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
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.

We refer to the Waterloo Metro Quarter State Significant Precinct Study &
Waterloo Metro Quarter Over Station Development (Sydney Metro) and
make the following submission outlining my concerns with the proposal.
Our main concerns are as follows:
1. The Metro Quarter should not be assessed independently from the
Waterloo Estate State Significant Development Precinct. The project
was announced together and many aspects of the design in both SSDP's
are connected to and reliant on the other. This includes but is not
limited to:
- Impacts of building heights on overall urban design outcomes, solar
access and overshadowing impacts to existing dwellings, and impacts to
protected flight paths to and from Kingsford Smith Airport.
- Increase in population and density over both precincts and the
impact on existing communities and infrastructure.
- Increased congestion and traffic caused by the combined increase in
traffic from both developments.
By assessing both major developments separately, it down plays the
impacts, and fails to consider the obvious cumulative impacts of both
of these developments combined. In particular, the overshadowing
impacts should not be assessed based on the current low density
environment, but should take into account the future high density
environment that will replace the area within Waterloo Estate.
2. The proposed planning changes makes provisions to amend the
allowable FSR to 6.1:1 (Clause 2.5). The current allowable FSR is
1.75:1. This equates to a 3.4 times increase in allowable GFA and an
extreme increase in density and population. Together with the proposed
Waterloo Estate development, it would make this area one of the
highest density precincts in Austraia. This is not even taking into
account the large number of high density precincts that are currently
in development in and around the area, including the nearby Green
Square over station development with FSR's ranging from 4.57:1 to
6.55:1, and Zetland with areas of up to 5:1 FSR. This has already
caused enormous strain on existing transport infrastructure, with
worsening congestion along Botany Road, McEvoy St, and other
arterials. The proposed planning changes will introduce 4300
additional vehicles (source: City of Sydney) to an already dense and
congested area and will be further impacted by the introduction of the
Westconnex Connectivity Upgrade along McEvoy St. This level of density
should not be supported to not worsen the situation.
3. Of the 700 apartments proposed in the Metro Quarter, only 70 homes
are set aside for social housing and 35 for "temporary" affordable
housing. With the ever-worsening housing crisis in Australia, a high
profile, large scale development like this should aim for higher
affordable housing targets so as to not worsen the housing market.
Access to high quality amenity, particular one that is so close to
high speed public transport, should include provisions for key workers
on lower incomes to ensure our city remains fair and equitable.
4. There is inadequate green space provided by the Over-Station
development proposal (15% low quality public open space) while the
claim of 53% is misleading as it includes non-accessible private roof
top gardens.
Thank you for your consideration of these concerns,
Yours Sincerely,

Eddie Ma
Director, Vigilanti

**Personal details not to be made public on any NSW Department of
Planning and Environment or Urban Growth NSW websites or other
associated websites and media**

[address withheld]


**Personal details not to be made public on any NSW Department of
Planning and Environment or Urban Growth NSW websites or other
associated websites and media**

To whom it may concern

I am writing to you as confirmation of my submission to NSW Department
of Planning and Environment regarding the Waterloo Metro Quarter SSP.

As the owner/occupier of an apartment at [address withheld], I wish to
formally lodge my objection to the proposal based on a number of
issues.

These objections are also a confirmation of my attendance at 18
January 2019 Information/session at Redfern Town Hall.

At this session, I showed a photo of my existing northerly aspect
looking onto the proposed site. The photo from my balcony below
provides additional context for my objections.

The design, within the building envelope context for a State
Significant Precinct [height and density] allows new and out of
character of a new build that :
⦁ well exceeds the parameters of local maximum building height
limitations
⦁ a building envelope that is out of character with surrounding
buildings including heritage dwellings
⦁ does not provide enough acoustic privacy as many proposed
common, community areas are open and sound will reverberate , and also
from pedestrian access and from the proposed rooftops
⦁ create new overshadowing from all apartments on the North
side diminishing solar access particularly in the winter months, (note
that I requested further shadow diagrams to be sent to me that were
not available at the January 18 event and were yet to receive them as
confirmed by Urban Planning NSW).

