Mixed Use Development at Green Square Town Centre - Sites 8 and 19

Submission Regarding SSD-84322496: Mixed Use Development at Green Square Town Centre
To: Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Attn: Keiran Thomas / Rosie Turner
From: [Your Full Name]
Address: 708/18 Ebsworth Street, Zetland NSW 2017
Date: March 7, 2026
Subject: Strong Objection to Proposed Rezoning and Development (Sites 8 and 19)
I am writing as a resident of 18 Ebsworth Street to formally lodge a strong objection to the State Significant Development application (SSD-84322496) and the concurrent rezoning proposal for Green Square Town Centre Sites 8 and 19.
Living directly across from Site 19, I am uniquely and negatively impacted by the scale of this proposal. My objections are based on the following grounds:
1. Excessive Scale and Overdevelopment
The proposal to increase the permitted Floor Space Ratio (FSR) to 6.78:1 across the site is an unacceptable intensification of an area that is already one of the most densely populated in Australia. The Green Square Town Centre was designed with specific density targets in mind; bypasses to these original limits place an undue burden on local infrastructure, including transport, schools, and open green spaces which are already at capacity.
2. Unacceptable Building Heights
The request to increase building heights from the current 53m–115m RL to a "blanket" 115m RL is a significant departure from the established master plan.
• Visual Impact: As a resident of Ebsworth Street, this "wall" of high-rise development will completely dominate the streetscape, destroying the architectural character of the neighborhood.
• Overbearing Nature: The height is disproportionate to the surrounding residential blocks and creates a sense of enclosure that diminishes the "village" feel intended for the Town Centre.
3. Loss of Solar Access and Natural Light
My property at 1

SSD83899206 SSD84322496 SAVING SYDNEYS TREES (SST) Submit OBJECTION to this proposed Development. (Please submit this objection to that portal)
The Environmental Impacts do NOT withstand Public Expected outcomes
(ELECTED REPRESENTATION - PUBLIC LONG TERM BEST INTERESTS)
SST seek information and support for Livability and "All of Landscape" protection via: (THE Elected Local DEMOCRATIC Body) and are concerned about information as to the "OverRides " being implemented by the current proposed SSD format and abililty to appeal to avenues made available.

SST FORMALLY OBJECT!

2016 involved the implementation of such /similar "Powers" that rendered the CBD&SELR (Light Rail), under the previous O'Farrell and Berijiklian and influenced (Baird and Constance) lead Planning and Infrastructure Development process.
- A "Neo Liberal" Approach to all in Planning.
However, while it presented as "Economically Accountable" this Methodology falls down when ALL items are missing from the ACCOUNTABILITY spectrum...

We make note that the HEALTH Budget is neglected in the absence of Full Accountability, specifically in the Environmental Sector of Full Examination.

We make reference to the Parliamentary Inquiry that followed the before mentioned CBD&SLR and the failings presented. The losses in Canopy and Livability are never to be replaced due to such poor planning and inclusions in PROCESS
.
DETRIMENT! (an Accountable 9 Hectares of Canopy and health-related detriment within the Case Files with NO room to Offset further and NO refection in the planning).
NNB. NO BASE CASE or
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

- We see this so many times in "After thoughts or unforseen implications that WOULD BE IF PUBLIC BRAINS TRUST WERE INVOLVED IN PROCESS, MORE.
(Do we need to go back the Cross City Tunnel Fiasco??!!)

The public was told/promised that the mistakes of the past would be learned from. Yet, this is not present in what the Public are seeing.

Accountability and Democratic Processes are still being over ridden, creating a "LoopHole" and Unintended Repercussions.
Ease of progression is NOT a refection of Good Planning!

We urge you to review and STOP the lack of Council Participation and Influence on this and ALL SSD Projects.
NB. From the Public.
NNB. Planning may stilll be staffed with the same mentality as O'Farrell Mistakes and Berijecklian etc., and we urge you to address this FLAW.!!!!
The End is all about Best Outcomes FOR THE PUBLIC LONG TERM, BEST INTERESTS!!
We trust you are seeing this too.

Most Sincerely
Margaret Hogg
(On behalf of )
Saving Sydneys Trees

Re: Objection to SSD 84322496 – Mixed Use Development at Green Square Town Centre (Sites 8 & 19)

I am writing to object to the proposed Mixed Use Development at Green Square Town Centre (Sites 8 and 19), which seeks approval for six buildings comprising approximately 800 residential dwellings, 514 student accommodation units, retail space, basement parking, and associated public domain works.

