Mixed Use Development at Green Square Town Centre - Sites 7,17 and 18

I write to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development application seeking to rezone the subject sites to permit buildings of significantly greater height and density within the Green Square precinct.

While I acknowledge the need for housing supply and urban growth, the proposed increase in building height and population density is premature and inappropriate given the current condition and capacity of the area.

1. Infrastructure Capacity and Community Facilities

Green Square has already experienced rapid high-rise development. However, the supporting infrastructure and community facilities have not been delivered at a level proportionate to the existing population, let alone the substantial increase proposed.
• There is currently no high school of adequate size within the immediate area to meet the needs of the growing number of families.
• The local library is already operating at near capacity, particularly on weekends, demonstrating that community facilities are under pressure.
• Public domain maintenance appears insufficient for the existing population.

Approving additional height and density before completing and upgrading essential facilities would further strain already stretched resources.

2. Traffic and Road Network Constraints

The current road network is not designed to accommodate a further substantial increase in residents. Traffic congestion is already evident during peak periods. Increased density without corresponding upgrades to roads, intersections, and traffic management infrastructure will inevitably result in:
• Increased congestion
• Reduced road safety
• Longer commute times
• Deterioration in local amenity

Public transport alone cannot absorb the projected increase without significant planning and coordination.

3. Public Amenity and Environmental Maintenance

The condition of the public domain raises serious concerns about the area’s readiness for additional population:
• Rubbish is frequently observed on streets, public squares, and around Green Square train station.
• Dog waste is commonly left on grassed areas.
• Basic environmental maintenance appears insufficient relative to current usage levels.

These issues indicate that even the existing population is placing pressure on maintenance services. Increasing density further will exacerbate cleanliness, hygiene, and public health concerns.

4. Overdevelopment and Loss of Liveability

The existing buildings in the area are already high-rise and house a significant number of residents. The proposed increase in building height would likely push the precinct toward or beyond its practical population capacity.

Such overdevelopment risks:
• Overcrowding
• Reduced access to sunlight and open space
• Increased noise and congestion
• Diminished sense of community

The area was developed as a modern, attractive urban precinct. Excessive additional height and density will undermine the very qualities that made it desirable. Residents will lose the environment and wellbeing they currently enjoy. The precinct will inevitably lose its appeal to future residents.

I do not doubt that many current residents may feel compelled to relocate due to population pressure, overcrowding, and the resulting decline in quality of life.

Thank you.
Regards.

To: Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Project: Mixed Use Development – Green Square Town Centre Sites 7, 17 and 18
Application Number: SSD-83899206
Position: Object
Re: Submission regarding Mixed Use Development at 960A Bourke Street, Zetland

As a resident living in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development, I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the State Significant Development application (SSD-83899206). While I support the continued revitalisation of the Green Square Town Centre, the current proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site that will cause significant, irreversible harm to the local amenity, environment and liveability for existing residents.

My objections are centred on the following key planning grounds:
1. Building Height – Privacy Impacts
The proposed height of the towers is excessive and does not provide a sympathetic transition to existing lower-scale residential buildings.
• Visual Privacy & Overlooking: Due to the proximity of the towers to existing residences, the proposed height and reduced setbacks will lead to direct overlooking into existing residents’ private living areas.
2. Building Height – Solar Access and Overshadowing
The proposed height of the towers will compromise the public domain amenity and private solar access.
• Shadowing of Nearby Apartments: The massive scale of the development casts deep shadows over multiple neighbouring apartment blocks.
• Privatisation of Sunlight: The height increase effectively privatises sunlight for the new towers while casting existing community spaces into shade.
• Impact on Public Parks: The proposal will obstruct sunlight to The Drying Green Park, which is intended to be the primary sunlit shared space for the community.
3. Loss of Tree Canopy and Urban Heat Impacts
The proposal involves the removal of established trees in an area already identified as a heat-affected zone. The current canopy provides essential cooling and air quality benefits to residents.
• Heat Island Effect: Removing mature vegetation without adequate, high-quality replacement will exacerbate the scorching temperatures already experienced by the community during summer months.
4. Traffic Congestion and Infrastructure Pressure
The cumulative impact of adding high-density units to an already strained precinct has not been adequately addressed.
• Local Traffic Overload: The additional vehicle movements generated by this development will worsen congestion and safety for pedestrians.
• Infrastructure Strain: There is considerable concern regarding the cumulative pressure on local parks, schools, and public transport services, which are already struggling to keep pace with the rapid population growth in Zetland. I would urge the Department to take into account the significant volume, and rapid pace of construction, of apartment buildings in the area more broadly, in addition to the development in question.