I currently enjoy uninterrupted Northerly views of the surrounding
suburbs and parts of the CBD, the inappropriate building type and the
scale of the building will directly impact on my property by
completely removing these views and replace my view with two builds
[23 floors and 14 floors respectively]. I will lose all views.


I will also lose significant green space views surrounding the area,
to be replaced by a few trees on Wellington Street. The proposed
drawings of buildings offer little reassurance to me that the proposed
buildings consider sustainable and innovative green infrastructure
design including vertical green walls and any internal water recycling
plants that will assist in water and energy savings for local
residents. For example, an opportunity with Green Square Station in
Zetland, ridiculously close to the Waterloo site, had an opportunity
to build an apartment block such as the One Centtral Park in
Chippendale, but has shown no such innovation from the streetscape.

Overall, the designs or plans submitted are difficult to interpret as
no designs are embedded into a current street scape . However, it is
clear that it is an inappropriate range of scale for the area
[although at concept stage].
Further, issues to reinforce my objection to the Waterloo Metro
Quarter SSP are as follows:

Traffic - at the January 18 session, a representative who conducted a
traffic assessment of, the Metro Quarter.stated that it was not
expected there would be a great impact of adding another 400 + car
parks, and hence cars onto our suburban streets. This is
counter-intuitive as currently there are traffic jams of cars trying
to get onto Botany Rd from Raglan St and Wellington St in the morning
and afternoon peak hour. With no additional traffic control measures,
this traffic jam at peak hours will be only exacerbated by another 400
plus cars moving into the area. Urban Growth has proposed 400 plus car
parking spaces. The 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 area.

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 to an already
congested part of our city. This is particularly undesirable when the
dwelling is in such close proximity to public transport.

Metro Quarter Location - I continue to dispute the location of the
metro, given Waterloo is already a strong transport hub, with two
existing train stations within a 10-minute walk the location of a
third station seems ludicrous especial considering Zetland is high
density and the only public transport is buses wouldn't this be a more
appropriate, site for a metro

Privacy- with the development of the Metro highrise Tower on
Wellington St the apartments will look into all the north facing
apartments of our block. Resident's privacy will be significantly
encroached on. It appears there is no consideration for privacy
measures for our residents in the development of the Towers in the
Metro site. This may be within planning laws but is it fair and
reasonable?

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.

Density - 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 also doesn't know the
full capacity of the shopping and office spaces this could add 1000's
of extra people coming to, Waterloo each day to work. The full impact
of the increased density should also consider the additional people
moving to Technology Park with the CBA opening its head offices. As a
local resident to the Redfern /Waterloo area for close to 15 years, I
believe one of our great assets has been our open space and low and
medium density living. Residents expectations are not to live in such
high density such as you're proposing, even with community
revitalisation strategies.

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 current proposal includes only 15 per cent 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.

Thank you for considering my objections and please contact me if you
require further information.

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.

By separating the assessment of the Waterloo Estate development and the
Metro Quarter Above the Station development, the Department is failing
to to consider the obvious cumulative impacts of the projects
including density, congestion and amenity impacts like over-shadowing.
These applications must be assessed together, not in isolation of each
other.

The Waterloo Estate and Metro Quarter sites are on public land and
should only be used for social housing not for those who can afford to
purchase their own houses or apartments. For instance, the Metro
Quarter is a public housing development like the Waterloo Estate but
instead is basically for private ownership: 700 apartments but only 70
are to be set aside for public housing. It should all be for social
housing.

These two developments will triple the density of the area. They will
make it approx. the highest density precincts in Australia --in one
700 dwellings and in the other 7,200. Wrong thinking!

Urban Growth is only committing to providing affordable housing for
ten years. Given the housing crisis in NSW, any development should
deliver more social and affordable housing on site, permanently. How
many people are still on the Department's waiting list in December
2018?