My objection is based not only on the scale and impacts of this individual proposal, but also on the cumulative impact of multiple major development applications currently under assessment in the immediate area — including the separate proposal for 511 build to rent dwellings across three buildings at Sites 7, 17 and 18.

Together, these proposals represent a significant and rapid intensification of density that exceeds what local infrastructure, public domain, and community services can reasonably support.
________________________________________
1. Cumulative Overdevelopment and Density Concerns
The combined yield of these two concurrent applications exceeds 1,800 new residential and student units within a very small geographic area. This level of intensification:
• Places pressure on already constrained open space and community facilities.
• Exceeds the carrying capacity assumed in earlier strategic planning for Green Square.
• Risks creating an imbalanced neighbourhood dominated by high rise residential buildings without adequate supporting infrastructure.
The planning process should consider cumulative impacts, not assess each proposal in isolation.
________________________________________
2. Insufficient Infrastructure to Support Population Growth
The Green Square precinct is already experiencing strain in several areas:
• Transport: Congestion around Green Square Station and bus corridors is already significant during peak periods. Thousands of additional residents and students will worsen crowding and reduce service reliability.
• Schools and childcare: Local facilities are at or near capacity.
• Health and community services: No proportional investment is proposed to match the scale of population increase.
• Public open space: Existing parks are heavily used; no new substantial open space is provided within this proposal.
Without clear, funded infrastructure commitments, the development risks undermining liveability for both new and existing residents.
________________________________________
3. Traffic, Parking, and Servicing Impacts
The proposal includes basement parking and servicing areas, but the surrounding road network is already congested. Additional vehicle movements from residents, retail, and student accommodation will:
• Increase traffic on already constrained local streets.
• Create conflicts with pedestrian and cycling routes.
• Add pressure to loading zones, waste collection points, and delivery access.
The cumulative traffic impact of both major developments has not been adequately addressed.
________________________________________
4. Public Domain and Amenity Impacts
The scale of six new buildings will:
• Increase overshadowing of public spaces and neighbouring properties.
• Reduce visual permeability and sunlight access.
• Diminish the character and human scale experience of the precinct.
The proposal does not demonstrate how it will meaningfully contribute to high quality public domain outcomes proportionate to its scale.
________________________________________
5. Need for Staged, Coordinated Planning Rather Than Piecemeal Approvals
Approving multiple large developments simultaneously — each with its own rezoning and EIS — risks creating an unbalanced precinct without adequate infrastructure, open space, or community facilities.
A coordinated precinct wide approach is needed to ensure:
• Infrastructure delivery keeps pace with population growth.
• Public domain improvements are integrated and sufficient.
• Density is distributed in a way that supports long term liveability.
________________________________________
Conclusion
For these reasons, I object to the proposed Mixed Use Development at Sites 8 and 19. I request that the Department of Planning and Environment:
• Consider the combined impact of all current development applications in the Green Square Town Centre.
• Require stronger commitments to infrastructure, open space, and community facilities.
• Ensure that density levels remain consistent with strategic planning and the capacity of the precinct.
• Defer approval until a coordinated, precinct wide plan is in place.
Thank you for considering this submission.

I am a resident of Elizabeth Street within the Green Square Town Centre precinct. I walk and cycle through Ebsworth Street daily to take my children to school and commute to work, and I regularly use local amenities including the library, Gunyama Park Aquatic and Recreation Centre, cafes, restaurants, and surrounding playing fields.

I wish to raise concerns regarding wind impacts, pedestrian amenity, retail outcomes, and affordable housing in relation to this proposal.

1. Wind Impacts and Pedestrian Safety

The submitted wind assessment relies on high-level qualitative analysis using baseline data from Sydney Airport. This does not adequately reflect actual wind conditions experienced within Green Square, where wind is already significantly amplified by existing built form.

There are currently exceedingly strong and at times dangerous wind conditions in:

* Ebsworth Street
* Tweed Place
* The pedestrian walkway between Navins Lane and Ebsworth Street

These locations regularly experience wind tunnel effects and sudden gusts that materially impact safety and comfort. As someone who uses these routes daily, including with children, this is a consistent lived condition, not a theoretical concern.