Conclusion
I urge the Department to require a significant reduction in building height to ensure this development is compatible with the existing neighbourhood character and provides a liveable environment for all residents. The current proposal prioritises density over the health and liveability of the existing community.

Attachments:
Exhibit 1: An example of close and direct line of sight from existing residents’ living areas to development site. The proposed height will result in a direct, commanding view into existing residents’ homes and a deterioration of the right to privacy.
Exhibits 2-5: The existing landscape is already dominated by heat-absorbing surfaces. There are only so few trees on the adjacent surrounding area on Botany Rd, and most of them small or young. Removing the few remaining mature trees will exacerbate the urban heat island effect. The collection of mature trees is right in the development site.

This submission raises significant design, urban-design and environmental concerns with the proposed development across Sites 7, 8, 9, 17 and 18. Key issues include excessive scale and bulk, inadequate podium treatment and human scale, poor tower articulation, compromised solar access and cross‑ventilation, likely pedestrian wind impacts, insufficient activation and non‑residential uses at the plaza edge, an inappropriate unit mix and insufficient affordable housing allocation relative to the additional density requested from the HDA. The proposal, if approved in its current form, would materially reduce usability and amenity of the key public domain and undermine the established town‑centre character. The recommendations below seek amended design outcomes and clear consent conditions to avoid unacceptable cumulative impacts.

Issues and likely impacts

1) Scale, massing and transition
-Towers are over‑dominant relative to adjacent high‑quality buildings and fail to provide a recessive transition from podium to tower. Visual dominance harms streetscape character and fails to respect the existing building scale within the town centre.
-Podium car park creates unnecessary additional apparent bulk and shadows.
2) Public domain (solar access, wind and usability)
-Increased overshadowing of the plaza and drying green and reduced afternoon solar access will make these public spaces less usable.
-Proposed massing likely generates adverse wind conditions at pedestrian level (corners of plaza and adjacent crossings), reducing comfort and safety.
3) Podium treatment and activation
-Large areas of non‑active/service façade face the plaza/ through-site link resulting in poor activation, reduced natural surveillance and night‑time safety concerns.
-Insufficient non‑residential uses (retail/medical/large‑format supermarket) to support a viable town‑centre.
4) Residential amenity and design
-Long single‑loaded corridors and high unit counts per core with poor natural ventilation and daylight; the key ADG cross‑flow and minimum solar access, private open space requirements appear not met for a large numbers of units. Reduce the amenity significantly for the proposed dwellings treating the Build to Rent occupants as a second class residents
-Unit mix focus on smaller apartments; insufficient family‑sized units given proximity to new school with young family.
-Proposed affordable housing allocation is inadequate relative to the additional height/GFA requested.
5) Landscaping
-Insufficient deep soil and tree planting in through‑site link and around plaza to mitigate scale and provide microclimate benefits.

Priority recommendations/ required amendments

1)Reduce height / dwelling yield and revise unit mix
-Reduce tower heights on Sites 18 to better align with the Infinity building and Council envelope to aid transition from the additional height from Site 7 and 17. Demonstrate reduced visual dominance in revised massing.
-Limit total dwellings across Stages 1 & 2 (Sites 7, 8, 9, 17 and 18) to the initial HDA range (1,000–1,200). Increase proportion of larger 2–3 bedroom units (target higher share of 3‑bed family units).
2) Podium and parking
-Remove above‑ground podium car parking where feasible or recess with additional landscaping treatment and reduce its street presence.
-Reconfigure podium to improve human scale with setbacks, terraces, layered materials and promote active uses at ground level.
3) Activation and non‑residential uses
-Provide continuous active frontages (retail/cafés/medical/large‑format retail above ground where feasible) around the plaza and along primary street edges; avoid service façades onto the public plaza.
4) Solar access, daylight and ventilation
-Reconfigure towers to reduce single‑loaded corridors; provide cross‑ventilated apartment layouts and lower the number of units per corridor.
-Undertake revised solar access and internal daylight analysis demonstrating compliance to no impact to solar access for the plaza and affected public spaces, and for the proposed apartment types should meet ADG requirements of 70% solar access in mid winter and 60% cross flow for each building not across the entire precinct
5) Façade, massing articulation and corner treatment
-Refine tower expressions: break up facades with setbacks, vertical elements, recessed balconies and material variation. Provide a lighter, more transparent corner treatment at Site 18 to act as a bookend to the Infinity building.
-The design should demonstrate high‑quality articulation and reduced monolithic expression.
6) Wind and overshadowing mitigation
-Demonstrate mitigation measures where comfort/safety limits are exceeded and avoid exceedance beyond the safe pedestrian comfort level.
-Incorporate physical mitigations: podium setbacks, canopies/colonnades, landscaping and planting to reduce wind impacts and improve microclimate.
7) Landscaping and deep soil provisions
-Provide a deep soil landscape strategy allowing mature trees in the through‑site link to the plaza
8) Affordable housing and community needs
-Increase affordable housing provision to a minimum 15% of GFA given the additional height/GFA sought.
-Provide a clear statement of the unit mix demonstrating adequate family housing to serve school catchments.

