Green Square Town Centre HDA Scheme - Early Works SSD

I object to the removal of 64 trees, including 37 significant trees along Botany Road. Most of these trees have a 'high' retention value, heights of up to 30 metres, and are estimated to be near to, or more than, 100 years of age. Their removal seems unreasonable and unnecessary. I'm of the view that all alternatives should be considered so to have minimal environmental impact. These mature trees provide very much need shade and cooling and should be preserved.

The proposed development does not sufficiently acknowledge or respond to the existing character of the area, in particular does not appropriately consider the retention of trees of high significance. This represents an unfortunate outcome for the community and for the future planning of Green Square. With tree canopy and green infrastructure already lacking in the precinct, new development must prioritise the protection of existing vegetation and meaningfully respond to the established character of the site

I generally support the proposed development but strongly oppose the planned removal of so many trees. The Arboricultural Development Impact
Assessment Report that all but one of the trees proposed to be removed have medium or high retention value. I find it hard to believe that these trees - most of which are on the perimeter of the property- cannot be retained with some more careful planning. The benefits of tree canopy in combatting urban heat is widely known. We should not let mature trees be removed so easily.

To Whom It May Concern,

1. Introduction
I am a local resident and parent living in close proximity to the Green Square Town Centre site. I am making this submission in relation to the Green Square Town Centre HDA Scheme – Early Works State Significant Development application.

As a parent raising children in this neighbourhood, my primary concern is that the development delivers a safe, well-managed, and genuinely liveable environment, while also protecting existing homes from construction-related impacts associated with early works.

2. Child Safety and Active Transport

a) Clear and Separated Pathways
I strongly request that the development provides clear, well-designed and physically separated pathways for different users, particularly:
- Safe pathways for children riding bicycles and scooters
- Separate pathways for e-bikes and higher-speed micro-mobility devices (there have been a number of incidents involving e-bikers and Uber Eats/Door Dash delivery bikers that have crashed into pedestrians along the footpath or when coming out of Woolworths Metro on Ebsworth St).

Shared paths present safety risks due to speed differences, particularly for young children. The design should prioritise vulnerable users and clearly separate slower, child-focused movement from higher-speed transport to reduce the risk of accidents.

b) School Zone and Neighbourhood Safety
Given the proximity of Green Square Public School, childcare facilities and family-oriented housing, I request that school zone safety measures be strengthened and not limited to the immediate school frontage. Joynton Avenue is a particularly busy street with vehicles sometimes not adhering to the school zone speed limit.

This should include:
- Reduced speed limits across a broader school precinct
- Traffic calming measures (a traffic warden during drop-off and pick-up hours)
- Clear signage and enforcement

These measures are essential to protect school children and residents and improve safety for the wider neighbourhood.

3. Protection of Existing Homes and Structural Integrity
Given the scale of excavation, piling, ground disturbance and civil works proposed as part of the early works, I am concerned about the potential for structural damage to nearby residential properties, including cracking, movement, vibration impacts and other defects.

I request that the development be subject to conditions that:
- Avoid construction methods that may cause damage to neighbouring homes wherever possible
- Require dilapidation reports for surrounding residential properties prior to the commencement of any excavation or piling works
- Implement real-time vibration, movement and settlement monitoring, with clearly defined thresholds that trigger immediate corrective action
- Require Mirvac and all responsible contractors to promptly investigate, repair and fully remedy, at their own cost, any damage to neighbouring properties attributable to the development, including damage resulting from excavation, piling, vibration or ground settlement, and including cracks or damage to walls, foundations or structural elements.

Local residents should not bear the financial or emotional burden of rectifying damage caused by construction activities associated with this project.

4. Communication, Liaison and Dispute Resolution
I request that clear and transparent community communication and complaint-handling processes be mandated, including:
- A nominated community liaison contact available to residents throughout the construction period
- Advance notification of high-impact works (including excavation, piling and vibration-generating activities)
- A clear, accessible dispute resolution process to address property damage, safety concerns or amenity impacts in a timely and fair manner

This is particularly important for families and residents living close to the site.

