158 Redfern Street Redfern NSW 2016

I have been in business on Redfern St since 2000 and worked in the area since 1991. Redfern Street was almost exclusively roller shutter facades which were all closed by 6pm. This gave the distinct impression of a criminal neighbourhood that didn't invite visitors after nightfall. When the City of Sydney took over the area from the defunct South Sydney Council, one of the first initiatives was to negotiate the removal of the shutter facades (maybe even with a financial incentive). Further enhancements have made the area inviting to a nightlife, dining, life in general. The approval of a roller shutter seems both unnecessary and regressive. Just because there were a couple of holdouts on the earlier initiative by the council (the pawn shop) this doesn't justify this unwelcome proposal. I cannot see any description of the type of business proposed for this location that justifies the increased security sought, even the bank doesn't have shutters. Are we going to be storing gold bullion on Redfern Street now?

I agree with the comment by Lee Hubber.

I do not see why a roller shutter is necessary. There is also no information on the application regarding the nature of business proposed.

I am not sure how a tobacco shop is ‘suitable for the locality and will serve the needs to the community around the precinct’ nor how it will significantly ‘increase employment around the precinct’.
The statement that it is ‘aesthetically compatible with the existing building and surrounding context’ would seem to indicate the Council is attempting to maintain a streetscape that is not visually appealing and that they wish to keep allowing such things as ‘roller doors’ to prevent any aesthetic improvements to the area. The mere fact that it is proposing a roller door shutter immediately gives the impression of siege mentality (against the community??). I cannot see how such a thing ‘maintains the character and heritage significance of Redfern Street’- heritage at what date? The run down 90s and 00s or the vibrant 60s and 70s when Redfern was the centre of Indigenous activism. It is not ‘minor’ and ‘sympathetic to the aesthetics of Redfern Street’ nor does it ‘complement the character of the heritage conservation area’. Surely, we are trying to reinvigorate the street as opposed to giving it a ‘locked down’ appearance and feel. I am not sure that this is also in keeping with the vision that Council nor residents want. How can it ‘provide a positive architectural outcome that is respectful to the character of the street’ and in keeping with the future needs and possibilities?
If this 'shop' goes ahead, then they could be at least more creative.

I do not see how this meets the goals and strategy set out by Sydney City Council. I have lived in and around this area for almost 20 years and have seen the positive outcomes the Council’s imitative have achieved. This goes back to the old mentality. Redfern is open not closed and shuttered. On basis of deteriorating community ammenities- ie the positive streetscape of the main thoroughfare - I oppose it.

As a long term resident of the area - 30 years in which I have raised 2 children here - I absolutely concur with the above comments. This application is a retrograde step and in no way aligns with council's City of Villages vision. The transformation of the area in the decades I have lived here is extraordinary. The vibrancy and sense of community is amazing and any application proposing roller shutters and the barricade mentality of the past must be rejected. It is laughable to claim the application is sympathetic to the heritage and aesthetics of Redfern Street. Please reject any street business wanting to install shutters or any kind of barricade to an active street life.

Agree with the above
Do not allow the shutter
Or another tobacconist for that matter

Thanks for the heads up Drew - does that mean the notification at the bottom of posts saying "delivered to the planning authority" does not actually happen? Or council does not recognise submissions that come from Planning Alerts? Either way that is problematic and needs to be clarified