Waterloo Metro Quarter Over Station Development - Concept Application

I think your plans for the Waterloo Metro are not bold enough. You should
increase the number of proposed floors on the buildings by a factor of
2.
Also, the suggestion of some land space given to medical services is
not necessary. It's never been the policy of your department to plan
for education or health services (such as your urban renewal corridor
proposals) when coming up with these visions, so why start now?
Remember - be bold. You need to plan for the growth you have been
telling us this city will be going through, and when property prices
level out the good ties will return again for you and the developers.

I object to this development due to it being located between two areas of
heritage conservation with towers that are too tall. They will be
easily visible from these heritage areas and also cast vast shadows in
winter across Alexandria Park. They are more appropriate in areas a
little further south where there are no conservation areas. If the
towers were half the size in height it would be acceptable in this
location.

The proposed buildings are far too tall, especially given the proximity
to heritage conservation areas and Alexandria Park. They should be
significantly reduced in height or built elsewhere.

The proposed station looks great. However, we are very concerned about
having 23-29 story apartments above the station.

The area already has extremely congested public transport, and
creating even more apartments, is going to make things even worse.
This defeats the purpose of creating a new station in the first place.

Zetland is a soulless concrete jungle, and we don't want Waterloo
becoming another Zetland.

As with every new development in Sydney, this development is only going
to add to the congestion of the already crowded local streets and
facilities. The CBD of Sydney and the train stations around are
already at maximum capacity, yet no thought has been given as to the
impact of over 700 new dwellings will have on the social fabric of the
area. The redevlopment of the area will be amazing, but it will be
amazing without packing 700 new dwellings and the ~2000 new
inhabitants that will come with those into an area that cannot
physically support it.

Please please please consider either reducing the height to that of
the surrounding buildings (excluding the current eye sore that is the
social housing) or at the very least make the building like that of
the central park building near central.

I wish to object to the gross overdevelopment of this site.

-There are too many buildings crammed on to the site. The heritage
church needs much more space around it as it will be dwarfed by the
monoliths around it. There needs to be an area of green space which
will not be overshadowed and made unusable by wind tunnels created by
the narrow spaces around buildings.
-The density of the buildings exceeds Council's regulations.
- The density is out of keeping with the heritage suburbs in which it
is located. It is culturally inappropriate.
-The building heights are excessive, especially the 40 storey one.
According to RedWatch the winter shadowing will reach Power Avenue at
the western end of Alexandria Park. It will mean that I will not
receive any sun in the winter because the surrounding houses (now two
stories high) already block the sun till around 9.00 a.m. and it goes
behind an old factory building two doors up to the north of my house
at 11.00 a.m. The shadowing will also affect the amenity of those
using Alexandria Park and this includes the school children and the
children using the playgrounds.
- The density of the extra population that it will contribute is too
great and is, according to Sydney Council, of an order of magnitude
greater than that Of Green Square. This is in an area which already
has one off the densest populations in Sydney.
-It is unreasonable to seek to ask for comments on this area of the
Waterloo development without considering the gross overdevelopment of
the Waterloo Estate as a whole as well,as the Southern end of the
block on which this development is to sit.
-Public transport and roads will be inadequate to cater for the
thousands of new residents and workers who will be added to the
site.they are already inadequate to serve those who already live in
the area and this will be made even worse when the gridlock of
Westconnex is added to the gridlock we already have.
This development serves someone's interests but it is not local
residents nor the residents of the state as a whole which the
government is meant to serve.