5. Local Amenities to Support Families
To support a safe and liveable town centre for families, I request that future development stages ensure the inclusion of essential everyday amenities within walking distance, including:
- A chemist/pharmacy
- Supermarket or fresh food options
- Restaurants and cafés
- ATMs
- Local shops, health care services, shaded seating area with greenery that reduce reliance on car travel

These amenities are critical for parents, children and older residents.

6. Green Space and Community Wellbeing
I am concerned that without strong planning requirements, the area could become overly dominated by built form and hard surfaces.

I request that the development includes:
- Increased tree canopy and zen landscaping
- Meaningful, usable green spaces rather than purely decorative planting
- Consideration of community gardens to support children, families and community connection

This is essential to avoid creating another “concrete jungle” and to support environmental sustainability and wellbeing.

7. Clean and Well-Maintained Public Domain
A clean and well-maintained public domain is critical for a family-friendly neighbourhood. I request that planning conditions ensure:
- Adequate bin provision and waste facilities
- Regular street cleaning ( the streets are strewn with litter / rubbish)

Design measures that minimise litter accumulation and improve ongoing maintenance.

8. Conclusion
While I support the broader vision for Green Square Town Centre, I request that this project prioritises child safety, protection of existing homes, and long-term liveability.

Early works must be carefully managed to prevent damage to neighbouring properties and to ensure that any impacts are fully rectified by the developer. With appropriate conditions in place, the development can contribute positively to a safe, green and family-oriented neighbourhood.

Thank you for considering this submission.

I object purely on the basis that I do not see the need for the trees at the botany frontage to be removed. The area is being urbanised at a rapid rate and we need to maintain tree frontage as much as possible. The mature trees at the botany road side would help counter heat island effect and also improve the visage and feel of the final development, not too mention support local wildlife. It is most important that these trees, already located in a location that is easy to avoid, be retained as part of the redevelopment.

I cannot support the redevelopment of the site as proposed. I strongly object to the removal of the 37 mature trees along the Botany Road frontage under SSD‑82328958 - Green Square Town Centre HDA Scheme - Early Works SSD – for the following key reasons:
1. Insufficient detail with this ‘early works’ application to allow tree removal –While I support redevelopment of the site, including the provision of housing, I am strongly opposed to the premature removal of these trees because there is insufficient information about the above‑ground built form (which could be amended to accommodate the trees). No building heights, massing, setbacks, overshadowing or public‑domain concepts have been provided.
2. Trees have a High Retention Value - The Arboricultural Assessment Report (Appendix J) confirms that almost all of these trees are of High Retention Value. They are healthy, mature specimens, with heights up to 30m, large diameters and substantial canopies. Their size, longevity and health indicate high and irreplaceable environmental, landscape and amenity value.
3. Public Benefit of trees - These trees provide essential public benefits, including shade, cooling, microclimate moderation, and western‑sun protection—particularly for bus‑stop users and for the future developments on the subject site. They contribute significantly to the walkability and comfort of Botany Road.
4. Trees located at the perimeter of the site (and outside of the site) – therefore they can easily be retained in future development, providing a positive contribution to future redevelopment and the public domain.
5. Loss of habitat – the trees provide habitat for various fauna including birds and owls. These trees are a rare cluster capable of providing significant habitat in what will be the most dense residential area in Australia.
6. Inconsistency with Eastern City District Plan - The proposal is inconsistent with the Eastern City District Plan, which calls for more greening and better use of existing green assets in high‑density areas. In particular:
(a) Planning Priority E17 prioritises retention of existing mature trees and requires canopy loss to be avoided through design.
(b) Planning Priority E19 identifies mature tree canopy as critical for urban heat reduction and climate resilience.
(c) Planning Priorities E18 and E20 emphasise liveability, landscape character, ecological resilience and high‑quality public realm.
7. Significant tree loss cannot be replaced - The removal of 37 mature trees represents a significant cumulative canopy loss that cannot be offset within meaningful timeframes, particularly given Green Square’s existing heat‑island vulnerability.
8. Amendments to future built form will allow retention of these trees - Before any tree removal is considered, Mirvac should be required to provide full above‑ground building details. In addition, built‑form amendments—including potential height increases where appropriate and not resulting in significant adverse impacts elsewhere —should be explored to enable retention of the trees without significant adverse impacts. This approach aligns with the Eastern City District Plan’s expectations for flexible, design‑led responses that enhance greening, resilience and walkability.
Conclusion
Given the limited information available about future development and the clear potential for redesign, the proposed removal of the 37 trees along the Botany Road frontage cannot be supported. The trees are located on the site perimeter and are capable of being retained.
I respectfully request that the consent authority:
(a) Amend the proposal to retain the 37 significant trees along the Botany Road frontage, with alternative basement and building designs explored to preserve the mature canopy. These trees would deliver substantial benefits to future redevelopment, including shade, visual amenity and improved outlook for occupants, as well as meaningful public benefit.
(b) Ensure the proposal aligns with the Eastern City District Plan’s priorities for urban canopy, liveability, resilience and climate adaptation.
Do not take the "GREEN" out of Green Square!

