Waterloo Metro Quarter OSD - Southern Precinct Detailed Design SSDA

Thanks for providing some social housing.

I'm concerned with the lack of green space. COVID lockdowns have already demonstrated how much residents value their local recreation spots. Redfern Park was filled to capacity when people were forced to stay home. Increasing the density in the area is only going to place more pressure on our limited, green resources. We need more parks not more apartment blocks. Please include more green space in these plans.
I'm also extremely concerned about the Government selling off public land to fund this development. Why can't we use some of this land for recreation space? I don't believe that the green space that's already in the Waterloo Estate has been counted as green space.
Finally, I see no plans for cultural space in any of the developments. Please can you include space for the arts? We don't need yet another childcare provider. The city is full of them! What we need is space for our artists.

The proposal to add 25 story student housing is completely unnecessary for the area. There is student accommodation near redfern station and the very large amount being built on the old site of the Block. There was the option to build the metro closer to universities where more student housing could be appropriate but the decision was made to locate it in Waterloo - to displace a long standing community for a large amount of student housing/short term housing for people that are less likely to be committed and invested in the area is not for the benefit of local residents. The ratio of 25 stories for students vs only 9 stories for social housing is insufficient. 25 stories for either is too high/dense but the ratio could be reversed leading to greater stability for residents, families and the community. Far more emphasis should be given to subsidised or community housing than is currently being given. The community space/gym etc are fine. The project should be scaled back and more i keeping with the local area. The City of Syd proposals for more open space and less density is preferable but I still have concerns about parking/traffic.

Based on the information provided, the proposal does not constitute a Scheduled Activity under Schedule 1 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act). At this stage, the EPA does not consider that the proposal will require an Environment Protection Licence (EPL) under the POEO Act.

As an advisory note, the development will be located in the vicinity of tunnels containing operational rail lines, for which the EPA has a regulatory responsibility. The consent should include acceptable vibration and ground borne noise limits for spaces within the development drawn from the EPA’s Rail Infrastructure Noise Guideline (EPA, 2013) and Assessing Vibration: A Technical Guideline (DECC, 2006).

As the applicant is a private developer and not a NSW public authority, the EPA would not be the appropriate regulatory authority under the POEO Act for the environmental performance of the OSD project.

The EPA has no comment on EIS.

The building height of the student housing is too tall. Otherwise it is an ok plan

There is no parking bay for busses stopping at the Waterloo station on Botany road, the busses would block a lane on the extremely busy Botany road, which would make the road unusable.
Another issue is the wind effect around the highrises. Currently, in Green square there is a harricane every time it's windy. The design should include measures which prevent this.
The artist interpretation is misleading, it shows a lot of flowering plants amongst the skyscrapers- if to look at Green square as an example, not a single flowering tree in the shade and strong winds between the buildings.
No overshadowing analysis of the new park planned between Cope and George street by the State government.

Please find attached EES comments in response

We object to the project on the basis that student housing was never included as part of the community consultation process, approved Concept DA, nor is it in line with the community's vision for the local area. The proposal to dedicate an entire third of the development to student housing has reduced the number of residential homes that will be provided from the 700 new homes to 220, a 69% reduction. The development should also be making space for permanent residents and work to meet the housing shortfall, rather than servicing more transitory residents like students who will not be contributing to community life and contributing to an already oversaturation of student housing in the Redfern/Waterloo area. We propose that this project be rejected, and the original housing targets & community vision be adhered to.

I want to say that overall I support the project as I am a fan of infill and increasing density where appropriate. I object to only one part of the project. That part is the height and size of the student accommodation building in the southern precinct. That it is the highest building in the project, on the corner which will have the biggest negative impact on the surrounding area is just not acceptable. The Cauliflower Hotel, and its footpath tables (popular because they are sunny), the Wellington St Victorian terraces, the footpaths and intersections will be plunged in to shadow and darkness all winter. While the size and height will also make the utilitarian building oppressive and overbearing to the many units and small businesses to the immediate south. I note that the northern building has been reduced to 17 stories, I would have expected a 15 storey maximum for the southern building would have been acceptable, preferably with a greater setback from Wellington St.

Project ruins the character of Waterloo & also to rip up heavy rail system is illogical .

Shelter NSW cannot support this proposal in its current form. Shelter NSW recommends that a greater proportion of social and affordable housing be delivered through this development and that any student housing be required to be genuinely affordable.