Dear NSW Planning,

Mirvac requested amendment
Storey

Site 7 Increase RL50-75 to RL89 20 storeys
Site 17 Increase RL50-62.5 to RL87 20 storeys
Site 18 Increase RL83 to RL86 20 storeys

According to Development Application: Sites 7 and 17, 960A Bourke Street, Zetland – D/2017/564 File No.: D/2017/564

Built Form & Scale (pg 21, D/2017/564, File No.: D/2017/564 )
The proposed development does not comply with the SLEP GSTC 2013 maximum building height limit of RL50 for Site 17. A portion of the tower protrudes laterally into the maximum permissible podium height (RL50) by 10.46m resulting in a 20.92% variation (to a depth of 1.45m at Levels 11-13). The proposal also does not comply with the maximum height limit of RL 64 for Site 7. A portion of the tower on Levels 17 to 19 protrudes laterally 450mm into the RL64 height limit. The protrusion is attributed to facade articulation and results in a height of 72.4m, a variation of 8.4m (13%).

Objection:
Further, Site 7 exceeds the GSTC DCP height in storeys control of 15 storeys by 1 storey, and Site 17 exceeds the height in storeys control of 12 storeys by 1 storey. The height non-compliance is considered to be acceptable – refer discussion below.

The Mirvac proposed amendment will exceed Sydney LEP GSTC 2013 of 15 storeys by 5 storeys for Site 7 and
12 storeys by 8 storeys for Site 17. This is a large deviation from GSTC 2013. How can we just "overcome" this non-compliance by increasing the RL values?

3D Communal and Public Open Space (pg 25, D/2017/564 File No.: D/2017/564)

Due to the orientation of the site, proximity of taller buildings to the north and north west of the site, and the building envelopes established for Sites 7 and 17 under the GSTC controls, compliance with the control is difficult to achieve.

In midwinter, the communal open spaces are largely overshadowed, though some direct solar access is achieved to part of Site 7 between 1pm and 3pm.

The applicant has submitted additional shadow analysis which generally indicates that between 12.00pm and 2.00pm on 21 September and between 1.00pm and 4.00pm on 21 March the communal open space can receive at least 2 hours of direct sunlight to more than 50% of the area. Therefore, for at least 6 months of the year sunlight to the communal areas is achieved. The proposal is considered acceptable in the circumstances.

Objection
The sunlight measurements are taken on mid-day of 1 Sept (End of Winter) and 21 Mar (Beginning of Autumn).

The applicant infers that the open communal space will receive 2 hours of direct sunlight to more than 50% of the area.
Can 2 fine days at the Beginning of Autumn and End of Winter representative of Winter Sunlight Coverage?
Can this further infer that sunlight will be achieved for 6 months of the year?

Bearing in mind that the applicant has applied to increase the height of the Site 7 and Site 17 to 20 storeys, will this increase in height further reduce the amount of sunlight in the open communal area significantly?

Will this turn Green Square gloomy most of the time??

Furthermore, the increase in height for Site 7 (20 storeys) and Site 17 (20 storeys) will substantially decrease the sunlight and ventilation available to existing buildings along Ebsworth Street which are mostly 11 storeys high.

The existing (already approved DA of Green Square Town Centre) should not be amended as it caters for:

1. The needs for housing
2. The capacity of existing infrastructure
3. The objective of creating a vibrant Green Square Town Centre (like Chatswood) rather then
creating another Wolli Creek

Thank you very much for considering my submission.

I am a local apartment owner and resident in the Green Square/Zetland area and I object to SSD-83899206.

I do not object to housing in principle. I support well-planned growth and I recognise the need for additional housing supply in Sydney. However, this proposal goes well beyond the established planning framework for Green Square Town Centre and does so in a way that risks undermining liveability, infrastructure planning, town-centre function and affordable housing outcomes.

The exhibited material states that the proposal seeks approval for 511 build-to-rent dwellings, including 60 affordable housing dwellings, together with non-residential floor space, public domain works and landscaping. At the same time, the concurrent rezoning seeks to increase building heights across the sites, increase the permitted floor space ratio from 5.47:1 to 7.63:1, and exclude the site from clause 6.5 Affordable housing and clause 6.6 Active street frontages. This is not a modest refinement of existing controls. It is a substantial uplift from the current planning envelope and should only be entertained if it delivers exceptional and enduring public benefits. On the information exhibited, that has not been demonstrated.