To Whom it May Concern,

This is my second submission. I would like to add the following two (2) issues:

1. Inconsistency with Minns Government Press Release of 30 Jan 2026 - NSW cities to get greener and cooler with $10 million tree planting boost

The NSW Government’s press release commits to creating cooler, greener, more resilient, climate‑adapted neighbourhoods—particularly in low‑canopy, heat‑affected urban areas.

Removing the 37 high value trees on Botany Road at Green Square is:
* the exact opposite of this policy direction,
* inconsistent with the Government’s stated aims,
* environmentally and socially damaging in this area which is already experiencing urban heat - especially on this site which is impacted by western sun,
* contradictory to the Government’s strategy of increasing, not decreasing, urban tree canopy cover.

2. Arboricultural Report deficient and requires review by an independent Arboricultural expert.

Some reasons were detailed in my previous submission, but also for the following reasons:

(a) The report does not identify what specific design, construction or site‑establishment changes would be required to enable retention of any tree. Despite many trees having High Retention Value and good health, the report assumes removal as the only outcome rather than analysing feasible alternatives such as:
* altered hoarding alignment,
* adjusted excavation boundaries,
* tree‑sensitive construction methods (e.g., pier‑and‑beam),
* staged works or temporary protection measures.
This omission is significant.

(b) No cumulative impact analysis of impacts - The report treats every tree in isolation and does not evaluate the adverse impacts that result from removing an entire avenue of mature trees, including:
* loss of shade and heat‑mitigation,
* loss of amenity and landscape character,
* ecological impacts,
* impacts on canopy targets and any urban forest strategy that may be in place.
This is a major omission in a high‑density urban‑heat‑island location like Green Square.

(c) No exploration of alternative designs or construction methods - as discussed in my previous submission.

(d) Only visual, ground‑level assessment used - a more detailed analysis should be carried out to properly understand how the trees can be retained.

END SUBMISSION No.2

Objection to SSD‑82328958 - Green Square Town Centre HDA Scheme - Early Works SSD


As an active supporter of all our trees, environment and wildlife in Sydney, I am extremely alarmed to read about the intended removal of 64 trees including 37 significant mature trees along the Botany Road frontage to facilitate the construction of this project
Twelve of these trees will be removed to install a hoarding (This is disgraceful). That intention shows poor planning and insight into the value and essential need for these trees to be protected, especially in that over developed part of town. Many of the trees that are proposed for removal have a High Retention Value. They are all healthy and thriving (even in that polluted atmosphere) with heights up to 30m, large diameters and substantial canopies which would take another 20 plus years to replace. The benefit these trees provide the public include shade, cooling, toxic filters, beauty to the area, habitat for our endangered and protected wildlife and mitigating flooding in the area. An ugly, hot and heavily trafficked road made that little bit more pleasant.
Some of these trees are located at the perimeter of the site (and outside of the site) so therefore they must be retained by small adjustments on the plans. Easy for any decent Architect to fix, therefore providing a positive contribution to future redevelopment and the public domain.
This application is inconsistent with the Eastern City District Plan, which calls for more greening and better use of existing green assets in high‑density areas. In particular:
(a) Planning Priority E17 prioritises retention of existing mature trees and requires canopy loss to be avoided through design.
(b) Planning Priority E19 identifies mature tree canopy as critical for urban heat reduction and climate resilience.
(c) Planning Priorities E18 and E20 emphasise liveability, landscape character, ecological resilience and high‑quality public realm.