I object the current application. The desing does not consider the
tripling of population in the major Waterloo development of the
housing stock - together with the proposed deinsity at the Metro
Quater, it would lead to gross overcrowding and polution. It would
make the area unlivable for the local residents. According to your own
report, the level of some pollutants is already close the the allowed
limits. According to your experts, the first three levels would be
unlivable because of pollution, so they give it to retail outlets -
but we would have to live with this. The wind is another factor - tall
buildings would create a harricane as it is already the case at the
so-called Green Square, which is not green.
Another serious objection is the number of parking spaces proposed as
400 at the time that the purpose of a station is to reduce the use of
cars. I am puzzled that some housing comission tenants who never had
and unlikely to have cars in the future are actively arguing to have
car spaces in the units. The only logical explanation is that they
want to sub-lease their spaces to generate additional income for
themselves in the future. Together with 3500 car spaces in the new
Waterloo development, the additional traffic into the area would be at
least four thoursand cars - what was the point of building a station?
Please, design something livable - less density, minimal parking for
emergency use only. Thanks

I welcome the opportunity to make a submission regarding the Waterloo
Station Redevelopment at the end of my street.

First I would like to say that as a resident of Wellington Street and
Waterloo we were never consulted about having a station here in the
first place, the first word I had was that it was a coming, like it or
not, a decision made by one individual. That in itself is wrong. We
don't need another station with Redfern and Green Square on our
doorsteps - it should have gone to Sydney University. Now this build
is set to change the face of this community, turning into high rise
hell and a place that will triple in population causing, more garbage
on the streets, more cars, more pollution and more waste.

Second on reviewing the plans although sustainability is mentioned on
talking to people at the exhibition there are no pressures to include
solar and recycling into the tender for developers - which I believe
has already gone ahead before this stage of the plan has been given
the OK - I find this unacceptable that you are already tendering on
something the community has not approved. I object to this approach -
it is rushed and just pushing this through before the election. This
is bad approach which will lead to a substandard development like the
stupendous Opal Tower - we don't want a repeat of this. Also this is
not transparent - I had to ask about this.

Third, as has already been proved at Redfern Station, the amount of
wind that will be created by having three monstrously high towers
close together, is not acceptable. I did like the approach of keeping
the façade at street level, level with the church and then tier up,
but it should not be at the current height.

Overall this development will be a blight on the landscape unless the
heights are reduced significantly and number of dwellings above
reduced. This development MUST have solar and a futuristic approach
otherwise it will be just another despicable tower that are being
added to this area day by day - Green Square is the most ugliest
development I've ever seen and has not one solar panel in it. It's a
disgrace. If this was a world-class development showing sustainability
leadership which can be achieved easily, then I may have a different
point of view. But to me it looks just like another cash grab and
shoddy development that we see across Sydney.

This is a social community disaster waiting to happen.
Regards, Sharon Kelly

Who it might concern

I'm writing to you to express my concern re the proposal by State
Government plans for massive residential towers above the future metro
station in Waterloo.

In my opinion you are not considering the following important items
and urge you to do so:

By separating assessment of the Metro Quarter over station development
and the Waterloo Estate development, the Department is failing to
consider the obvious cumulative impacts of the projects, including
density, congestion and amenity impacts like overshadowing. These
applications must be assessed together.

The Metro Quarter and the Waterloo Estate will triple the density of
the area, making it one of the highest density precincts in Australia
with 700 dwellings in the Metro Quarter and up to 7,200 new homes in
the Waterloo Estate.

Of the 700 apartments proposed in the Metro Quarter, only 70 homes
will be set aside for social housing, and 35 for affordable rental
units. And the State Government's development corporation,
UrbanGrowth, is only committing to providing affordable housing for
ten years.

The Metro Quarter and Waterloo Estate sites are on public land and
should exist for the public good. Given the housing crisis in New
South Wales, any development should deliver more social and affordable
housing on the site, permanently.

The Metro Quarter and Waterloo Estate will introduce 4,300 additional
vehicles in an already dense and congested urban setting. This
congestion will be further impacted by WestConnex.

Urban Growth has proposed 427 car parking spaces. Parking spaces are
unnecessary and inappropriate in a development located directly above
a metro station, because it encourages people to own and drive cars in
an already congested part of our city. This is particularly
undesirable when the dwelling are in such close proximity to public
transport.

It is currently the developer's responsibility to partner with a
community housing provider to deliver social and affordable homes.
This should be the responsibility of Urban Growth.