My first concern is that the proposal represents overdevelopment of a precinct that is already planned at extremely high density. Green Square is already one of Australia’s largest and densest urban-renewal precincts. The City of Sydney has noted that by 2036 the area is expected to have approximately 63,000 residents and up to 22,000 workers, and has also highlighted the significant infrastructure demands that accompany that level of growth. The community has accepted high density in Green Square because it has been based on long-term strategic planning and an intended balance between homes, jobs, services, retail, public domain and transport. A major site-specific uplift that overrides those settings risks upsetting that balance.

Second, the proposal is inconsistent with the original planning logic of the Green Square Town Centre. The LEP expressly aims to provide an appropriate balance between residential, retail, commercial and other uses, generate employment, create a people-oriented public square, and ensure active frontages around the public domain. The applicant is now seeking to remove the site from the active-street-frontage clause even though these sites sit at the heart of the Town Centre, adjacent to the civic plaza area. That is the wrong planning outcome for one of the most prominent and publicly important locations in the precinct. Ground-floor activation should be strengthened here, not weakened.

Third, there is a strong strategic reason to preserve and enhance active non-residential uses in this location. The City’s Green Square and Southern Areas Retail Review found that by 2041 there will be an additional 15,000 square metres of retail floor space needed close to the Town Centre, with the greatest undersupply in hospitality and services, supermarkets and other food retail. It also found that the Town Centre and surrounding areas will experience a supermarket floor-space shortfall of about 9,000 square metres. In that context, removing active-frontage requirements from a key Town Centre site is counterproductive. This location should help meet the everyday service needs of a growing resident population, not become a more inward-looking residential enclave.

Fourth, the affordable-housing outcome is inadequate and the proposed carve-out from clause 6.5 is unacceptable. While the proposal includes 60 affordable dwellings, the rezoning simultaneously seeks to exclude the site from the Green Square affordable-housing clause. That raises a serious concern that the applicant is seeking extra density while also avoiding the normal affordable-housing framework that applies in this precinct. The City’s Green Square affordable-housing program requires contributions from development, and the City has specifically warned that the HDA/SSD pathway can jeopardise in-perpetuity affordable housing contributions. Any approval should, at minimum, retain the operation of clause 6.5 and require affordable housing to be secured in perpetuity through a registered community housing provider or equivalent enforceable mechanism. The affordable component should be additional to, not a substitute for, the normal contribution framework.

Fifth, the cumulative infrastructure impact has not been justified. Green Square already had 33,745 residents in 2021 and an estimated resident population of 37,800 in 2024. The area is overwhelmingly apartment-based, with 91.9% of dwellings in high-density form. It also has a growing family component and a higher proportion of children than the wider City of Sydney. This means the needs of the area are not limited to more dwellings; they include childcare, schools, open space, medical services, transport capacity, local retail, pedestrian amenity and community facilities. The City has already stated that transport capacity problems exist and that mass-transit investment at Zetland/Green Square is overdue. Until infrastructure delivery catches up, adding more residential density at this scale is premature.

Sixth, the proposal appears to take advantage of the Housing Delivery Authority pathway to obtain a “second bite” at density on a site that has already been subject to long planning and approval processes. The City has publicly stated that several sites in this part of Green Square already had approvals dating from 2019, including approximately 740 apartments and around 11,000 square metres of shop, business and entertainment floor space in buildings up to 24 storeys. The City’s concern is that the HDA process enables developers to override existing controls and approvals to seek even more yield. That concern is directly relevant here. The Department should not reward speculative uplifts that depart from long-settled strategic planning unless the public benefit is overwhelming and clearly demonstrated.

Seventh, the demographic profile of Green Square supports a more balanced planning response than the one proposed. The area has a young but diverse and internationally connected population, with 58.6% of residents born overseas and China being the largest non-English speaking country of birth. The largest age group is 25 to 29, but the area also has increasing numbers of people aged 30 to 34, more children than the broader City average, and a meaningful share of couples with children. This is not a transient dormitory market only. It is a growing community that needs everyday services, social infrastructure and high-quality public domain. A planning response that prioritises gross residential uplift over town-centre activation and affordable-housing integrity does not respond properly to that community profile.

For these reasons, I object to the proposal in its current form.

If the Department is minded not to refuse the application, then it should at minimum require:
- retention of clause 6.5 Affordable housing and no site-specific exclusion from the Green Square affordable-housing framework;
- retention of clause 6.6 Active street frontages and stronger minimum active-use requirements along all plaza- and street-facing frontages;
- a substantial increase in genuine affordable housing, secured in perpetuity;
- a clear demonstration that transport, servicing, retail, public domain and community infrastructure capacity will be delivered ahead of or concurrently with occupation;
- a reduction in height and floor-space uplift to align more closely with the established planning framework; and
- independent review of cumulative impacts on amenity, overshadowing, wind, traffic, servicing and neighbourhood character.

