Log in


Forgot your password?
 
You are here: Home / Other RW Issues / University of Sydney / REDWatch Submission on USyd Abercrombie Precinct Redevelopment Application No: MP07_0158

REDWatch Submission on USyd Abercrombie Precinct Redevelopment Application No: MP07_0158

In the submission below on the University of Sydney Abercrombie Precinct Redevelopment, REDWatch raised issues highlighted the deficiencies in the ARUP and Parson Brickerhoff Traffic Studies. In light of these deficiencies we ask the Department to also apply the SKM review findings to this application. We also request the Department to require a TMAP with similar conditions to those applied to North Eveleigh for the Abercrombie Street Development.

RE: University of Sydney Abercrombie Precinct Redevelopment

Application No: MP07_0158

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced Project. We wish to raise a number of objections to this project specifically in relation to the Transport Impact Assessment.

Reliance on Flawed Traffic Study

The Director General’s Requirements for this project require a Traffic and Transport Study to cover a number of areas including the need to assess the cumulative impact of this project alongside the impact from the North Eveleigh Site. In responding to the DGR’s ARUP has relied largely on earlier work by Parsons Brickerhoff for the North Eveleigh Concept Plan and by and large ARUP use the findings in this study to respond to the DGRs on cumulative impact.

The Parsons Brickerhoff TIS post exhibition was subjected by the Department to an independent assessment by SKM which found major problems with the TIS ARUP has relied upon. SKM found that the Parsons Brickerhoff TIS may have understated traffic generation by 40% and that Level of Service at key intersections fell from Satisfactory (level C) to Over Capacity (Level F).

As the SKM Traffic and Transport Review of the North Eveleigh Development of November 2008 has only been placed on the Department of Planning & Infrastructure Website in the last week ARUP cannot be expected to have read or been aware of its findings. Had ARUP consulted the North Eveleigh Approval they would have learnt of its existence and of the measures the Department put in place through undertakings from the proponent, and the conditions of consent to address the North Eveleigh study’s shortcomings for that site.

Since the North Eveleigh Concept Plan Determination, Council in November 2009 developed its own Pedestrian, Cycling and Traffic Calming (PCTC) Plan for the area and this plan conflicts with some of the proposals in the Parsons Brickerhoff Concept Plan TIS. The ARUP TIA makes no reference to how these Council changes might impact on the North Eveleigh TIS results which it adopts.

In the North Eveleigh Concept Plan Approval the Department requires a Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (TMAP) which is contained in the RWA’s Statement of Commitments. The TMAP is supposed to look at how the traffic from both sites interact with the surrounding area and be undertaken in conjunction with Council, RTA and Ministry of Transport. After reading the SKM report it is now plain why the Department accepted the undertaking for a TMAP from the RWA and in the consent placed certain requirements on what should be covered in it and some other reports.

The TMAP was supposed to be prepared prior to or concurrently with the first project application that includes new floor space for the site. This has been delayed in part because the SMDA is proceeding with Early Works in North Eveleigh under Section 5 of the EPA which does not require a project application, which would trigger the Consent requirements for studies including the TMAP and those covering the work the SMDA is proposing to undertake in its early works.

As the DGR’s rightly link the traffic issues of both sites on assessing levels of service and other matters, REDWatch submits that the Department should include the requirement for a TMAP in similar terms also in the Abercrombie Street Consent if it is given. This would address the Parson’s Brickerhoff deficiencies on which ARUP and the University has relied. It will also go some way to ensuring that an extensive TMAP is undertaken for the precinct that addresses the existing and future issues coming from developments at North Eveleigh and Sydney University before work commences on either site.

 

Other Issues of Significant Concern

REDWatch congratulates the University for doing further work on its proposal for the Abercrombie Street site. The revised plans are a significant improvement on the previously exhibited plans.

REDWatch has some ongoing design concerns which we wish to briefly detail our objections in the points below:

1. REDWatch continues to oppose the motor vehicle entrance to the site being from Abercrombie Street, in spite of it being moved further from the school crossing. Given the proximity of the school and the need for children to use this footpath we are of the view that the proposed entrance is not acceptable. We regret that statements after the earlier exhibition by the Vice Chancellor and the Head of Campus Infrastructure Services that the entrance would be removed from Abercrombie Street were not implemented. The proposed entrance both impacts on children walking to school and parents dropping off their children. The latter will become more difficult due to the loss of three parking spots in Abercrombie Street and the loss of parking and drop off spots within the site to be consolidated by the University.

2. The proposal in the Transport Impact Assessment is said to be considered as part of an overall campus Masterplan strategy. We note that the Draft Masterplan 2020 was never progressed and proposed to make the campus car free and move car activity to the edge of the university. We note also that under this plan the University did not propose to place parking under every building. We object to car impact from the University being externalized to the surrounding community rather than the University taking responsibility for its own traffic generation and directing it on to the arterial roads that abut it. In line with Draft Masterplan 2020 there is no need for this building to have parking. If the University wants to provide parking it should do so within areas bounded by the University and not externalize it to the community. We note that in the artist’s impression sketch of alternate entrances somehow cars and University students do not mix, but that this principle does not apply to cars and primary school children despite developmental evidence that children under 12 do not have the necessary perceptional development to distinguish car speed that young adults possess. Currently there are empty car spaces in the Shepherd Street Car Park and in keeping with Masterplan 2020 staff should walk to that or similar car parks within the University. REDWatch submits that parking should be dropped from this building or the entrance should be moved to within Darlington Lane or Codrington where it abuts University owned property.

3. REDWatch has concern about the proposed alternate pedestrian path for school children to avoid the car park entrance. It does not have clear lines of sight and it takes children away from the high visibility of a main road into a pathway within the university which we are concerned does not offer adequate passive surveillance.

Conclusion

REDWatch is aware that residents around the site have a range of concerns and we are not trying here to summarise or represent all those concerns. Instead REDWatch has sought to emphasise three important design problems that need to be addressed by the Department in its assessment.

In addition REDWatch has highlighted the deficiencies in the ARUP and Parson Brickerhoff Traffic Studies. In light of these deficiencies we ask the Department to also apply the SKM review findings to this application. We also request the Department to require a TMAP with similar conditions to those applied to North Eveleigh for the Abercrombie Street Development.