The current proposal includes only 15 percent low amenity open space
that is accessible to the public. Urban Growth's claim that there is
53 per cent open space is misleading, because the majority of this is
made up of private rooftop gardens.

The overshadowing impacts of the Metro Quarter and Waterloo Estate
should be assessed as a whole, not in isolation of each other.

This overdevelopment is not acceptable and need to be reviewed.

I have been a resident of Redfern/Waterloo for over 20 years. I am
extremely concerned about the proposed Metro Quarter developments.
Particularly by the high/extreme density of the project and the small
number (70) of social and affordable housing proposed.
I am also concerned by the small amount of proposed open space (15%)
and the negative impact of an additional 4,300 vehicles on already
congested roads. Quality of life will further deteriorate for both
existing residents and visitors of Waterloo/Redfern - and future
tenants of the development.

I wish to object to the current proposal to demolish the Waterloo Housing
and to replace it with Private Commercial housing. Disadvantaged
persons are being marginalised and moved away from their familiar
neighbourhoods purely by the greed of NSW Government selling their
homes to the highest bidder.
By separating assessment of the Metro Quarter over station development
and the Waterloo Estate development, the Department is failing to
consider the obvious cumulative impacts of the projects, including
density, congestion and amenity impacts like overshadowing. These
applications must be assessed together.
The redevelopment MUST replace the homes for ALL and not relocate
them.
The Metro Quarter and the Waterloo Estate will triple the density of
the area, making it one of the highest density precincts in Australia
with 700 dwellings in the Metro Quarter and up to 7,200 new homes in
the Waterloo Estate
Of the 700 apartments proposed in the Metro Quarter, only 70 homes
will be set aside for social housing, and 35 for affordable rental
units. And the State Government's development corporation,
UrbanGrowth, is only committing to providing affordable housing for
ten years.
The Metro Quarter and Waterloo Estate sites are on public land and
should exist for the public good. Given the housing crisis in New
South Wales, any development should deliver more social and affordable
housing on the site, permanently.
The Metro Quarter and Waterloo Estate will introduce 4,300 additional
vehicles in an already dense and congested urban setting. This
congestion will be further impacted by WestConnex.
Urban Growth has proposed 427 car parking spaces. Parking spaces are
unnecessary and inappropriate in a development located directly above
a metro station, because it encourages people to own and drive cars in
an already congested part of our city. This is particularly
undesirable when the dwelling are in such close proximity to public
transport.
It is currently the developer's responsibility to partner with a
community housing provider to deliver social and affordable homes.
This should be the responsibility of Urban Growth.
The current proposal includes only 15 percent low amenity open space
that is accessible to the public. Urban Growth's claim that there is
53 per cent open space is misleading, because the majority of this is
made up of private rooftop gardens.
The overshadowing impacts of the Metro Quarter and Waterloo Estate
should be assessed as a whole, not in isolation of each other.
I trust my submission will help you to reconsider this idea.