Green Square has accepted very significant density over many years because the planning vision promised a balanced, liveable town centre with homes, jobs, services and quality public spaces. This proposal asks the community to accept even more density while weakening two of the very controls that protect that balance: affordable housing and active frontage. It should therefore be refused, or fundamentally revised before any approval is considered.

I support most parts of the proposal with exception of:
1. Overshadowing- the significant extra building height provided to Sites 7 & 17 (of up to 24.5m) will result in substantial additional overshadowing of the Green Square Plaza, particularly for the 6 month period between March and September equinoxes. The extra height could be provided to proposed buildings located on the southern side of the Plaza. Additional overshadowing of public spaces is not in the public interest.
2. Wind- I'm not convinced that proposed vegetation will be adequate to mitigate the wind impacts. Trees in the area already struggle to survive, and have died, due to the strength of the wind. Alternative solutions should be found to ensure wind impacts are adequately mitigated.

To: Director, State Significant Assessments
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
RE: OBJECTION to SSD-83899206 (Green Square Town Centre - Sites 7, 17 and 18)
Location of Objector: 1212/301 Botany Road, Zetland (Directly facing Tweed Place)

To: Director, State Significant Assessments
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
RE: OBJECTION to SSD-83899206 (Green Square Town Centre - Sites 7, 17 and 18)
Location of Objector: 1212/301 Botany Road, Zetland (Directly facing Tweed Place)

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the proposed amendment and height increase for Site 7 within the Green Square Town Centre development. As an owner-occupier at 301 Botany Road, my residence directly overlooks Tweed Place. The proposed jump from a maximum of 75 RL to 89 RL represents a profound and unacceptable shift in the built environment of my immediate neighborhood.

My objection is based on the following specific planning grounds:

1. Massive Increase in Building Scale and Bulk
The proposed amendment to increase the permitted height from 75 RL to 89 RL constitutes a vertical rise of 14 meters. In practical construction terms, this represents an additional 4 to 5 storeys of building mass.

This is not a "minor variation"; it is a substantial departure from the Sydney Local Environmental Plan (Green Square Town Centre) 2013.

This additional height transforms the building from a mid-rise structure into a high-rise tower that will create a "canyon effect" on Tweed Place, trapping noise and reducing the human scale of the streetscape.

2. Loss of Solar Access and Increased Overshadowing
The addition of 4 to 5 extra floors will significantly extend the shadow profile of Site 7. My property will suffer a direct loss of sunlight, impacting both my quality of life and my building's energy efficiency. I request that the Department mandate a comparative shadow study specifically measuring the impact of the additional 14 meters against the original 2013 LEP limits.

3. Destruction of Established View Corridors
When I purchased my apartment in February 2023, I did so based on the gazetted planning controls which featured a lower podium design. That design respected the visual clearance toward Tweed Place. By adding 14 meters of height, this proposal creates a "visual wall" that completely obstructs my views, leading to a significant diminution of property value and a sense of enclosure.

4. Urban Density and "Green" Infrastructure Deficit
While this precinct is marketed as "Green Square," the current reality is one of extreme overpopulation with a critical lack of actual green space. Increasing the density on Site 7 further reduces the ratio of open space per resident. The infrastructure in this area is already at a breaking point; adding 4 to 5 extra floors of residential/mixed-use yield is an unsustainable over-development of the site.

5. Failure of Site Maintenance and Public Health (Rat Infestation)
I wish to bring to the Department's attention that Site 7 is currently poorly managed and is visibly infested with rats. The developer, Mirvac, has failed to maintain basic sanitary standards on the site. If the developer cannot manage the current vacant site responsibly, there is little confidence in their ability to manage an even larger, more dense construction project without further endangering the health of the local community.

6. Precedent of "Height Creep"
Approving this increase for Site 7 sets a dangerous planning precedent for Sites 17 and 18. It signals to developers that LEP height limits are merely "suggestions" that can be moved upward after residents have already invested in the area. I urge the Department to uphold the original 2013 LEP heights to maintain planning integrity in Green Square.