The word "Gunyama" as named for the local Aquatic centre, reflects Aboriginal knowledge of the area and is commonly understood as the “wind from the southwest”. This highlights that the site is inherently wind-exposed before any buildings were built and should be treated accordingly in any assessment.

The proposal introduces:

* Additional tall towers
* Through-site pedestrian links
* Colonnades and building separations

These elements are well known to accelerate and channel wind, particularly in dense urban environments. The wind assessment itself acknowledges that wind will occur through-site links under all wind directions, effectively confirming the creation of wind tunnel conditions.

Given this, the current assessment is insufficient.

Request:

* Require a comprehensive quantitative wind study (CFD modelling or wind tunnel testing) prior to determination
* Ensure modelling includes cumulative impacts across the broader precinct, including Ebsworth Street and surrounding blocks
* Specifically test south-westerly wind conditions, which are known locally to be significant
* Demonstrate pedestrian comfort outcomes suitable for retail streets and family use, not just transient movement

2. Impact on Existing Retail Amenity (Ebsworth Street)

Ebsworth Street is currently the only established retail spine within Green Square, yet its effectiveness is already compromised by wind conditions.

At present:

* Outdoor dining is often uncomfortable, with businesses resorting to glass hoardings to maintain minimal usability
* Walking conditions can be unsafe during moderate wind, particularly when pushing a pram or walking with small children
* Pedestrian dwell time is reduced, directly impacting retail viability

Further intensification of wind conditions from this development risks:

* Further degrading the viability of existing businesses
* Undermining the success of both existing and proposed retail

This is a critical issue, as the long-term success of Green Square depends on functional, comfortable, and usable public domain and retail streets.

3. Retail Provision and Local Livability

While the proposal includes ground floor retail, the removal of the active street frontage requirement raises concerns about:

* The extent and continuity of retail activation
* The potential for inactive frontages such as lobbies, services, and blank walls

More broadly, there is an existing and growing issue with retail mix and local livability.

Recent changes highlight this:

* Miracle, the only Asian grocer in the precinct, has recently closed
* It has been replaced by food-based offerings such as noodle and ice cream shops

While these improve lifestyle and dining amenity, they reduce access to essential goods and everyday convenience.

Currently, the precinct lacks basic services expected of a major residential and transport hub:

* No chemist
* No bank branch or ATM
* No post office
* Limited access to diverse grocery options

Given the quality of the Green Square plaza and library precinct, it should be mandatory to deliver a fully activated retail and entertainment precinct, including consideration for evening and night-time activity.

Request:

* Reinstate or strengthen active street frontage requirements along key streets and pedestrian links
* Provide a minimum allocation for essential service retail (e.g. pharmacy, grocery, services)
* Ensure a balanced retail mix, avoiding over-concentration of discretionary food and beverage uses
* Consider night-time activation and safety as part of the precinct design

4. Affordable Housing

The proposal seeks to remove the application of the affordable housing clause.

Given the scale of the development, this is a significant concern. Without this requirement:

* There is no guaranteed affordable housing provision
* The development risks contributing to a less diverse and less inclusive community

The inclusion of student accommodation does not address the needs of:

* Key workers
* Families
* Long-term residents

This is inconsistent with the intended role of Green Square as a mixed and balanced urban precinct.

Request:

* Retain or partially apply the affordable housing requirement
* At minimum, require a contribution or provision aligned with City of Sydney policy objectives

5. Conclusion

Green Square is already a dense and evolving precinct with known challenges relating to wind, infrastructure pressure, and retail balance.

This development has the potential to contribute positively. However, in its current form, it:

* Underestimates wind impacts
* Risks further degrading already compromised pedestrian conditions
* Weakens guarantees around active retail frontage
* Fails to address essential service gaps
* Removes affordable housing obligations

Addressing these issues is critical to ensuring the development supports a liveable, functional, and inclusive community.

Summary of Key Requests:

* Require detailed CFD or wind tunnel modelling, including precinct-wide impacts
* Address existing dangerous wind conditions along Ebsworth Street, Tweed Place, and surrounding pedestrian links
* Reinstate and enforce strong active street frontage requirements
* Ensure provision of essential, everyday retail services and a balanced retail mix
* Retain or partially apply affordable housing requirements

Thank you for considering this submission.