Public housing is a public good. Poorer people contribute to society,
create communities and develop a sense of place at least as much as
the rich.

Poor people deserve nice things like the amenity of the harbour or
proximity to well tended public parks and appreciate them as much if
not more than the wealthy.

Poorer people don't commute away from their home base or demand as
much car space.

If social housing residents are moved away from communal urban
amenities such as hospitals, public buildings and libraries, they lose
community and quality of life. Access to tailored community facilities
like housing offices, the Factory, charities, drop in centres, Eora
College and more are a working feature of Waterloo-Redfern now.

These amenities support public housing residents where they live. Once
people are dispersed too widely, they cannot.

I am a former housing resident and in favour of moderate
gentrification and urban gardens.

I am not romanticising social housing as it currently exists in
Waterloo. I am also opposed to the ghettoisationor over-concentration
of public housing.

Balance is missing from the new plan. Dense new towers of private
apartments will become the slums of tomorrow.

Vision is needed. Please consider salt and peppering more community
housing through townhouse style developments. Don't replace towers
with towers.

Above all, don't imagine that private owners and private tenants do
not have social problems. Over-crowded rented Ultimo crash pads for
city workers and students prove that poverty is not a problem that can
simply be "built", developed or sold away.

Ignoring the drivers of poverty or presuming that you can flip
developments to land the international yuppie dollar is short term. It
is not what planning is about.

Moreover, Council areas like Woollahra used the poorer inner suburbs
as their waste bin during the operation of the incinerator. The
environmental consequences of this remain.

Gardens, public transport and a healthy social housing and private
residential mix will prevent Waterloo becoming another Mascot.

Anything else is just bad planning: replacing concrete with more
concrete.

We own an apartment adjacent to the Waterloo Estate, and ask that the
following concerns be considered in the consultation process:
1. The concept plans include extremely high density apartment
buildings, including one up to 40 storeys directly opposite our
apartment. This raises privacy issues for people living in existing
apartment buildings, and - for those living south of these huge
buildings - overshadowing.
2. We are concerned about the detrimental effect of increased
population intensity, traffic volumes and overall ambiance of the
precinct.
3. The Metro Quarter and Waterloo Estate developments should be
considered together, in order to consider the cumulative impact on the
amenity of the precinct.
4. We are also concerned about the low level of social housing in the
proposed developments, and the temporary nature of the dwellings which
fall within this category. It is important to maintain low-cost
housing in the inner suburbs, and Waterloo represents one of the last
areas close to the city that provides such accommodation.
5. The plans encourage significantly more cars into the area. This is
at odds with the proximity to the new metro station. Use of public
transport and active transport (walking and cycling) should be
encouraged, as in many other modern international cities.

Thank you for considering the above.

The sites of the Metro and the Waterloo Estate are inextricably linked,
and various concerns about the plans are outlined below. Please note
that as a general point I simply do not see any of the concerns and
ideas raised in consultation sessions materialising in the proposed
Option for Waterloo Estate, and feel that foundational elements of the
proposal are deeply flawed.
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 am concerned about the proposed developments at Waterloo.

As a relatively long term resident of the area, having lived in
REDFERN/ Darlington for 15 years, I have seen substantial change in
the neighbourhood and believe the Waterloo redevelopment is poorly
thought through.

Reasons:
1. Not enough social housing has been factored in.
2. Social housing which is included should be guaranteed for the long
term, not just for a short ten year period
3. The height of the towers is too high.
4. Overall density seems wildly over the top and not conducive to
livable communities. We are not sardines. We need public space which
is not privately controlled.
4. The whole proposal should be considered as one, not separated into
2 sections. This separation is hiding some overshadowing issues.
5. State government transparency and approval processes for major
developments are appalling. I don't trust anything you do and every
development is geared in favour of developers.
6. I haven't seen detailed plans, but I understand there are many car
parking spaces included in the development. This is unnecessary and
will clog up our streets. The development is over a metro line. New
residents will have great public transport.