The REDWatch submission is attached

I would like to object to the Waterloo Metro Quarter OSD - Southern Precinct. As a long term, owner occupier of a single storey heritage terrace on Wyndham Street, I would like to highlight the below reasons:
- The Solar Access Reports clearly indicates significant shadowing of the Alexandria Park
Heritage Conservation Area in Winter Solstice 9am-11am (sun diagram excludes period
between sunrise and 9am) and Equinox 9am-10am (sun diagram excludes period between
sunrise and 9am). This would result in:
o Significant detrimental effects on heritage east-west facing, adjoining terraces with
loss of crucial morning sunlight for significant periods of the year.
o Significant detrimental effects on heritage value of Alexandria Park that provides
civic and visual focus for the Alexandria Park Heritage Conservation Area.
- Views from the Eastern boundary of the Alexandria Park Heritage Conservation Area and Alexandria Park would be significantly impacted. The reasoning of design excellence is flawed. The loss of crucial access to sky views from these areas would damage vital heritage value for the area that is protected by the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage.

A copy of the TfNSW response letter is attached.

Letter of Objection to State Significant Project – Waterloo Metro Quarter – Southern precinct

The Executive Committee of the Owner’s Corporation of Velocity -180 Cope Street, Waterloo submit a letter of objection to the proposed Southern Precinct development for the construction and operation of two residential buildings, particularly a student housing building of 25 storeys on the corner of Botany Road and Wellington Street for approximately 474 students as well as the vehicle loading and service facilities access from Wellington Street.

180 Cope Street is located between Wellington Street and John Street, Waterloo. Our neighbourhood is predominantly characterised by single storey and two storey dwellings and terraces and residential dwellings varying between 3 – 4 storeys in height.

Any redevelopment in this area should provide a design that delivers a more suitable transition to the lower scale residential area which it borders and the urban landscape. Therefore, the overall size for the student accommodation building on Botany Road and Wellington Street should be significantly reduced in height.

In preparing this submission the following key documentation was reviewed but not limited to:
• Environmental Impact Statement_Amending DA
• Appendix F - Architectural Design Report
• Appendix G - Endorsed Design Excellence Strategy
• Appendix I - Traffic and Parking
• Appendix Y - Design Integrity Report

It is integral that John Holland, Mirvac and NSW Government give genuine and ongoing collaborative discussions on the future impacts on our property to guarantee our amenity, privacy, views and access to sunlight are adequately protected. Apartments facing North will entirely lose all open views, to be replaced by two oversized buildings. We feel at this point that our concerns have not been considered, although they have been raised at various forums throughout the stages of the planning process.

Of particular concern is the loss of privacy to our common shared rooftop and apartments facing north to Wellington St, and that the proposed buildings will allow overlooking in and out of apartments – this needs to continue to be minimised as far as possible and solutions prioritised.

Solar access and shadowing impact.
Six (6) of the apartments contained within 180 Cope Street, Waterloo have direct northerly aspect and access to sunlight through windows or doors opening onto their private balconies. (which is the only source of natural light into these apartments living areas). As depicted on the shadow diagrams prepared and submitted by the project planners, the impact of the proposed development will be detrimental as these owners will lose significant solar access.

Additionally, 3 apartments have a lightwell on the site’s northern boundary to allow additional sunlight to enter the units which front directly onto Cope Street. The southern precinct proposal does not offer any guarantee that it will not decrease the amount and source of natural sunlight that can be accessed into these apartments.

Vehicle loading and service facilities accessed via Wellington Street.

The proposed vehicle and service facilities situated on Wellington Street is concerning for both pedestrian, cyclists and driver safety, and will lead to an increase in overall traffic. The entrance and exit onto Wellington Street will be restricted to ‘left in and left out’ but this will increase traffic flow, create potential traffic banks on a very small stretch of road on Wellington Street, as a number of vehicles wait to access the loading dock area. Exiting vehicles will also increase the noise levels for apartments directly facing Cope Street. As the retail strategy for the Waterloo Metro Quarter is not finalised, it also remains unclear of the potential size of vehicles that will be able to access this entry point and at what times.

We recommend that this loading and service facilities area be relocated to Botany road (where a traffic hub is already planned (car park) as it would create a more effective and safer access and exit point.

Another concern is whole of government coordinated planning. The Waterloo Metro Quarter has limited green, open space and are we are aware that Waterloo South Planning Proposal has been lodged with the City of Sydney (Land and Housing Corporation) to create an approximate 2 hectare community garden/park from Cope/Wellington/Ragland/George Streets (Waterloo South). This is a great initiative and would be an asset to our local community. However, and unfortunately, this is only in its planning stage. It is recommended that before any final decisions are made on the plaza, community centre and rooftops spaces within the Waterloo Metro Quarter, discussions and agreement between government agencies on the community garden/park being developed is approved and finalised to ensure all local residents benefit from the planned developments in the area.

We look forward to ongoing discussions around adapted versions and alternative approaches to the proposed Southern precinct designs plans, particularly on building height, (the number of storeys), the close proximity of the two buildings to each other and increased vehicle traffic in our neighbourhood.