To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,

I am writing to lodge a formal objection to the proposed mixed-use development at 6 Geddes Avenue and 411 Botany Road, Zetland.

As a resident of the Green Square / Zetland area, I have a strong interest in ensuring that development within the precinct remains sustainable, balanced, and consistent with the long-term planning vision for the community. While I recognise the importance of increasing housing supply and supporting urban renewal in Sydney, I have significant concerns about the scale of the proposal and the cumulative impacts it may have on infrastructure, public spaces, and overall liveability in the area.

As someone who regularly commutes during weekday peak hours, I already experience significant congestion and overcrowding at Green Square Station and along surrounding transport routes. Rapid development in recent years has already placed considerable pressure on local infrastructure, and many residents are concerned that services have not kept pace with the population growth in the precinct.

Excessive scale and increases to planning controls
The proposal seeks to substantially increase permitted building heights and overall floor space ratios beyond the existing planning controls that were originally established for the Green Square Town Centre. These controls were carefully designed to balance density with sunlight access, public space quality, and residential amenity.

Significant departures from these established controls risk undermining the strategic planning framework that has guided development in the precinct. Residents rely on these planning controls to ensure that development remains balanced and that the liveability of the area is protected.

Where a development seeks to exceed established planning controls, it is essential that a clear and compelling planning justification be demonstrated. In this case, it is not evident that the proposed increases in height and density are supported by sufficient infrastructure capacity or broader community benefit.

Pressure on local infrastructure
Green Square has experienced extremely rapid population growth over the past decade, with thousands of apartments constructed in a relatively short period of time. As a result, local infrastructure such as transport, roads, community facilities, and public amenities is already under considerable strain.

The addition of approximately 800 residential apartments and 514 student accommodation units (711 beds) would introduce a very large additional population into an area that is still adapting to recent development. Without significant infrastructure upgrades, this scale of growth risks placing further stress on services that are already struggling to keep up with demand.

Public transport overcrowding
As a resident who regularly relies on public transport in the Green Square area, I have personally observed that services are already operating at or near capacity during weekday peak periods. Green Square Station frequently experiences heavy congestion during morning and evening commuting hours, with crowded platforms, busy station entrances, and full trains.

Given the scale of the proposed development and the large additional population it would introduce, the level of congestion could become extremely difficult to manage. Without substantial improvements to transport infrastructure and service capacity, it is difficult to see how the area could realistically accommodate such a significant increase in demand.

At present, the station and surrounding transport network already struggle to handle peak commuter volumes. Approving further large-scale development without corresponding transport upgrades risks creating conditions that are unsustainable for residents and commuters.

Traffic congestion and parking impacts
The proposal includes a large residential and student population while providing a relatively limited number of parking spaces. While encouraging the use of public transport is an important objective, the reality is that many residents, visitors, and service vehicles will still rely on cars. This may lead to increased traffic congestion on surrounding roads such as Botany Road and further competition for on-street parking in nearby residential areas.

Impacts on public spaces and sunlight access
Green Square Town Centre was planned with significant public spaces designed to serve the rapidly growing community. These spaces depend on adequate sunlight access and open sky to remain comfortable and usable throughout the day.

Increasing building heights beyond the established planning controls may result in additional overshadowing of nearby public spaces, streets, and pedestrian areas. Loss of sunlight to these areas can significantly reduce their usability, particularly during the winter months. Maintaining high-quality public spaces is critical for the wellbeing of residents in a high-density precinct such as Green Square.

Flooding and stormwater considerations
Parts of the Green Square precinct have experienced flooding during heavy rainfall events. Given the scale of the proposed development and the large amount of additional built form and hard surfaces associated with high-density construction, it is important that stormwater management and flood mitigation measures are carefully assessed. Any new development should ensure that surrounding areas are not exposed to increased flood risk.

Affordable housing concerns
It is also concerning that the proposal seeks to exclude the site from the application of affordable housing provisions. Given the scale of the development and the broader housing challenges facing Sydney, developments of this magnitude should contribute meaningfully to affordable housing outcomes and support a diverse and inclusive community.

Cumulative impacts of continued large-scale development
Green Square is one of the fastest growing urban precincts in Sydney. Planning decisions must therefore carefully consider the cumulative impacts of multiple large developments occurring within the same area. Approving further increases to height and density without corresponding improvements to infrastructure, transport capacity, and public amenities risks undermining the long-term planning vision for the precinct and reducing the quality of life for both current and future residents.