By separating assessment of the Metro Quarter over station development
and the Waterloo Estate development, the Department is failing to
consider the obvious cumulative impacts of the projects, including
density, congestion and amenity impacts like overshadowing. These
applications must be assessed together. Its so obviously the right
thing to do NOT doing it suggests someone is frightened of the
outcomes of doing so.
The Metro Quarter and the Waterloo Estate will triple the density of
the area, making it one of the highest density precincts in Australia
with 700 dwellings in the Metro Quarter and up to 7,200 new homes in
the Waterloo Estate. Add this to the existing overdevelopment of the
adjacent Green Square area and the long term outlook for any quality
of life of the residents is of very significant concern
Of the 700 apartments proposed in the Metro Quarter, only 70 homes
will be set aside for social housing, and 35 for affordable rental
units. And the State Government's development corporation,
UrbanGrowth, is only committing to providing affordable housing for
ten years. This is clearly not acceptable.
The Metro Quarter and Waterloo Estate sites are on public land and
should exist for the public good. Given the housing crisis in New
South Wales, any development should deliver more social and affordable
housing on the site, permanently.
The Metro Quarter and Waterloo Estate will introduce 4,300 additional
vehicles in an already dense and congested urban setting. This
congestion will be further impacted by WestConnex. Further
deterioration of air quality in already congested area will be the
inevitable result. It seems you and your planners just don't care
about the health of our children and older people. Why is that?
Urban Growth has proposed 427 car parking spaces. Parking spaces are
unnecessary and inappropriate in a development located directly above
a metro station, because it encourages people to own and drive cars in
an already congested part of our city. This is particularly
undesirable when the dwelling are in such close proximity to public
transport.
It is currently the developer's responsibility to partner with a
community housing provider to deliver social and affordable homes.
This should be the responsibility of Urban Growth not the developers.
The current proposal includes only 15 percent low amenity open space
that is accessible to the public. Urban Growth's claim that there is
53 per cent open space is misleading, because the majority of this is
made up of private rooftop gardens. People need parks and meaningful
open space for recreation, leisure and socialising in addition to
private roof gardens
The overshadowing impacts of the Metro Quarter and Waterloo Estate
must be assessed as a whole, not in isolation of each other

As a resident who lives just a few blocks from the Metro Quarter
development, I am troubled by the tripling of density, the small
number of public housing homes, the small number of affordable rental
units, and the impact the density will have on existing parks and
other public amenities.

I request that these issues be considered by the Independent Planning
Commission.

This development causes concerns as the area is already overly dense and
each new development further increases the density which is impacting
the quality of life for existing residents in Waterloo. It is
impossible to move around Waterloo currently, this development will
only add to the pain and push people over the edge.

Community consultation must be taken seriously and not just a tick in
the box exercise.

The project is too big and badly thought out. The site has too many
apartments and not enough outdoor space. The ratio of the design works
on is "Cramped tiny apartment suit the developer profit", not generous
well designed spaces which will last for 100 years.

There is no public space or so little you cannot see it in the
drawings. People need open areas for their mental heath.

The standard for every new dwelling is 14 square meters of public
space. Where is the outdoor space in this design? Where will children
kick a ball? Where will people walk their dogs? Where are the trees?

Lots of apartments bring problems of traffic, noise, light pollution,
rubbish, etc.
The density of this project is far too high. Yes we need more housing
but we need it for the poor and those in crisis. The whole property
should be public housing. It is public land and should remain in the
public's hands. Stop giving away our assets.

I am alarmed that the scale of development the Government is proposing
will condemn people to substandard conditions and massively impact
surrounding housing, existing parks, streets and open space. They are
also failing to use this opportunity to deliver desperately needed
social and affordable housing. This is public land and should meet the
needs of the local community and other users, not commercial
interests.
I strongly believe these two proposals should be considered together
so that our community can understand the combined impacts of these
massive developments on local neighbours.

I strongly oppose the Waterloo Metro Quarter and Waterloo Estate
proposals. It is going to triple the density of the area. The area
cannot cope with that many new residents. There are barely enough open
spaces around there for the current residents.

The number of apartments and homes being built is way too high and the
number of these that are to be available for social housing and
affordable housing is way too low. This is a disgraceful use of public
land for private gain

i am a current waterloo resident and have plans to move this year to the
corner of Henderson road and Mitchell road.

the proposed "waterloo metro quarter" will be my local neighborhood. i
already spend a lot of my free time in this area, frequenting the
local shops, bars and friends places.

it is disheartening to read the current proposed plans for this area.
to walk amongst the shadows of a 29 story building, to walk alongside
4,000+ extra cars on the road, and to navigate through a rabbit warren
of unnecessary high density buildings and lose the character of a
special community is beyond imaginable.

This area needs to be treated with more respect!

