Waterloo Metro Quarter Over Station Development - Concept Application

This objection focuses only on Transport and should in no way be seen as
an endorsement of any matter not covered.

The Future mode share targets are based on assumptions which may not
all be justified, in particular, the assumed benefits of:
- proximity to Waterloo Station
- proximity to CBD
- planned enhancements to bus network

Waterloo Station will not be online for some years, even if all goes
to plan. When complete, it will only go to some parts of Sydney, it is
impractical for anything other than short distances, and it is not
well integrated with other public transport.

Waterloo is approximately 3.5km from the CBD, which too far for most
people to walk, and connectivity is not good.

While 3.5km is a convenient distance for cycling, such cycle route as
exist between Waterloo and the CBD are fragmented and disconnected.

Bicycle parking, while necessary, will not be sufficient. To achieve
the stated objectives will require, at a minimum, separated bicycle
paths north to the CBD, south to Green Square, west to the ATP and to
Alexandria Canal, and east to Moore Park.

Existing buses are crowded, slow and unreliable. Adding additional bus
capacity can address crowding, but the low speed and unreliability of
buses is a direct result of congestion, which is already bad and will
become worse, both because of developments such as Waterloo, and
because of WestConnex.

Additional buses and bus stops, while necessary, will not be
sufficient. At least until the Station is open, there is will be a
need for dedicated bus lanes.

The transport study notes that "Australian Technology Park (ATP), ...
that currently contains around 3,000 - 3,500 workers", and while it
notes that this number will increase, it neglects saying how by much.
The increase will be of the order of 12,000 people employees, plus
visitors.

Additional buildings, while not yet detailed, are planned.

Given that there will be no additional car parking provided, and given
that Redfern Station is already at capacity, it seems inevitable that
many of these 12,000+ people will use Waterloo Station.

One "Widened pedestrian crossing on the south approach of the Botany
Road / Henderson Road / Raglan Street intersection", while necessary,
will not be sufficient.

Widened footpaths on both sides of Henderson Road between ATP and
Waterloo Station should be required, given that, as the assessment
notes, this route will form a major pedestrian desire line.

As the traffic study notes, "School and community facilities located
near the Waterloo Precinct include Our Lady of Mount Carmel Primary
School, Alexandria Park Community School and Green Square School ...
pedestrian trips generated by these users may also involve the
crossing of roads carrying high traffic volumes such as Botany Road
and McEvoy Street".

For the safety of these children, crossings at Botany and McEvoy St,
Botany and Buckland/Waterloo, and McEvoy and George should be widened.

I would like to object to the Waterloo Metro Quarter Over Station
Development. As a long term, owner occupier of [address withheld], I
would like to highlight the below reasons:

- The height restriction for the site currently restricts to 12
metres. The development is grossly above this height limit.
- The storey limited for the site currently restricts development to 4
storeys. The tallest tower at 29 stores is a 725% increase on the
current storey restriction.
- 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.
- Visual Impact Study provides viewpoints that are significantly set
back into the Alexandria Park Heritage Conservation Area dramatically
underplaying detrimental visual impacts and are hence misleading and
deceptive. 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.

I would like to object to the Waterloo Metro Quarter Over Station
Development. As a long term, owner occupier of [address withheld], I
would like to highlight the below reasons:

- The height restriction for the site currently restricts to 12
metres. The development is grossly above this height limit.
- The storey limited for the site currently restricts development to 4
storeys. The tallest tower at 29 stores is a 725% increase on the
current storey restriction.
- 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.
- Visual Impact Study provides viewpoints that are significantly set
back into the Alexandria Park Heritage Conservation Area dramatically
underplaying detrimental visual impacts and are hence misleading and
deceptive. 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.

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.

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. We already have too
much congestion in this area.
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.
This development is excessive in size and does not add anything
positive to the area.
Please reduce it by at least half if not more.

Dear Department of Planning Assessment Officer
Objection to the Waterloo Metro Quarter SSP and SSD 18_9393.

I wish to register my very strong objection to the Waterloo Metro
Quarter and SSD 18 9383 for the following reasons:
- 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 current infrastructure for this extraordinary level of density
such as new medical centres, schools, hospitals, community and
emergency services etc has is not been considered or planned for and
will make the area unliveable.

- 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. In addition, the State Government’s development corporation,
UrbanGrowth, is only committing to providing affordable housing for
ten years. The need for affordable housing is acute now and will not
disappear after 10 years. We demand that 10% of the accommodation be
set aside for affordable housing and that this be in place for ever,
not just for 10 years.

- The proposed height of the three buildings at the Metro Quarter is
unacceptable and will set a precedent for the rest of Botany Road and
its surroundings. At most the buildings should not exceed 8-10 stories
in line with other buildings close by.

- 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 delivering tens
of thousands of extra vehicles daily to our already congested streets,
and the plethora of additional residences from the Ashmore Estate in
Alexandria/Erskineville and of course Green Square.

Apart from the traffic gridlock that will become untenable for
businesses and residents, emergency services (ambulances, fire engines
and police) will also not be able to move. This introduces an
unacceptable risk to the broader community.

- 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. However, consideration needs to be given to the provision
of adequate disabled parking and the parking needed for health and
community workers to visit the site.

- 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 Growths 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. Many
residents in close proximity will have their solar access depleted â€"
apart from the loss of amenity, this will also impact those people who
chose to install solar panels to reduce the cost and reliance on the
electricity grid.

- Maintaining a single entrance to the Metro is both dangerous and
demonstrates a lack of foresight â€" this feedback was provided in the
early consultation process by many people and community groups, but
has again been ignored.

- There is no provision for improved, safe pedestrian access to and
from the site. Given the fact that there are major roads in and around
the site, this is unacceptable.

- The community consultation process has been totally inadequate and
it is clear that Urban Growth is going through the motions without
actually seeking to take on community concerns and feedback about the
proposal.

I wish to object to the Waterloo Metro Quarter SSP and SSD 18_9393. I
wish to object for the following reasons: * 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. Sincerely Name:

see attached email

see attached email

see attached email

see attached email

see attached letter

I'm concerned about how effective the station will be in serving the
local catchment, especially in light of plans to develop the Waterloo
Estate.

The bus interchange arrangements as indicated in Appendix N show long
walking distances for those wanting to interchange between modes.
Consider shortening this distance with extra, and better located
through-site links.

Also consider, or lobby Sydney Metro to consider, a southern station
entrance fronting Wellington Street. As Figure 2.3 (attached) of the
Transport Impact Statement shows, the Raglan Street entrance is at the
very edge of the overall State Significant Precinct Site. A secondary
entrance to Wellington Street would provide access direct to the
central spine of the Precinct, expanding its potential catchment.

Please see attachment

Attached

See attached submission

* Sell off of public Assets - I don't believe the government should sell
NSW assets such as the 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 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? I only surmise
Waterloo was chosen to make more money for developers aided by the
current government.
* Privacy- with the development of the Metro highrise Tower on
Wellington St the apartments will look into the north facing
apartments of our block 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 - Having attended a community outreach session I have spoken
to the representative of the company who conducted a traffic
assessment of, the Metro Quarter. He 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.
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.
* 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.

* Sell off of public Assets - I don't believe the government should sell
NSW assets such as the 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 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? I only surmise
Waterloo was chosen to make more money for developers aided by the
current government.
* Privacy- with the development of the Metro highrise Tower on
Wellington St the apartments will look into the north facing
apartments of our block 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 - Having attended a community outreach session I have spoken
to the representative of the company who conducted a traffic
assessment of, the Metro Quarter. He 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.
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.
* 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.

see attached letter

see attached letter