Recommendations
Given the concerns outlined above, I respectfully request that the Department consider the following recommendations when assessing this proposal:
- Require the proposal to comply with the originally established height and density controls for the Green Square Town Centre, or significantly reduce the scale of the development.
- Require clear evidence that existing infrastructure, including public transport capacity at Green Square Station, can accommodate the additional population generated by the development.
- Ensure that the proposal does not result in significant overshadowing of key public spaces and pedestrian areas within the town centre.
-Require stronger stormwater and flood mitigation measures to ensure surrounding areas are not adversely affected.
- Require meaningful affordable housing contributions that reflect the scale of the development.
- Carefully assess the cumulative impacts of development across the Green Square precinct before approving further significant increases in height and density.

In assessing this application, I respectfully request that the Department carefully consider whether the proposal genuinely serves the long-term public interest, particularly given the already significant development pressure within the Green Square precinct.

As a resident who experiences the existing pressures on transport and infrastructure in the area, it is difficult to imagine how the precinct could absorb the additional population generated by this development without significant impacts on liveability.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department reconsider the proposal and not approve the development in its current form unless it can clearly demonstrate that the additional population can be supported by adequate infrastructure and services.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on this proposal.

I am supportive of new housing and commercial spaces in Green Square, however I have some grave concerns about this proposal. Specifically, I am strongly opposed to increasing the permitted height of a building. The proposal for 29 stories in my opinion should not be accepted under any circumstances. Instead, the building height should be kept at a limit of approximately 10-12 stories in line with most other buildings in the area.

Further, this proposal also asks for an exemption from affordable housing rules and active street frontage rules, which I am also opposed to.

If the proposal was re-done to comply with all existing zoning laws, then it would have my full support. The zoning laws exist for a reason and are meaningless if not enforced.

I write to formally object to the above Application on the following planning and design grounds. I request the application be refused or substantially amended to address the issues below before any approval is granted.

Excessive scale, poor transition and visual dominance
Proposed additional heights across Sites 7, 8, 9, 17, 18 and 19 create an abrupt, monolithic skyline that fails to transition to the existing 8–9 storey streetscape. Site 19A in particular, with its increased height, overwhelms Green Square Plaza and the Drying Green. Site 19A presents a large, unarticulated southern façade that conflicts with the podium design, creating a dominant element that is misaligned with surrounding podiums.
The current proposal across Sites 7, 17, 18 and Sites 8–9 will visually enclose and destroy the public plaza by creating a canyon of very tall buildings on both sides. The design report (page 103, 171, 172, 173) appears to downplay cumulative impact—other stages (Sites 7, 17, 18) are ghosted in the visuals—preventing a true assessment of the bulk, scale and overshadowing created by the proposed uplift.

Overshadowing and loss of solar access
The uplifted massing will significantly reduce solar access to neighbouring residential blocks (Sites 9A, 9B, 12A) and public open space (Drying Green), particularly in the afternoon, rendering parts of the public realm and existing apartments unusable and inconsistent with applicable solar access standards.

Poor design quality, articulation and human scale
Several buildings (notably Sites 8A/8C, 8D, 19A, 19B) present long, flat façades with inadequate articulation, heavy, grid-like tower expressions and poorly integrated plantrooms. Podium treatment lacks refinement, fails to provide human scale, and does not respond to the established town‑centre character achieved through previous design competitions.
The design quality is substandard and does not match the high standard set by council-run design competitions for the town centre. It is disappointing that no design competition or equivalent design excellence process was conducted for these multiple large-scale buildings in key locations, especially given the significant additional height and density being sought. Site 8D and 19B buildings would be considered the worst design exhibiting minimal articulation and long, flat façade treatments.

Weak street activation and ground-floor function
Ground-floor interfaces on Hinchcliffe Street, Woolpack Street and Botany Road are dominated by loading, services and garage entries, resulting in poor activation of the public realm. The proposal provides insufficient non-residential uses (retail, supermarket, medical, community space) needed to support the town centre and adjacent school.

Landscape/ Wind Impact
The proposed basement under public streets prevents adequate deep soil areas and mature tree planting, reducing amenity and worsening wind impacts. Wind and shading modelling provided is inadequate, appears to understate cumulative impacts across stages, and indicates potential exceedance of pedestrian comfort/safety thresholds in key plaza locations.