By separating assessment of the Metro Quarter over station development
and the Waterloo Estate development, the Department is failing to
consider the obvious cumulative impacts of the projects, including
density, congestion and amenity impacts like overshadowing. These
applications must be assessed together.
The Metro Quarter and the Waterloo Estate will triple the density of
the area, making it one of the highest density precincts in Australia
with 700 dwellings in the Metro Quarter and up to 7,200 new homes in
the Waterloo Estate
Of the 700 apartments proposed in the Metro Quarter, only 70 homes
will be set aside for social housing, and 35 for affordable rental
units. And the State Government's development corporation,
UrbanGrowth, is only committing to providing affordable housing for
ten years.
The Metro Quarter and Waterloo Estate sites are on public land and
should exist for the public good. Given the housing crisis in New
South Wales, any development should deliver more social and affordable
housing on the site, permanently.
The Metro Quarter and Waterloo Estate will introduce 4,300 additional
vehicles in an already dense and congested urban setting. This
congestion will be further impacted by WestConnex.
Urban Growth has proposed 427 car parking spaces. Parking spaces are
unnecessary and inappropriate in a development located directly above
a metro station, because it encourages people to own and drive cars in
an already congested part of our city. This is particularly
undesirable when the dwelling are in such close proximity to public
transport.
It is currently the developer's responsibility to partner with a
community housing provider to deliver social and affordable homes.
This should be the responsibility of Urban Growth.
The current proposal includes only 15 percent low amenity open space
that is accessible to the public. Urban Growth's claim that there is
53 per cent open space is misleading, because the majority of this is
made up of private rooftop gardens.

I think the proposed changes by state government planning do not
adequately address the many well documented long term impacts
affecting the intended residents and the communities in the
surrounding areas.
The number of units set aside for people on average incomes is
incredibly low and totally inadequate. I believe at least 300 units
need to be allocated as affordable rental units. Of the 700 apartments
proposed in the Metro Quarter, only 70 homes will be set aside for
social housing, and 35 for affordable rental units. Affordable housing
is has worsened every year for single women and families for the last
30 years I have been living in Sydney. Affordable housing is a
critical issue and needs to be addressed so working families and
single women who are not currently eligible for public housing are
able to find affordable housing. To address inadequate response to
affordable housing, the State Government's development corporation,
UrbanGrowth, needs to be serious about committing more affordable
housing and to ensure this is available in perpetuity not just for ten
years.
The Metro Quarter and Waterloo Estate sites are on public land and
should exist for the public good.
Given the housing crisis in New South Wales, any and all development
must deliver more social and affordable housing on the site,
permanently.
I am very concerned that by separating assessment of the Metro Quarter
over station development and the Waterloo Estate development, the
Department fails to consider the obvious cumulative impacts of the
projects, including density, congestion and amenity impacts like
overshadowing. These applications must be assessed together.
In particular, the overshadowing impacts of the Metro Quarter and
Waterloo Estate should be assessed as a whole, not in isolation of
each other.
I have experienced the impact to quality of life of poor planning
where limited consideration was given to these impacts on existing
buildings, so residents lose light and fresh air, and where the
environment has been ill considered. There is no ability to retro fix
and repair once poor planning is approved and implemented. These
decisions are not reversible once in play.
It is completely unacceptable that the current proposal only allows
for 15 percent low amenity open space accessible to the public. Urban
Growth's claim that there is 53 per cent open space is misleading,
because the majority of this is made up of private rooftop gardens for
a very few wealthy residents.
The Metro Quarter and the Waterloo Estate will triple the density of
the area, making it one of the highest density precincts in Australia
with 700 dwellings in the Metro Quoarter and up to 7,200 new homes in
the Waterloo Estate. This is comparable to some of the most densely
populated cities in the world and inappropriate for Sydney and what we
want Sydney to become.
The Metro Quarter and Waterloo Estate will introduce at least 4,300
additional vehicles in an already dense and congested area which with
Westconnex creates bottlenecks at every major junction through
Zetland, Surry Hills, Paddington through to the city for public buses
and commuters.