees immediately turn left from Alison Road into either John Street or Cowper Street and look for parking.

All that is necessary to alert attendees of free parking on the Racecourse is amendment of existing Traffic Control Plans (TCPs) in "ingress mode", which is between midday and 5pm with additional traffic controllers and additional Variable Messaging Signs (VMS)
1) TCP 3, Alison Road / Darley Road - VMS on the centre island of Alison Road (north of Darley Road) with the message directing attendees "Free Event Parking" with a forward arrow.
2) TCP 4, Alison Road / John Street - needs a traffic controller restricting left hand turns from Alison Road to John Street, buses excepted, between midday and 5pm as well as a VMS on the footpath of Alison Road, south of John Street directing attendees "Free Event Parking" with a forward arrow.
3) TCP 5, Alison Road / Cowper Street to have a traffic controller restricting left hand turns from Alison Road to Cowper Street, buses excepted between midday and 5pm as well as a VMS on the footpath of Alison Road, north of Cowper John Street directing attendees "Free Event Parking" with a forward arrow. there might be some marginal impact on through traffic on Cowper Street, but Alison Road is able to cope for displaced traffic movements eastbound, which occur in a non-peak period.
4) TCP 7, Alison Road / Wansey Avenue to have an additional VMS, suggest in the parking lane of Alison Road approximately outside #96 Alison Road directing attendees to "Free Event Parking" - with a right arrow
Resident vehicle access would be via Prince Street and the 'letter to residents' distributed to the east of the Racecourse should be amended to advise of these details.
All of these VMS could be utilised for another purpose when the event is in "egress mode" and the additional cost is immaterial in event of this scale.

I have also noted above that the late finish of the event is the cause of much disruption to the surrounding residential community. In a previous application, for an event in 2009 draft consent conditions from Randwick City Council (then the consent authority) where for the event to conclude at 6pm. The applicant argued (successfully) that their final 'sets' which were 'signature acts' needed the dark to utilise lighting (fireworks) as part of the performance. The current application for 9 March 2012 is later in the summer season and twilight ends at 7.47pm (see attachment). If the event was to finish at 9pm, this would be nearly 75 minutes of dark which should be more than adequate for any event lighting. Even a 9.30pm finish (103 minutes of dark) would be of benefit for the neighbouring residents.

In conclusion please consider:
(a) not increasing attendee numbers until the impacts on the surrounding residential community are reduced
(b) implementation of better traffic control plans, particularly at the intersection of Alison Road with John and Cowper Streets respectively so that attendees who drive utilise the Racecourse on-site parking in preference to residential streets
(c) an earlier finishing time of 9pm.

regards

Can something PLEASE be done about the noise which follows AFTER the event? Last Future Music Festival, the patrons continued hanging around (including in and around my apartment block) yelling, screaming and cheering and for hours! I could not sleep and was feeling quite ill the next day, unable to work or concentrate.

I object to the proposal for a number of reasons. The creation of a fuel storage facility provides a significant change to the safety of the Kurnell community. I bring the fire at Buncefield, UK, to attention as an example of the danger. As there is only one access road in and out of Kurnell, a major accident or incident will block Captain Cook drive and again the residents will be isolated from escape. This was demonstrated recently when the water treatment chemical fire occurred (placing the Refinery under major threat) and blocking the only access for residents, also demonstrated with major vehicle accidents forcing the roads closure. Are the residents expected to swim to la Perouse to escape? Kurnell is one of the Historically significant sites in Australia, if not the most and should be protected as such. Also the additional threat created by the Storage facility for anyone seeking to cripple the transport industry through sabotage is significant. The busiest airport in the country is 5 km north and the approach paths flies over the facility. The industrial infrastructure at Kurnell then includes Airport approach paths, Fuel Storage facility and desalination Plant all within 5 km of each other. There is a danger with any one of these individual ly however in an emergency one can have a disasterous effect on the others. My suggestion is to instead of the proposed Fuel Storage facility, redevelop and create parkland that follows the example of Ballast Point, Birchgrove, where the former fuel storage facility has been developed into parkland for the entire community to enjoy.

see attached