Conclusion
The proposed 14-meter (5-storey) increase offers no public benefit; it serves only to increase developer yield at the direct expense of the sunlight, views, and amenity of existing residents. I request that this application be rejected.
Sincerely,

Hugo Cavia del Olmo
26-02-2026

As a local resident and owner of an apartment within the Green Square Urban Renewal Area, I fully support this project. Our community is starting to see the benefits of densification with a vibrant street life and more retailers and cafes opening. Further development by Mirvac is long overdue as the vacant lots have been an eyesore at the heart of our young village. The completed Mirvac buildings on adjacent sites have been a benchmark in quality architecture and retail spaces. As long as the new developments minimise disruption to our library, I am confident they will make a significant contribution to our progress towards being a national gold standard for density done well.

I support the project, I believe it will significantly improve housing availability and affordability in the area. I would however like to see more units in the development.

I support this project. Building higher-density apartments within walking distance of the train station and Woolworths is a very good idea. Apartments of 21 storeys are in line with other buildings in the area.

There is a housing affordability crisis, and I believe that having a reputable developer like Mirvac build and manage BTR units will help moderate rental yields and help enforce tenant rights and responsibilities.

Green Square already has many high-density apartments, and I don’t feel that adding more will ruin the community. It will support more retail and bring more people to shop. I hope there will be a greater variety of useful services nearby in the future, such as general stores and pharmacies.

Given the housing affordability crisis, it would be irresponsible to reject the amendments Mirvac has requested.

The transport infrastructure is already at capacity for the area and many more resident would negatively impact those already living in the area. Both public and private transport are already at capacity during peak hours and I often have to wait for multiple buses/trains to get to work in the morning. The exit to Bourke St via Ebsworth St is commonly backed up with cars and Ebsworth St has many delivery drivers and ubers constantly parked to drop-off, hindering traffic. I fear if there is another building on the street that there would be a significant impact on ability to use private transport. Unless improvements are made to the public and private transport infrastructure in the area before the building is completed, there is going to be a significant impact to residents in the area. If planning for this only begins upon commencement of the project, then there will probably be many years that the infrastructure will be subpar and cause much frustration.

The open spaced plaza above the library has also been an iconic space synonymous with the Green Square area. I'm worried that this development will abandon what has made Green Square such a desirable area to live in and turn the space into another souless residential district.

I am a resident of the Green Square precinct and wish to formally object to the proposed rezoning and development at the above site. As someone who lives in the area and regularly walks through the surrounding streets and public spaces, I am concerned about how additional height and density will affect sunlight access, pedestrian comfort, and the overall liveability of the neighbourhood.

I believe this proposal raises a number of significant planning and community concerns that outweigh its potential benefits.
Grounds for Objection

1. Excessive Height and Scale
The proposed building height represents a substantial departure from the current planning controls. Approving a development of this scale risks undermining the integrity of the existing planning framework and may set an undesirable precedent for further height exceedances in the area.

Planning controls exist to provide certainty and consistency in the built environment. Significant variations should only occur where there is a clear and compelling planning justification.

2. Overdevelopment and Bulk
The proposal seeks a much denser outcome than what was originally allocated for the site. This would increase building bulk and intensify the site beyond what local infrastructure was initially planned to support. Green Square is already one of the most densely developed precincts in Sydney. Any further intensification should carefully consider the cumulative impacts on surrounding residents, infrastructure capacity, and the quality of public space.

3. Overshadowing of Public Spaces
The increased height and bulk are likely to reduce sunlight access to surrounding streets and pedestrian areas. This may negatively affect the amenity of nearby public spaces and diminish their usability for the community. Access to sunlight is an important element of urban liveability, particularly in high-density environments where outdoor public space is limited and heavily relied upon by residents.

4. Wind Impacts at Street Level
Tall buildings can significantly alter wind conditions at ground level. Parts of Green Square already experience strong wind tunnel effects due to existing towers. Additional buildings of this height could worsen downdrafts and wind speeds at street level, which could reduce pedestrian comfort and impact the usability of surrounding streets, walkways, and outdoor areas.

5. Loss of Active Street Frontage Requirements
The proposal seeks exemption from active street frontage rules. This is concerning as it may reduce retail and community-facing uses at ground level. Active frontages play an important role in creating vibrant, walkable streets and supporting local businesses. Removing this requirement risks weakening the street-level character of the town centre and contradicts key planning principles that guide mixed-use urban precincts.

6. Infrastructure and Amenity Pressure
Green Square has experienced extremely rapid population growth in recent years. Further intensification raises concerns about whether local infrastructure can adequately support additional residents, including:
- Increased pressure on public transport
- Limited open space capacity
- Demand for community facilities
-School and childcare availability
Additional density should be accompanied by clear evidence that infrastructure capacity can support further growth.

7. Traffic and Pedestrian Congestion
The site is located near key pedestrian routes connecting the station, library, and surrounding retail areas. Increased density can lead to higher pedestrian congestion and traffic activity in an area that already experiences significant crowding during peak periods. This would reduce safety and comfort for residents and visitors using these important public spaces.