The whole thing needs to be reviewed.

The Metro Quarter over station development and the Waterloo Estate
development should be assessed together to consider the cumulative
impacts of both projects, including density, congestion, the extra
load on existing amenities and infrastructure in the surrounding
areas, and issues of overshadowing and wind tunnel effects.
The Metro Quarter and the Waterloo Estate developments will triple the
density of the area. A combined total of at least 7,500 new dwellings
will make it one of the highest density precincts in Australia.
Of the 700 units proposed for the Metro Quarter only 70 are to be
social housing, and 35 for affordable housing. Urban Growth is only
committing to ten years for the affordable housing.
The Metro Quarter and the Waterloo Estate are on public land and
should be for the public good. With the housing crisis in Sydney, any
development should deliver more social and affordable housing on the
site, permanently. Given the long Aboriginal history of the Waterloo
Redfern area, both developments should include permanent, affordable,
dedicated Aboriginal housing.
Currently, it is the developer's responsibility to engage a community
housing provider to deliver social and affordable homes. This should
be the responsibility of Urban Growth, i.e. the government.
The combined projects will introduce an estimated 4,300 extra vehicles
in an already congested area. Any resulting gridlock would impede
emergency vehicle access. Also, parking for residential and retail is
likely to spill into the surrounding streets
Urban Growth's claim that the Waterloo Metro Quarter has 53% open
space is misleading, as most of it is private rooftop gardens, with
only 15% accessible to the public,
The Waterloo Metro Quarter and the Waterloo Estate should be assessed
as a whole, and the impacts of nearby developments on amenity and
general quality of life in the district must not be ignored.

I own property in Erskineville and have grave concerns that The Metro
Quarter and the Waterloo Estate will triple the density of the area,
making it one of the highest density precincts in Australia. This has
major implications for congestion in the area - especially as current
plans include parking for more than 400 cars. Alarmingly only 70 homes
will be set aside for social housing, and 35 for affordable rental
units. Any development in this area should deliver more social and
affordable housing on the site, permanently.

I object to the overdevelopment of Waterloo.

Specifically:

- The sell off of public Assets. While I support infill and
redevelopment, I don't believe the government should sell NSW assets
such as the entire Waterloo Estate to private development, an asset
the people of NSW will never be able to get back once sold.

- Metro Quarter Location. I dispute the location of the metro, given
Waterloo has two existing train stations within a 10-minute walk the
location of a third station i n betweenseems ludicrous especial
considering Zetland is high density and the only public transport is
buses wouldn't this be a more appropriate, site for a metro? Green
Square is already overcrowded and will only get worse as development
there proceeds.

- Privacy- with the development of the Metro highrise Tower on
Wellington St the apartments will look directly into the north facing
living rooms of my block so our resident's privacy will be
significantly encroached on. It appears there is no consideration for
privacy measures for our residents in the development of the Towers in
the Metro site. This may be within planning laws but is it fair? I
suggest not.

- Traffic. Apparently, at a community outreach session, a
representative of the company who conducted a traffic assessment of,
the Metro Quarter didn't expect there would be a great impact of
adding another 400 + car parks, and hence cars onto our suburban
streets. This seems counter-intuitive to me as currently there are
traffic jams of cars trying to get onto Botany Rd from Raglan St and
Wellington St in the morning and afternoon peak hour. Many of those
vehicles will be short term parks so there is a multiplier effect on
the vincinity. The 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 area.
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 to an already
congested part of our city. This is particularly undesirable when the
dwelling is in such close proximity to public transport.

- 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.

- Density. 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 also doesn't know the
full capacity of the shopping and office spaces this could add 1000's
of extra people coming to, Waterloo each day to work. The full impact
of the increased density should also consider the additional people
moving to Technology Park with the CBA opening its head offices. As an
Australian, I believe one of our great assets is our open space and
low and medium density living. Citizens expectations are not to live
in such high density such as you're proposing.