Please send this DA back to the drawing board and adjust the plans so that all of green canopy is retained. The Developer should realise that trees of this size and quality would provide a significant asset for the finished development. Shade, beauty, toxic filters and livability plus lots of birds and other animals will be attracted to the area which will enhance the lives of those who live, work or visit the area in the future

I support redevelopment of the site, however I strongly object to the removal of the 37 mature trees along the Botany Road frontage under SSD‑82328958 - Green Square Town Centre HDA Scheme - Early Works SSD – for the following key reasons:

1. Insufficient detail with this ‘early works’ application to allow tree removal –While I support redevelopment of the site, including the provision of housing, I am strongly opposed to the premature removal of these trees because there is insufficient information about the above‑ground built form (which could be amended to accommodate the trees). No building heights, massing, setbacks, overshadowing or public‑domain concepts have been provided.
2. Trees have a High Retention Value - The Arboricultural Assessment Report (Appendix J) confirms that almost all of these trees are of High Retention Value. They are healthy, mature specimens, with heights up to 30m, large diameters and substantial canopies. Their size, longevity and health indicate high and irreplaceable environmental, landscape and amenity value.

3. Public Benefit of trees - These trees provide essential public benefits, including shade, cooling, microclimate moderation, and western‑sun protection—particularly for bus‑stop users and for the future developments on the subject site. They contribute significantly to the walkability and comfort of Botany Road.

4. Trees located at the perimeter of the site (and outside of the site) – therefore they can easily be retained in future development, providing a positive contribution to future redevelopment and the public domain.

5. Loss of habitat – the trees provide habitat for various fauna including birds and owls. These trees are a rare cluster capable of providing significant habitat in what will be the most dense residential area in Australia.

6. Inconsistency with Eastern City District Plan - The proposal is inconsistent with the Eastern City District Plan, which calls for more greening and better use of existing green assets in high‑density areas. In particular:
(a) Planning Priority E17 prioritises retention of existing mature trees and requires canopy loss to be avoided through design.
(b) Planning Priority E19 identifies mature tree canopy as critical for urban heat reduction and climate resilience.
(c) Planning Priorities E18 and E20 emphasise liveability, landscape character, ecological resilience and high‑quality public realm.

7. Significant tree loss cannot be replaced - The removal of 37 mature trees represents a significant cumulative canopy loss that cannot be offset within meaningful timeframes, particularly given Green Square’s existing heat‑island vulnerability.

8. Amendments to future built form will allow retention of these trees - Before any tree removal is considered, Mirvac should be required to provide full above‑ground building details. In addition, built‑form amendments—including potential height increases where appropriate and not resulting in significant adverse impacts elsewhere —should be explored to enable retention of the trees without significant adverse impacts. This approach aligns with the Eastern City District Plan’s expectations for flexible, design‑led responses that enhance greening, resilience and walkability.

9. Conclusion
Given the lack of information about future development where redesign remains distinctly possible, and given that the trees are located at the perimeter of the site and can readily be retained, the removal of the 37 trees to the Botany Road frontage cannot be supported.

I respectfully request that the consent authority:

(a) Amend the proposal to allow retention of the 37 significant trees to the Botany Road frontage – alternative designs for the basement and buildings above, should be explored to retain mature canopy. These trees would provide a significant benefit for the future redevelopment of this site, including providing shade and outlook for future occupants of the development site, as well as a significant benefit to the general public.
(b) Ensure consistency with the Eastern City District Plan’s priorities for urban canopy, liveability, resilience and climate adaptation.