8. Existing Sewerage and Odour Issues
There have been ongoing issues in the area relating to sewerage odours, with sewage smells occasionally reaching nearby apartment buildings. Additional large-scale developments may place further pressure on existing sewer infrastructure and potentially worsen these issues if they are not adequately addressed.

While individual impacts may appear manageable when assessed in isolation, the cumulative effects of increased height, density, and population must be carefully considered. A precautionary approach should be taken to ensure the long-term liveability of the Green Square precinct is not compromised. As a local resident of Green Square, I believe this proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site and an unwarranted departure from established planning controls. I respectfully request that the Department either refuse the proposal or require substantial revisions to reduce the height, bulk, and potential impacts on the surrounding community, while retaining important planning principles such as active street frontages and high-quality public spaces.

Thank you for considering this submission.

I would like to formally object to this proposed development due to concerns about overcrowding in the area. The development appears to introduce a high density of buildings and occupants within a limited space, which may place additional pressure on existing infrastructure, parking availability, traffic flow, and community facilities.

The current neighbourhood already experiences congestion, and increasing the density further could negatively impact the liveability, safety, and amenity of the surrounding area. Overcrowding may also reduce open space and privacy for nearby residents.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the proposal be reconsidered or revised to better reflect the capacity of the area and to ensure it does not result in excessive crowding or strain on local resources.

While I support the building of new dwellings and commercial spaces in Zetland, I have major problems with several aspects of the proposal.
Firstly, I am opposed to the rezoning proposals:
- Increase permitted height: the current restrictions are good. There is no need to allow a building as tall as 20 stories. I am very strongly opposed to allowing an exemption to this rule.
- Exclude site from application of affordable housing: in the current housing crisis, it is irresponsible to exempt from this
- Exclude the site from application of active street frontages: to benefit the whole community, this rule should always be applied.

I also oppose the proposal to have above-ground parking spaces. This is a waste of liveable space, and this could be replaced with housing to allow for a less tall building.

I live nearby, I see no issue with the proposed development.

I recall the earlier proposal had additional commercial floorspace, provided its feasible I see no reason why the developer cannot be provided with additional floor space and building heights to provide both commercial floorspace and the additional housing they are looking to provide with this DA.

TO BE CLEAR I AM NOT IN SUPPORT OF REDUCING RESIDENTIAL TO INCREASE COMMERCIAL FLOORSPACE, losing residential floorspace in a housing crisis would be bad outcome. I see a large number of studios, I think this will be especially helpful for students, if you search for "room sharing" on flatmates[dot]com near UNSW you'll unfortunately find this is an option some people face. I personally moved here from north queensland and faced a similar situation in 2016 (before people realised the level of housing affordability was unreasonable). I can even see these studios being great for single working professionals as well.

We should be providing as much housing here as we can. What I struggle to understand is why we can't also have both the original proposed commercial floorspace as well as this additional residential. To be clear, I do think we should be open to increasing building heights and floor space. We should keep the current setbacks, but I think if more floorspace can be provided by awnings, as in the higher levels extending over the footpath with sufficient clearance.

Currently most restaurant options here are quite expensive so more commercial floorspace will provide some more options. The area is also just kind of dead and some mixed use next to the station could add some dynamism like we see in places like burwood. I like the fact this development provides additional landways between the center and Ebsworth St.

To be clear I am in support of further increasing floor space and building heights.

Me and my partner moved here a year ago and the intense levels of sun in the center is quite unbareable so a building providing additional shade will be a much needed reprieve as well.

In summary the project shows a large departure from the previous DA for these sites - reference is Development Application D/2022/548 (23 June 2022) in which it was proposed that building heights of sites 7, 17 and 18 were to be 16, 13 and 20 storeys but now it is proposed these should be 20, 20, and 21 storeys respectively. These buildings are twice the height of 18 and 28 Ebsworth Street which are each 10 storeys in height and the new 3 buildings will represent a large visual intrusion to the residents overlooking Ebsworth Street. This is an additional 12 storeys over the 3 buildings which creates higher over shadowing of existing buildings in Ebsworth Street (18 and 28) and greater wind tunnelling in Ebsworth Street, Barker Street, Tweed Place, and the Green Square pavement area above the library. There are no reasons specifically given for the increased building height & whether these proposed heights exceed building compliance limits. Any reasons should be made very clear in the proposal. They are not made clear.