- 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.
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 per cent 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 Waterloo OSD and Waterloo Quarter submissions should be considered
together. Their impact together will create immense pressure on an
already dense and congested region.
Both the OSD and Quarter lie on land which was publically owned.
Allowance for public and affordable housing must be increased.
At the OSD:
I object to the proposed building heights of up to 29 storeys which
are completely 'out of step' with the surrounding suburb.
I also object to the lack of parking amenity being provided for these
apartments. Regardless of their location close to metro/rail/bus
amenities, residents will undoubtedly want access to a car for any
number of reasons. In the OSD 65 car spaces for 700 dwellings is
completely inadequate.
Finally, I object to the lack of planning relating to social amenities
for this development. A 'medical center' is fine (will it be free?)
but what about a school or additional park land? Apartment-dwellers
need space to stretch their legs, push the kids on a swing and walk
the dog.

Waterloo Metro Submission 30 Jan 2019

As a private resident of Wellington St, Waterloo, I would like to
lodge a protest against certain elements of the Waterloo Metro
project.

Please note my concerns are as follows:

1. 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.
2. 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
3. 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 whereas it should be ongoing.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The overshadowing impacts of the Metro Quarter and Waterloo Estate
should be assessed as a whole, not in isolation of each other.

Yours faithfully
Denis Norton
[email protected]

Hi there,

I wanted to voice my approval of your plans.
I know many are making a fuss about the limited number of social
housing options and the duration of the social housing contract (10
years).

I would argue there are too many social housing options already and
there are many government institutions that already provide housing
for many low income earners. Forcing developers to provide low cost
housing is quite unethical in my opinion (note, I am not a developer
and do not have any ties to developers).

You will also receive many complaints, spurred on by the words of
Mayor Clover Moore that (somehow) living anywhere near a station
invalidates your need for a car. This is utter garbage. I think the
proposal for the 400 odd carspaces are not enough, I would have
thought there would be a multi level carpark next to the station to
enable commuters to actually get to the station to use it in the first
place.

Until all of Sydney is covered by well working, efficient transport
that has coverage to suit most peoples travel needs, the argument that
you do not need a car is invalid. What of young families that do not
have a train station near their destination? What about single mothers
who need to juggle both children and groceries? Should they not have a
car purely because they live near a train station? This argument has
never made any sense to me. If anything, all new buildings approved
should have at least 1 car space for every apartment in that building
to keep cars off the road, that is the only way congestion in built up
areas will be solved.

So, more, please.

The Metro Quarter and Waterloo Estate applications must be assessed
together.
The cumulative impacts of the Metro Quarter over station development
and the Waterloo Estate development, are not considered: including
density, congestion and amenity impacts like overshadowing.
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. 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.

To the Department of Planning & Environment
Dear Sirs,
Re the Waterloo Metro Quarter State Significant Project Study:
I write to express my views concerning the proposal to consider the
Metro Quarter over station development and the Waterloo Estate
development separately. It is vitally important these proposals be
considered together and in relation to each other for the following
reasons:
* 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. Moreover, Urban Growth (the State Government's development
corporation) is only prepared to commit 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 NSW any
development should deliver more social and affordable housing on the
site, permanently.
* It is estimated that 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.
* Also Urban Growth has proposed 427 car parking spaces which are
unnecessary and inappropriate to say the least in a development
located directly above a metro station. People should be discouraged
from owning & driving cars in an already congested part of our city.
This proposal is outstandingly undesirable when, as already stated,
the dwellings are to be in such close proximity to public transport.
* I understand that It is currently the developer's responsibility to
partner with a community housing provider to deliver social and
affordable homes. Should this not be the responsibility of Urban
Growth?
* The current proposal includes only 15% low amenity open space that
is accessible to the public. Urban Growth's claim that there is 53%
open space is misleading because the majority of this comprises
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.
For the reasons expressed above I urge you to make arrangements for
the Metro Quarter over station development and the Waterloo Estate
development to be considered together.
Yours sincerely
Margot Hilton
30.01.2019

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 for social housing, and 35 for affordable rental units. This
is a drastic reduction in social housing. 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.

