MP07_0158 University of Sydney – Abercrombie St Precinct
A notice in this month’s issue of the South Sydney Herald indicates that the
University of Sydney (the proponent) is close to submitting its
environment assessment (EA) for the above project, with the expectation that it
will then be placed on public submission.
I very surprised to hear this, since the proponent has done almost
nothing to satisfy the Director General’s Requirements with respect to public
consultation. The DGRs for this project, issued on 5 November 2009,
required the proponent to ‘undertake an appropriate and justified level of
consultation in accordance with the Department’s Major Project Community
Consultation Guidelines’.
So far, the proponent:
- Has made no information about its proposal generally available
- Has established a project website (http://sydney.edu.au/abercrombie_precinct/#)
which offers virtually no information at all about the project - Did briefly make a model of the proposal available for inspection
at its offices, but has now removed this and is refusing access to it - Has held a single public meeting. This was poorly advertised,
held shortly before Christmas (and poorly attended as a result), and
located in an uncomfortable foyer unsuitable for discussion, despite hundreds
of more suitable seminar and lecture rooms being available.
The Department’s Fact Sheet No 2 on the major projects assessment
system advises that ‘the Director General … determines whether the draft
environmental assessment adequately addresses the Director-General’s
requirements. If it is not adequate, the proponent will be asked to
revise the environmental assessment to address any outstanding matters.’
There is no way that any EA prepared by the proponent for this
project on the basis of the almost non-existent consultation with the local
community carried out so far could be judged to adequately respond to the
DGRs. Should such an assessment be lodged without significant and genuine
further consultation being undertaken, it must be judged inadequate and
returned to the proponent for revision, as stated in your Fact Sheet.
A meeting has been organised this weekend of Darlington residents
concerned about the nature of the University’s proposal (albeit that
we know little about it) and angry about the manner in which it is advancing
it. It would be useful to receive a response as to the Department of
Planning’s position on consultation during the EA preparation process.
Thank you.
[Name and Address withheld by request]