I support the project

I generally support the project except the all tree removal including 100 year old big trees on Botany Road, young trees on Geddes Ave, and Zetland Ave. The urban residential buildings will bring temperatures up in the neighborhood and change the micro climate in the area. When the city of Sydney is trying to plant more trees wherever it’s possible, this tree removal is going backwards. Mature trees will provide better environment for the retails on the ground floor because the temperature will be much cooler in spring and summer. I see so many native birds live in those trees too.

Dear Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,

I am a resident of the Green Square area and wish to register my concerns regarding the proposal to construct over 1,000 residential units due to several reasons:
• Overcrowding leading to pressure on local infrastructure: Currently, the trains and buses are always packed. The roads are often congested. Visiting doctors takes a while to book appointments. Constructing 1000 more units will only put more strain on traffic, public transport, schools, and healthcare services.
• Environmental impact / lack of "green space": There has already been quite a lot of large-scale construction in this area over the last year. Any more is reducing green space and creating a "concrete jungle", adversely affect the local environment.
• Blocked views and amenity loss: Many residents were assured future developments would not obstruct views of the city or airport. The proposal appears to contravene that assurance, diminishing enjoyment and property value.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I trust these concerns will be seriously taken into account.

Sincerely,
Kawai Leung
0430788550

I am writing to object to the proposed residential development planned for the neighbouring site.
The scale and height of the proposed building are excessive and out of character with the existing area. The development is significantly too high and too large, creating an overwhelming sense of enclosure. This will result in a visually oppressive environment, causing both visual and sensory discomfort for residents and visitors. The excessive bulk of the building will dominate its surroundings and negatively impact the human scale that currently defines the area.

Furthermore, the proposal threatens the character and liveability of Green Square. The area currently has a sense of openness, vitality, and community atmosphere.Instead of a welcoming neighbourhood, the area would become dominated by dense high-rise buildings, effectively turning it into a vast “concrete forest.”
The loss of visual amenity, and reduction in overall environmental quality will have a lasting negative impact on residents’ wellbeing. The proposal does not adequately respect the existing urban fabric or the needs of the community.
For these reasons, I strongly urge the planning authority to reconsider or refuse this development, or require significant reductions in height and scale to ensure it aligns with the character, amenity, and long-term sustainability of the area.
Thank you for considering this objection.
Best regards.

Good idea. Much needed

Refer to attached submission.

The proposed removal of the boundary trees is not necessary. Particularly for a temporary hoarding. The development should be proposed to keep all establish trees and work them into the design. This is a critical and essential element for local fauna and flora as well as city shading and climate change. Proposal should include more green space with minimal shading to current trees.

I strongly object to the removal of the 37 mature trees along the Botany Road frontage under SSD 82328958 - Green Square Town Centre HDA Scheme - Early Works SSD.

1. Insufficient detail with this ‘early works’ application to allow tree removal –While I support redevelopment of the site, including the provision of housing, I am strongly opposed to the premature removal of these trees because there is insufficient information about the above ground built form (which could be amended to accommodate the trees). No building heights, massing, setbacks, overshadowing or public domain concepts have been provided.

2. Trees have a High Retention Value - The Arboricultural Assessment Report (Appendix J) confirms that almost all of these trees are of High Retention Value. They are healthy, mature specimens, with heights up to 26 m, large diameters and substantial canopies. Their size, longevity and health indicate high and irreplaceable environmental, landscape and amenity value.

3. Public Benefit of trees - These trees provide essential public benefits, including shade, cooling, microclimate moderation, and western sun protection—particularly for bus stop users and for the future developments on the subject site. They contribute significantly to the walkability and comfort of Botany Road.

4. Trees located at the perimeter of the site (and outside of the site) – therefore they can easily be retained in future development, providing a positive contribution to future redevelopment and the public domain.

5. Loss of habitat – the trees provide habitat for various fauna including birds and owls. These trees are a rare cluster capable of providing significant habitat in what will be the most dense residential area in Australia.

6. Inconsistency with Eastern City District Plan - The proposal is inconsistent with the Eastern City District Plan, which calls for more greening and better use of existing green assets in high density areas. In particular:
a. Planning Priority E17 prioritises retention of existing mature trees and requires canopy loss to be avoided through design.
b. Planning Priority E19 identifies mature tree canopy as critical for urban heat reduction and climate resilience.
c. Planning Priorities E18 and E20 emphasise liveability, landscape character, ecological resilience and high quality public realm.