Jill Irving

The urban renewal of the Waterloo area is an exciting opportunity to
revitalise an area with a strong sense of community, high perceptions
of fear and arguably a recent history of less than adequate
governance. It is also noted that the site is in its infancy in terms
of the planned development and this makes for limitations in terms of
the CPTED report provided as much of the devil will inevitably lie in
the detail to follow. Nevertheless the CPTED report provided offers
little in the way of providing the necessary insights into how the
development aims to prevent crime and build and strengthen community.
The CPTED report provides a number of sweeping statements and
generalisations which show a poor understanding of CPTED which is a
complex discipline underscored by the interrelationship between crime,
architecture, urban structure and social sustainability. Referring to
dated concepts from 2001 in terms of NSW Government CPTED / Safer By
Design policy and failing to note how the listed BOCSAR crime
statistics relate to the actual concept is a glaring oversight. It is
also underwhelming if not inappropriate to base CPTED expertise on
completion of four days of unaccredited training and to "rate" a
suburb as having a "moderate crime risk" based on spurious unlisted
criteria. Safer Cities and broader urban renewal proposals arguably
take a much broader view of CPTED than what is proposed in this
report. It is hoped that in future more comprehensive CPTED reports
will be provided which look at how the concept or application relates
to urban structure, built form, human scale, fine grain, mixed use,
social fabric, public / private space mix, access and intended use,
the night time economy which considers a broad range of uses which
attract people of all ages, a greening strategy which incorporates an
urban canopy, integrated transport guidelines which focus on
timetabling, security, wayfinding, informal and formal activity and
the waiting experience, proposed walking routes and movement cues,
separated cycling networks, public facilities, and opportunities for
residents to be empowered and involved, to interact with one another
and to put their stamp on any proposed actions.

To whom it may concern

I am making a submission in order to object in the strongest possible
terms to this Study, which contains such serious flaws that it is
clearly non-compliant with the SEARS.

In particular, the current proposal does not address the following
requirement (no 7) in the SEARS: that the EIS shall
'demonstrate how the Waterloo Metro Quarter and the Waterloo Estate
State Significant Precincts will proceed and illustrate the
relationship and any cumulative impacts between the proposals.'

The EIS clearly states that it does not do this, see p. 66:
'As the design of the Estate is still undergoing options testing, a
clear and definitive assessment of the cumulative impacts between the
proposals cannot be undertaken as part of this concept SSD
Application. It is anticipated that the cumulative impacts of both
proposals will be considered as part of
the Waterloo Estate SSP Study and future development applications
within the Estate.'

I therefore request that the Department ensure that the SEARs are
complied with, by asking for the current EIS to be withdrawn. Without
this information on cumulative impacts, it is impossible to evaluate
this proposal, including others aspects of the SEARS, e.g., design,
amenity, public space, adequacy of local infrastructure, etc. The EIS
needs to be redone so this development be considered together with the
Waterloo Estate.

I also strongly object to the process by which this study has been
conducted. First of all, the exhibition period should have factored in
the summer holiday period. As it is, there has been insufficient time
for residents and communities affected by this development to assess
this proposal fully.

I also note that, as someone who participated in the community
consultations, I do not believe that community concerns have been
properly reflected in the summary of feedback (Attachment 25). The
thematic analysis which has been conducted is insufficient, as it does
not capture the degree of concern, dismay and even anger with which
the feedback was conveyed. As a researcher, I can assure you that more
appropriate methods of analysis are available to provide a more
accurate reflection of community feedback.

As the EIS itself notes, this is an area which has been subjected to
much higher rates of density in recent years. The State Government
needs to prioritise an integrated transport and infrastructure plan
for the South Sydney region before it proceeds with another large
scale development which, together with the Waterloo estate
development, will totally change the character of these neighbourhoods
in ways which have not been addressed in the current EIS.

Catherine Welch