Non-compliance with amenity and planning standards
Numerous apartments rely on long single‑corridor servicing and single‑aspect layouts incorrectly presented as cross‑flow. Many units appear to fail ADG requirements for solar access, private open space, internal room sizes and building separation. The proposed unit mix lacks sufficient larger (3+ bedroom) dwellings to meet rising local demand from young families near the new public school, and the affordable housing provision is inadequate given the uplift sought. Amend the design to ensure compliance with ADG standards, increase family‑sized dwellings and boost affordable housing to reflect the scale of additional GFA.

Requested outcomes and conditions
To address these unacceptable impacts, I request the following prior to any approval:
Reduce building heights and provide stepped height transitions, especially for Sites 19A and those impacting Sites 9A/9B/12A and the Drying Green.
Reconfigure massing to break long façades, integrate plantrooms, and improve façade articulation and podium human-scale treatment.
Relocate/remove ground-floor services/garages from primary street frontages and provide active non-residential uses with continuous shopfronts activating Botany Road, Hinchcliffe Street and the plaza.
Re-run cumulative shadow and pedestrian wind studies including all proposed stages; demonstrate/ improve compliance with solar access and pedestrian wind comfort standards. Amend massing and include wind mitigation measures where required.
Redesign underground/public realm interfaces to deliver meaningful deep soil areas for mature canopy trees.
Ensure dwelling yield, unit sizes and mix meet ADG objectives: reduce excessive dwelling numbers if required; increase proportion of 3‑bed family units; and increase affordable housing uplift to a minimum of 15% of GFA given the additional height/GFA sought.
Require independent design excellence panel review (or design competition) and independent peer review of design, wind and shadow impacts across cumulative stages, with panel sign-off as a condition of any consent.

In its current form the proposal would materially destroy neighbouring amenity, the usability of key public open spaces, and the established design quality of the town centre. I urge the Department to refuse the Application or impose the amendments and conditions above to protect the public domain and local amenity.

While I am in support of 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 received 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

Finally, while the proposal includes landscaping and public domain improvements, it also involves tree removal and significant changes to the existing streetscape. In an area that is already experiencing substantial development, maintaining and increasing green space should be a priority wherever possible.

To: Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Attn: Keiran Thomas / Rosie Turner
From: [Your Full Name]
Address: [Your Apartment Number]/18 Ebsworth Street, Zetland NSW 2017
Date: March 7, 2026

RE: Formal Opposition to SSD-84322496 – Green Square Town Centre (Sites 8 and 19)

As a homeowner/resident at 18 Ebsworth Street, I am writing to express my profound concerns regarding the proposed amendments to the Green Square Town Centre master plan. I wish to record a formal objection to the State Significant Development application (SSD-84322496), as the current proposal represents a drastic and detrimental departure from the community’s expectations.

My opposition is centered on the following critical issues:

1. Unsustainable Density and Infrastructure Strain
The application to elevate the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) to 6.78:1 is, in my view, an exercise in over-saturation. Green Square is already recognized as one of Australia’s most densely populated urban precincts.

Infrastructure Lag: Local services—specifically public transport, healthcare, and primary schools—are already struggling to keep pace with the current population.

Deviation from Plan: The original master plan set specific density limits to ensure a livable urban environment; bypassing these limits for the sake of increased floor space prioritizes developer yield over the well-being of the existing community.

2. Excessive Height and "Canyon" Effect
The request to implement a uniform 115m RL height limit across the site is unacceptable. The shift from a varied skyline (53m–115m) to a monolithic "blanket" height will have a crushing effect on the local streetscape.

Loss of Character: This "wall" of high-rises will strip Ebsworth Street of its intended character, replacing a balanced urban village feel with an intimidating and overbearing architectural barrier.

Visual Bulk: For those of us living at 18 Ebsworth Street, the sheer scale of this proposal is disproportionate to the surrounding built environment and will result in a significant loss of "sky view" and neighborhood openness.

3. Severe Degradation of Solar Access and Natural Light
Living directly adjacent to Site 19, the proposed height increases will have a direct and tangible impact on my daily quality of life.

Residential Amenity: The increased height will cast prolonged shadows over my property and the surrounding public domain. Sunlight is essential for both mental health and reducing energy consumption for heating.