7. Significant tree loss cannot be replaced - The removal of 37 mature trees represents a significant cumulative canopy loss that cannot be offset within meaningful timeframes, particularly given Green Square’s existing heat island vulnerability.

8. Amendments to future built form will allow retention of these trees - Before any tree removal is considered, Mirvac should be required to provide full above ground building details. In addition, built form amendments—including potential height increases where appropriate and not resulting in significant adverse impacts elsewhere —should be explored to enable retention of the trees without significant adverse impacts. This approach aligns with the Eastern City District Plan’s expectations for flexible, design led responses that enhance greening, resilience and walkability.

9. Conclusion - Given the lack of information about future development where redesign remains distinctly possible, and given that the trees are located at the perimeter of the site and can readily be retained, the removal of the 37 trees to the Botany Road frontage cannot be supported.

I respectfully request that the consent authority:
a) Refuse the removal of the 37 significant trees to the Botany Road frontage – alternative designs for the buildings above, including height flexibility, should be explored to retain mature canopy. These trees would provide a significant benefit for the future redevelopment of this site, including providing shade and outlook for future occupants of the development site, as well as a significant benefit to the general public.
b) Ensure consistency with the Eastern City District Plan’s priorities for urban canopy, liveability, resilience and climate adaptation.

Thank you for your time reading my submission.

Kind Regards,
Paschalis van de Walle

I support redevelopment of this site, however I object to the removal of trees associated with SSD 82328958, particularly the removal of the 37 mature trees along the Botany Road frontage. The proposed tree removal is premature and unjustified.

The proposal to remove these 'high retention value' trees is inconsistent with key priorities of the Eastern City District Plan, which calls for increased greening and better use of existing green assets in high density areas. In particular:
• Planning Priority E17 - Prioritises the retention of existing mature trees and requires that canopy loss be avoided through design, not caused by construction convenience.
• Planning Priority E19 - Identifies mature tree canopy as critical infrastructure for urban heat reduction and climate resilience.
• Planning Priorities E18 and E20 - Emphasise liveability, landscape character, ecological resilience, and the delivery of a high quality public realm.

The removal of 37 mature trees of high-retention value directly contradicts these planning objectives, and would result in a significant cumulative canopy loss that cannot be replaced within meaningful timeframes.

This early works application provides no details of the above ground built form. No building heights, massing, setbacks, overshadowing, or public domain design has been provided. Without this information, it is impossible to assess whether the trees could be retained through design amendments. Tree removal must not be approved until the final design is exhibited.

The Arboricultural Assessment Report (Appendix J) confirms that these trees are healthy, mature, high retention value specimens, with heights up to 30 metres, large diameters and extensive canopy spreads. Their size, longevity and health indicate high and irreplaceable environmental, landscape and amenity value.

The trees provide significant public benefit that cannot be replaced including:
• shade and cooling,
• microclimate moderation,
• western sun protection (including for bus stop users),
• improved pedestrian comfort and walkability, and
• strong streetscape character.

The trees are located adjacent to the site boundary, meaning they can be retained with minimal impact on future redevelopment and would enhance the public domain and amenity for future residents.

The trees provide important habitat for birds, owls and a range of fauna. As Green Square becomes Australia’s most densely populated residential precinct, such habitat clusters will be increasingly rare and valuable.

Before any tree removal is considered, full above ground building details must be provided. Built form amendments, including height increases where appropriate, should be explored to retain the trees without creating adverse impacts. This aligns with the Eastern City District Plan’s expectation for flexible, design led solutions that enhance greening, resilience and walkability.
For the reasons above, including inconsistency with key Priorities from the Eastern City District plan, the application should be amended to allow retention of the 37 Botany Road trees towards the Botany Road frontage of the site.

Regards,

Project should keep healthy mature trees which are planned to be removed.

I oppose the removal of so many trees for this project, in particular the large trees that could be around 100 years old.