Waterloo Metro Quarter Over Station Development - Concept Application

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

I am concerned at the cumulative impacts in respect to services and
inffrastructure, the extremely high density, the reduction in sociial
housing and affordable housing, which should be permanent and reflect
historical levels, lack of public open space at ground level, and the
cumulative impact of overshadowing.

Please ensure that the per capita open space and access to other
amenities i.e. schools, hospitals, sports ovals and social housing
increases as part of this development.

Please assess the Metro Quarter and Waterloo Estate developments
together.

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

- lacking comprehensive assessment of cumulative social, environmental
and transport impact together with Waterloo Estate and surrounding
private developments. The section on potential threats to a potential
supermarket seemed to have the most comprehensive cumulative impact
assessment of surrounding developments.
- should be assessed together with Waterloo Estate
- how can density be tripled without firm commitments to new services
and new open space?
- purpose appears to be a quick injection to the state coffers? seems
short sighted - eg currently the government needs to expand Darlington
Public and will keep kids on site while they rebuild as surrounding
land too expensive to purchase - kids studying and playing on a
compromised building site. Under this plan, the same thing will happen
in another 30-50 years as no provision made for growth.
- kids need to feel safe to walk to and from school and recreation
activities - no school or facilities seem to be provided and it
appears that traffic congestion (diesel, heavy vehicles) will increase
- no commitment beyond 10 years to affordable housing and little
provision of social housing
-an additional 427 car parking spaces will further increase
congestion, people will drive because they can

My submission relates to the fact that insufficient information has been
supplied. As presented this is merely a concept application to set the
building envelope and therefore does not present an adequate
presentation for interested local residents to see exactly or even
close to exactly what is proposed. I do see this as discriminatory.

The following must be read with the acceptance that it is impossible
to visualise what is proposed in th concept appplication, and indeed
it is rather insulting to us to present a picture of a solid block
with no explanation of cross ventilation and other necessities of high
rise living.

My objections fall into these areas..
density of population
inadequate space for recreational activities outdoors around the site
itself
assumption that Alexandria Park will provide sufficient offsite
recreational space which is safely accessible..

Density of population
Refern and Waterloo have undergone a great deal of residential
development in the past few years, and Green Square is also
contributing to a huge spurt in population growth in the area. Instead
of rushing into the development of another centre of very dense
population, it would be wiser to wait, and perhaps include a larger
area of recreational space, or an interchange for metro and bus
transport feeding into the eastern southern and inner west areas of
Sydney. The site will not vanish. Waiting five years will not hurt
anyone only State Government revenue. This population gain along with
the working population about to move into the Australian Technology
Park will cause huge population and transport pressures. I believe we
have had enough. Wait five years.

Disccrimination
I note that Edgecliff has an over the station develoopment that is not
as dense as that proposed for Waterloo. Is this a class or income
based discrimination? I would like to see arguments supporting the
health and well being of people being shoehorned into spaces in this
part of Sydney as opposed to other spaces in the eastern wealthier
suburbs, where the development is high rise but much less dense.

Recreational Space
The buildings as appearing in the concept application do not allow
spaces where children could be active around other residents and
passers by and users of the proposed station and its attendant
shopping area. Wellness and healthy physical activity go hand in hand
and the spaces around this drawing do not allow for elderly, possibly
frail residents along with young families and adolsecents and middle
aged people to have outdoor activities without tripping over each
other or more active groups driving others away.

Alexandria Park
The proposed use of Alexandria Park is open to debate. This wonderful
park has, in the last year. beome the home to a high school and a
primary school which today form Alexandria Commjunity School.
Previouslly the Alexandria Primary School had generous play area which
has now been absorbed by construcion of the secondary part of the
School. And, a very large extension to the previous primary school on
Mitchell Road has been the scene of the construction of the Cleveland
Street Intensive English Centre. This has swallowed up playground
areas while increasing the student capacity. Virtually today
Alexandria Park is hosting three schools where ten years ago it did
not host any schools at all. I do not believe it can cope with the
strain of becoming the proposed recreation area for the residents of
700 dwellings along with the residents of its surroundings who use the
park day and evenings. Parks do need time to grow grass and for trees
to flourish
Access to this park from the Metro site is across two major roads.
Dangers to pedestrian crossing these roads, particularly children
carrying sports equipment cannot be underestimated. Has this aspect
been discussed with Redfern Police who will be the people on call when
accidents happen?

Really it is not a proper consultation with only the setting of a
building envelope as the reference point for the building+s
neighbours..

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inner Sydney Voice would usually be pleased to offer comment on a
development such as the Metro Quarter station development, but
unfortunately, we feel It is impossible to make an assessment of the
Metro Quarter over station development without considering the
cumulative impacts from Waterloo Estate development, including impacts
of density, congestion and amenity like overshadowing. These
applications should be assessed together. It is for this reason Inner
Sydney Voice objects to the Metro Quarter Over Station Development.
The separation of the two projects was a mistake in the view of our
organisation and has made it exceedingly difficult to communicate
information about the station to the community as well as assess any
of the proposed concepts.