Public Spaces: The proposal threatens to plunge the nearby streets and communal areas into shadow for a greater portion of the day, rendering the very "green" spaces the development claims to support cold and uninviting.

Conclusion
The proposed rezoning and development of Sites 8 and 19 represent an aggressive expansion that ignores the carefully considered limits of the original Green Square Master Plan. I urge the Department to reject this application in its current form and demand a design that respects the solar rights and amenity of existing residents.

I support the further development of the Green Square City Centre, including the proposed construction on the nominated sites. The location’s close proximity to the train station makes it an ideal area for high-density development.
That said, the proposal includes several tall buildings built in close proximity to one another. These buildings, which are similar in height, create a "canyon effect." It could be beneficial to introduce a variety of building heights to enhance architectural diversity and reduce the visual impact of uniformity.
Additionally, the area along Ebsworth Street is already subject to significant wind tunnels caused by existing buildings. I would strongly encourage the proponents of this development to prioritize measures that mitigate and reduce wind tunneling in the Green Square region as part of the planning and design process.
Finally, as a regular user of public transport, I am concerned about the current strains on the Green Square train station and local bus services (343, 320, 304). These services are already at near-capacity, and a development of this scale, combined with the numerous other ongoing and proposed developments in Green Square, Zetland, and Waterloo, will only exacerbate the issue. It is essential that both the proposed metro station in Zetland and the Waterloo/Zetland light rail project be fast-tracked to accommodate the extraordinary population growth in this densely populated area.
Supporting infrastructure must be prioritized alongside development to ensure sustainable and livable outcomes for the community.

Dear Planning Team,
I am writing to express my support for the proposed development comprising approximately 800 residential apartments together with 515 student accommodation units.
The surrounding area already contains a significant amount of medium to high-density residential living, and in my view this proposal is consistent with the existing and evolving character of the neighbourhood. The scale and form of the development appear to align with the newer apartment buildings that have been constructed in recent years and would integrate well with the current urban environment.
Importantly, the area already benefits from established infrastructure, services, and transport connections capable of supporting higher residential density. Developments of this type contribute to meeting the increasing demand for housing, particularly in well-located urban areas where residents can access employment, education, and services without needing to rely heavily on private transport.
The inclusion of purpose-built student accommodation is also a positive component, as it provides appropriate housing options for students and helps relieve pressure on the broader private rental market.
For these reasons, I support the proposal and the associated requests and amendments as submitted. I believe the development will contribute positively to the continued growth and vitality of the area.

[Objection - Support with Ammendments]
Please find attached a community letter submission relating to the following two proposals:
SSD-84322496 (Site 8 and 19)
SSD-83899206 (Sites 7,17 and 18)
Note, two weeks to provide a submission is not sufficient for such a large scale project. These two development applications are directly linked to each other and therefore the Department should take on submissions that address both proposals together regardless of whether one exhibition period has closed. This is a really important project for the community to have more time to consider.
I look forward to your response to in relation to this feedback. While I have flaged this submission being an objection, overall I am supportive of the proposal on the basis that there are material changes incorporated as outlined in the letter.

Resident of Portman St (Community Feedback)

By Australian standards, Sydney City Council is a black hole when it comes to public toilets. A major development precinct needs to incorporate toilets to fix this

I object to any more new residential units and student housing being built in this area, because it will become too saturated.
I do agree with retail outlets and public common spaces such as greens or a square for the betterment of the community.

The proposed increases to the development are not supported.

The community thrives on intentional use of space and development which is aligned in accordance with the originally approval/ design.

Hello

My submission concerns the concurrent and I presume required rezoning proposal.

I am am very concerned about the amendment to exclude the site from application of cl.6.5 Affordable housing.

My background?
I am an ex Town Planner from a long time ago in Newcastle Australia, but currently live in London. From my time in London and also from growing up in Sydney, I am aware of a need for a much more interventionist approach to creating much more public/social housing.