Additionally the floor space ratio is also a large increase over allowed building limits from 5.47:1 to a ratio of 7.63:1. The only reason given is that this is needed to make the project economically viable. This is not a rational reason for allowing consideration of these building compliance limits to be exceeded by such a large amount. It is a one dimensional statement and does not articulate any assessment or other reasons. The response should be for the applicant to show more in depth reasons why building compliance limits should be considered to be allowed to be exceeded. There are as yet no reasons that could be reasonably considered and Council should ensure that any decisions in this regard are carefully supported by rational and credible assessment and argument by the applicant. The reasons in this application fall well short of providing the reader, or Council, any valid arguments and this should be rejected.
The other observations supporting my objections to the proposal are detailed in the attached submission.
And finally, I understand that City of Sydney Council has a current Fire Safety Order issued for 18 and 28 Ebsworth Street Zetland which is being challenged by Mirvac with Council. I cannot see how the City of Sydney Council can consider any further building approvals for Mirvac given they were the builders of 18 and 28 Ebsworth Street Zetland with cladding that is subject to this Fire Safety Order. Until the Fire Safety Order is permanently withdrawn or the cladding is replaced by Mirvac, I cannot see how Council can possibly entertain any more building approvals from Mirvac. I am writing to the Mayor about this particular issue today.
Thank you for considering my objection to this proposal, but it is quite flawed, and I would expect that Council should reject it and require Mirvac to have the above cladding issue resolved.
Steve Bisson
908/28 Ebsworth St, Zetland.

To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,

I am a local resident of the Green Square / Zetland area and would like to provide comments on the proposed rezoning and development.

I acknowledge that Green Square is intended to accommodate significant urban growth and that additional housing close to public transport is generally appropriate. However, I would like to raise several concerns regarding the proposed planning changes.

1. Increase in building height
The proposal seeks to significantly increase the maximum building heights beyond the limits set under the current planning controls. Given that Green Square Town Centre has been developed through a coordinated master planning framework, such height increases should be carefully assessed to ensure they do not adversely impact the planned skyline, overshadow surrounding buildings (such as the central garden of Green Square Library) or reduce public domain amenity.

2. Increase in floor space ratio
The proposed increase of FSR from 5.47:1 to 7.63:1 represents a substantial uplift in density. This should be carefully considered in relation to infrastructure capacity, residential amenity, and the cumulative impacts of recent developments within the precinct.

3. Active street frontages
The proposal seeks to exclude the site from the requirement for active street frontages. Maintaining active ground floor uses is essential to the walkability, safety and vitality of the Green Square Town Centre. Any approved scheme should ensure strong street engagement and active edges at ground level.

In summary, while additional housing in this location is appropriate in principle, I encourage the Department to carefully review the proposed increases in height and density and ensure the development maintains the quality of the public domain and liveability of the precinct.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback.

Kind regards,

Frank

While I support building more quality housing near major public transport hubs, I am opposed to several elements of the current proposal.

I object to the rezoning proposal and the increase in permitted building height. Most other buildings in the area comply with the existing height requirements, and I believe new developments should do the same in order to maintain the visual consistency of the area. I am aware that some buildings in the area have recieved exemptions, but I do not believe that this pattern and precedent should continue. Increasing the permitted height also raises concerns about overshadowing. While the analysis indicates limited impacts on surrounding buildings, it also highlights significant shadowing of nearby roads and thoroughfares. Reduced access to sunlight in these public spaces can negatively affect the physical and mental wellbeing of the community.

Excluding these developments from the application of affordable housing is also concerning, particularly during the current housing affordability and cost of living crisis. Developments of this scale should contribute to making housing more accessible. Exempting them risks pushing Zetland further out of reach for young couples and families, who form the heart of the existing community.

I am also opposed to the proposed increase in permitted floor space ratio, as it would increase density and make the area feel more crowded for the broader community. Similarly, excluding the site from the application of active street frontage requirements is not beneficial for local businesses or the community, as active frontages contribute to a more vibrant and welcoming streetscape.

This proposal should also be considered in the context of the significant amount of development already occurring in the surrounding area, and the cumulative impact that continued increases in height and density may have on local infrastructure, public spaces, and overall liveability.

Furthermore, construction beginning at 7:30am on a Saturday morning would create significant disruption for surrounding residents.

While I understand that the absence of visitor and retail parking may technically comply with planning requirements, it is not realistic in an area that already has extremely limited parking. This is likely to create further pressure on the already limited parking on surrounding streets.

Additionally, the proposed above-ground parking structures do not appear to be a good use of space. That space could instead be used for housing or to reduce the overall height of the building.

We have concernes for this over development which would increase inner city stress and affect livability- impacting Green Square precinct, environment and community, making it less suitable, attractive and comfortable, and directly impacting residents’ quality of life and long-term well-being.

I do not agree that the density and building height should be increased. I object to this project going ahead.

The originally planned design is sufficient and an unecessary increase will negatively impact the suburb.