Inner Sydney Voice would normally have made comment on the number of
social housing properties within the development, but again, feel it
is almost impossible to assess the percentage (other than to suggest
it is perhaps too low) without having precise numbers for the Waterloo
Estate.

Inner Sydney Voice believes the Submission Period for the Waterloo
Metro Quarter Above Station Redevelopment should remain open to public
comment until the Preferred Plan for the Waterloo Estate has been
published.

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

The Metro Quarter over station development and the Waterloo Estate
development should be assessed together so as the cumulative impacts
of density, congestion, and overshadowing can be understood.
For such high density there is not enough open space accessible to the
public. Private roof top gardens should not be included in the claim
that there is 53%.
Considering the need for social and affordable housing not enough
homes/units have been set aside.
The additional vehicles introduced will mean that all the surrounding
roads will become car parks for most of the day.
As both developments are on public land, public good should be the
primary consideration. More accessible open space, and more social and
affordable housing are essential.
Overshadowing will reduce the enjoyment of the open space both in the
developments and in the surrounding area.

The heights of these towers are too tall. Towers of this height are more
appropriate slightly further south where there is no heritage
conservation. They are directly next to heritage conservation areas
and cast significant shadows. This project should also be part of the
wider area around it which for some reason is a separate plan. There
will still be plenty of people using the metro if the whole are was
redeveloped with towers up to 10 stories instead.

I support WalkSydney's submission to this project. I would also like to
urge the following items be considered with more priority and
emphasis:
- Signalisation of intersections to support and prioritise safe
pedestrian and cyclist movements.
- High quality slow-speed zones - maximum 40km/hr due to the numbers
of pedestrians
- Support for walking and cycling over private car ownership
- Widened footpaths and a connected network of protected bike lanes to
support greater priority for walking and cycling movements and other
short-distance mobility choices to reduce congestion. Maintain
priority for service and delivery vehicles.

As a local resident I strongly object to the submission and changes to
the Planning controls, The Waterloo Metro Quarter plan is not
appropriate for the location.

There has been a Lack of consultation with local residents on the
Metro Estate, Attachment 27_ Evidence of consultation clearly shows no
consultation with the public or neighbouring social housing residents.
And I believe it to not to be in the communities interest to
change/invent planning controls in this area without any public
consultation. We have invested in Waterloo and are very concerned
about how the plans for skyscrapers in close proximity to our small
heritage terraces will affect our health, quality of life and
community, physical integrity of our homes and our life investments.

The 3 towers over the metro quarter are too tall and completely
inappropriate for the area.

There is a lack of open public space and amenity in the plan. when I
questioned this with Urban Growth they spoke of how it will intersect
with the estate development and open space across Cope Street. I
completely reject this, as a plan cannot be assed on the merits of
other unapproved plans. There needs to be more publicly accessible
open space, and if its on terraces and rooftops provide the public
access to these, and facilities cafes and restaurants on these.

There is a lack of commercial and retail, to support a vibrant
community hub. No space for low cost retail, food halls and markets to
support the local communities needs. Barangaroo has been supported
with major amenity upgrades, Waterloo also an intercity suburb needs
some landmark public amenity to support a prosperous future.

The overshadowing of public space and potential wind-tunnelling
effects of the proposal are not appropriate.

I think there is a lack of of social and affordable housing as a
proportion of the total development, while there is no pre-requisite.
I believe the proportion to be to low.

- object to separation of Waterloo Estate plan and Metro plan as it's
intention was clearly to prevent the state from seeing the negative
impact of the Metro on the Estate.
- object to the increase in density the Metro will inflict on an area
already planned to increase in density. Density cannot be done well
and this a silly slogan.
- increase in density places huge burden on services e.g. rubbish
collection and facilities e.g. parking, and both of these are already
problematic
- there are no plans included to deal with the intersection at Botany
and Raglan.increasing traffic here will only compound what is already
a night intersection for pedestrians.
- too vague about what kind of commercial and retail will be
available. Will just be a repletion of what is already present in
shopping centre.
- the trees planned for the area are the cheapest and ugliest when red
or pink flowering gums could be planted.
- the area will just be another concrete 'plaza' with no aesthetic
appeal.
- pub;c pace is already decreasing rapidly and the Metro will only
contribute to a further decrease.
- the number of social and affordable hoses set aside is laughable,
and the clause permits affordable housing to return to mainstream
after 10 years is petty beyond belief.
- the project aims to off-load Government responsibility for social
housing onto Community providers.
-it is inappropriate development, unattractive development and above
all an inequitable development.
- the concept shows an immature understanding of global city
theory
- the concept is clearly a money grubbing exercise by a cynical
government
- the so-called 'consultations' were so obviously fake in that they
enabled the ticking of boxes rather than serious consideration of what
the community feels is appropriate to the area. It is possible to have
train station without a massive development of this kind.
- the station was the excuse for destroying the Waterloo Estate.