Why the need for more public housing?
Sydney already has the lowest rates of public housing stock in the country, which is so much lower that the UK where despite decades of selling off public housing to former tenants (Right to Buy), there is still about 16% of the housing stock owned by the state.
Therefore, I wonder how the development could not comprise more public housing amongst the 800 residential apartments as is proposed. A genuinely mixed sue development will comprise owner occupiers, student accommodation as well as say a substantial amount of affordable rental property on site (rather than where Sydney City choose to build it). It would be good to see Sydney City to return to being a game changer for local authorities in NSW and by requiring a substantial requirement of say 35 per cent or more affordable housing, preferably much of which is provided by the developer onsite. But maybe the City of Sydney is constrained by restrictive NSW Government guidance which has been to not to require developers to provide on site affordable rental housing and/or a substantial contribution in money to seriously start building more affordable to rent public housing.

From an inequality point of view, it is really not good that Sydney keeps falling into the trap like other cities around the world over the past 45 yrs where the poor have effectively been priced out of living in inner and middle distant suburbs. The development as proposed does not seen to acknowledge this as being an very live issue for Sydney side(ers).

Below is feedback on two concurrent Mirvac proposals for Green Square Town Centre — Sites 7, 17 and 18, and Sites 8 and 19.

While it's important to see the increased housing in GS in well-located precincts, these proposals raise serious concerns that I urge the Department to address:

Traffic impact: The development does not address how traffic will be managed in the town centre and how this will flow out of the area. With hundreds of new dwellings across five sites, Geddes Avenue needs to be opened through to Bowden Street to relieve pressure on Botany Road.

Heritage impact: The proposed large buildings on Sites 7 and 17 will be clearly visible above the rooflines of the terraces on Portman St and this will be visible from Merton St as well. Heights must be reduced by a significant number to protect this irreplaceable streetscape.

Retail spaces: There are far too many residential dwellings and not enough attention paid to the establishment of market leading Retail spaces. There is opportunity to have a large Retail tenant provide supermarket services if the design is set up correctly. This needs to be presented to the community for consultation.

Plaza bulk: The massing of Sites 7, 17, 18, 8 and 19 will overwhelm Green Square Plaza and its surrounding civic spaces. The reports show a significant bulk mass enclosure created by the proposal. Footprints and podium heights need to be meaningfully reduced to preserve the plaza's open, public character.

Sites 17 and 18 just feel too close together and more distance is needed with reduced heights to ensure that the main street (Ebsworth) maintains a village character and not impact the visual amenity of the area. Open spaces between these buildings need to be prioritised.

The area around Site 8 and 19 does not prioritise open spaces sufficiently. In particular the distance between buildings (e.g. 8A and 8C) needs to be further apart to ensure the area doesn't become a highly concentrated wind tunnel and suffer from excessive bulk. Including basic outdoor fitness (e.g. exercise bars) or other community facilities ensures the area is not just a mass of tall buildings.

I strongly urge the Department to require the amendments above as conditions of any approval, or to request revised applications that genuinely address these concerns.

Hi Officer,
I am writing to raise my concerns regarding the proposed development at Green Square Town Centre sites 8 and 19, comprising six high-rise buildings, each reaching 29 storeys. Reasons are outlined below:
1. Excessive density and traffic impact: The proposed development represents a substantial increase in population density in the area that is not currently equipped to accommodate such growth. The streets in the surrounding neighbourhoods are predominantly single-lane, which already operate under constrained capacity. The addition of a significant number of residents, visitors, and service vehicles would inevitably lead to increased congestion, longer travel times, and reduced accessibility for existing residents.
2. Incompatibility with existing urban design: The height and scale of the proposed buildings are inconsistent with the prevailing built form of the town centre. Existing residential and mixed-use developments are considerably lower in height, contributing to a cohesive and balanced urban environment. Introducing six 29-storey towers would create a spark visual disparity, undermining the area's aesthetic harmony and established character, and would not align with community expectations.
3. Construction impacts on residents and community: A development of this scale would likely require a prolonged construction time spanning years. During this extended period, local residents would be exposed to ongoing noise, dust and general disruption. Such conditions would adversely affect the quality and safety of life for nearby residents and place additional strains on local infrastructure and amenities.
4. Safety concerns for school students: The extended construction period and the proximity of the new developments to Green Square Public School introduce further safety concerns. Increased construction activities, including heavy vehicle movements, presents potential hazards for students, parents and staff - particularly during peak school hours.
In light of the concerns outlined above, I strongly urge the relevant authorities to reconsider the proposed development, and to reduce its scale to better align with the capacity, character, and safety needs of the local community.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Regards

Submission attached