The planning for this is rushed with little concern given to the density
and planning properly
I urge you to reconsider this and to seek proper council.
The buildings are too dense and will eventuate in poor town planning.

It lacks the visiosion of what really is needed in the area

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

I would like to raise my concerns regarding the Waterloo Metro Quarter
Over Station Development (Sydney Metro) as follows:
By separating assessment of the Metro Quarter over station development
and the Waterloo Estate development, the Department is failing to
consider the obvious cumulative impacts of the projects, including
density, congestion and amenity impacts like overshadowing. These
applications must be assessed together.
The Metro Quarter and the Waterloo Estate will triple the density of
the area, making it one of the highest density precincts in Australia
with 700 dwellings in the Metro Quarter and up to 7,200 new homes in
the Waterloo Estate. Without first improving traffic controls, the
area will become a car park and horrific for families and the aged
pedestrians as well as cyclists and local residents trying to get into
or out of the area by car.
The Metro Quarter and Waterloo Estate will introduce 4,300 additional
vehicles in an already dense and congested urban setting. This
congestion will be further impacted by WestConnex.
The Metro Quarter and Waterloo Estate sites are on public land and
should remain for the public good. Given the housing crisis in NSW,
any development should deliver more social and affordable housing on
the site, permanently.
Urban Growth has proposed 427 car parking spaces. Parking spaces are
unnecessary and inappropriate in a development located directly above
a metro station, because it encourages people to own and drive cars in
an already congested part of our city. This is particularly
undesirable when the dwellings are in such close proximity to public
transport.
It is currently the developer's responsibility to partner with a
community housing provider to deliver social and affordable homes.
This should be the responsibility of Urban Growth.
The current proposal includes only 15 percent low amenity open space
that is accessible to the public. Urban Growth's claim that there is
53 per cent open space is misleading, because the majority of this is
made up of private rooftop gardens.
The overshadowing impacts of the Metro Quarter and Waterloo Estate
should be assessed as a whole, not in isolation of each other. The
proposed 3 towers ranging up to 29 storeys above the future Waterloo
metro station and the redevelopment of the Waterloo Estate will
include towers up to 40 storeys high is overdevelopment at its worst
and will destroy this village community in which I live.

Although I own my own house and this development may increase the
value of my property I believe that this proposal is an
overdevelopment and public land grab and once out of public hands, we
will not have influence over the future of this part of our suburb and
community.

60 botany is on the major Waterloo Alexandria intersection and is
directly adjacent to the proposed Waterloo train station entrance.I do
note that it is currently outside the Waterloo region but believe the
proximately lends its self to readdressing the current GFA of 1.5 .
Influences are that it is the key site opposing the train station and
can offer a transition of heights to the properties located in the
Wyndham st,It would offer significant value as part a consolidated
property proposal with surrounding properties. Currently the property
is of heritage significance and is made up of bar and and office space
However there is a great opportunity to add architectural value to the
site whilst meeting the councils key objectives of housing having
close proximately to metros.The consideration of a GFA of 3..4 would
give the surroundings a less abrupt change to the building land
scape.We only noticed the submission opportunity today and have not
had enough time to do a detailed proposal for you to consider.

Submission re Waterloo Metro Quarter / Submission in support of proposals
for over station development at Waterloo metro station


Although a person not living in the Waterloo vicinity, I do live close
to the Metro developments, and have watched the project progress and
expand since inception.

All the same, I often feel the intruder looking in on the project as I
follow the line from home in either direction.

However, I don't exaggerate how I feel about the projects future if I
say I believe that probably more so than anything else its success
will depend on how `places' work. Waterloo isn't just one of them,
it's probably the most significant yet to be put to the public. It's
unimaginable that it won't work and when it does it will clean the
slate of many fearful objections. The desirability of places to live,
work and play will increasingly be judged in terms of the immediately
adjacent station based place, and the number of MRT rail lines that
intersect there.

Watching Sydney Metro videos of new trains on trial is already
becoming ordinary. Visiting station pre openings are become must
attend occasions. Just as the NWRL opening date was the thing I have
looked forward to now for several years, what I am increasingly
looking forward to instead is in 2024 catching an early Sunday Sydney
Train at Cheltenham, swopping to Sydney Metro at Epping interchange,
breakfast at Waterloo developing above and around station as planned,
lunch at Bankstown and the option of coming home on Sydney Trains via
Strathfield.

Sydney is looking increasingly attractive, and i live in lots more of
it already than I once did.

On the strength of that I am pleased to have made the submission
described in the subject line.

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