Waterloo Metro Quarter - Second Amending Concept

I am against removing business/commercial floorspace as we need employment for our youth and residents. We don't want more student accommodation, enough already and all the smelly buses for them. If you like we can show them where they all are. Even public housing are given to students .
No heavy traffic in residential areas, example young children, women with babies and old people.
About design excellence, it fails for the South Precinct, looks not welcoming, cold and sterile.
Please don't repeat this in the Northern Precinct.
Give parking permits to residents without parking.

I support the project

1) In my opinion this project needs to include more commercial floor space including office space, retail and entertainment - the city is land constrained and this is one of the few opportunities we have to expand the commercial core of the city and bring more job opportunities to the area.

2) More public green spaces are also a must for such a dense project to ensure amenity for future residents.

We object to the reduction of commercial floorspace from 34000 to 5000sqm, it significantly reduces job opportunities for local residents close to public transport.

Replacement with student accommodation, mostly oversees students from Asia, will affect the social fabric of the area. Building units without providing jobs will attract cashed up oversees buyers instead of paying mortgage Australians - this is not a solution to housing problem in Australia.

Another issue is design excellence. Looking at the very unattractive towers in the South Precinct already constructed, one wonders how valid is the Design Excellence Stategy, is anyone overseeing and criticising it? Are the developers rewarded with more floor space for building mediocre design? The suggested new configuration of towers in the Northern Precinct looks less elegant than the separate towers in the initial design, it looks like an overbearing lump of highrises.

The last issue is Travel Plan and traffic impact. To reduce noise and vibration, heavy bus traffic should be directed away from the residential areas and the newly created park in front of the station. Currently, residents of Waterloo are suffering from unlseesing stream of 392 buses, 200 per day, along Raglan Street. They should be diverted to go along Botany road where there's a proper bus stop integrated in the new design. Otherwise, the life of the future residents would be intolerable.

I completely object to the decrease in the community facilities floorspace by 994sqm. That is space that could be used by local community controlled not for profit organisations.

Also, the Social Impact Assessment says: “This Second Amending Concept DA alone will not generate enough demand for a purpose-built childcare facility” (Concept SIA p40). But the developer only wants to deliver a “community centre in the form of a childcare centre” (Concept SSDA p40) even though the developer’s own figures show they do not generate enough childcare need to justify its childcare proposal.

There are community-controlled organisations that need low-cost permanent facilities but don’t have them. There are others that operate from inappropriate spaces to deliver their services. At the same time the Waterloo Metro developer is trying to avoid providing that kind of community facilities benefit.

Actual community facilities have to be provided to a non-government organisation or a Council while health facilities and childcare facilities can be provided to for profit providers at commercial rents. Understandably developers prefer spaces they can maximise income from.

The developer should not get away with this change.

We, local residents of Waterloo, strongly support the city of Sydney council's concept of the business corridor for Botany road - badly needed jobs for Australian people.
We object to removing commercial tower and replacing it with yet more student accommodation or units for oversees buyers, mostly from China, who don't need to work to buy.
We are asking for stricter design excellence standards for the developers to claim the extra density. We don't find the South Precinct being architecturally attractive. Developers come and go, but we have to live with this.
And lastly, please look into the traffic corridors for heavy buses degrading the area. Currently, the endless convoy of 392 buses for overseas students along Raglan street deprives the residents from peaceful life, the possibility to enjoy Waterloo Green, community gardens, the Heritage area of old terraces. In the future, the new park next to the station will be degraded by this heavy bus traffic. There are plenty of designated traffic corridors around us - McVoy street, Redfern Street, Elizabeth Street and others.

In regards to community spaces, please do not include anything to do with giving away free food. Social housing tenants are throwing it on the ground and the new residents will end up living in the terrible squalor- infestation of rats, cockroaches and huge flocks of birds breeding on charity food.
Open spaces will be overtaken over by vermin - bird excrement, terrible smell, benches and tables are soiled, more like a chicken farm rather than a residential area.

I support the overall intent of the project; however, the proposed shift toward increased residential density—particularly high-density co-living—raises concerns about whether essential supporting services are being adequately secured.

The current update appears to intensify residential use without guaranteeing key everyday amenities, most notably a full-line, secured grocery store. Given the smaller size of the proposed co-living dwellings, residents will likely rely more heavily on frequent, nearby grocery access. Without this provision being embedded into the revised scope, the development risks falling short of meeting the practical needs of its future residents. Considering the long-term scale of the Waterloo Metro Quarter and the anticipated increase in a permanent residential population with needs distinct from transient workers, a major grocer should be planned in tandem with residential delivery rather than treated as a future or optional outcome.

In addition, retaining a meaningful level of commercial tower space would help maintain diversity within the precinct. While podium-level commercial uses are proposed, these are unlikely to generate the same level of consistent daytime population as commercial tower tenancies. Transient workers, such as office employees, have different usage patterns to residents and play a critical role in sustaining lunchtime trade, supporting food and beverage operators, and activating the precinct during business hours. This balance between residents and workers contributes to a more resilient and economically viable mix of uses.

Overall, while the revised proposal increases housing supply, it would be strengthened by more deliberately integrating essential services and preserving employment-generating commercial space to support a genuinely mixed, active, and sustainable precinct—particularly given the exceptional accessibility afforded by the Metro.

Introduction
I write to object to the proposed modification to reduce genuine community floorspace provision at the Waterloo Metro Quarter development. This modification represents a substantial diminution of community benefit that was a condition of the original approval.
Summary of Objection
The developer seeks to reduce dedicated community floorspace by 994 square metres, replacing genuine community facilities with a commercial childcare centre that serves the developer's financial interests rather than meeting demonstrated community need. This modification undermines the social infrastructure commitments that justified the scale of this development.
Grounds for Objection
1. Substantial Reduction in Community Benefit
The proposed 994 square metre reduction in community floorspace represents a significant loss of social infrastructure in an area experiencing rapid population growth and densification. Community facilities were included in the original approval as essential social infrastructure to support the incoming population. Reducing this provision while proceeding with the residential and commercial components of the development is inequitable and contrary to good planning principles.
2. Childcare Does Not Address Demonstrated Community Need
The developer's own evidence demonstrates that the proposed childcare facility exceeds the need generated by the development itself. Meanwhile, there are existing community-controlled organisations in Waterloo that lack adequate permanent facilities to deliver essential services to the local community. These organisations are:

Currently paying commercial rents they are not funded to afford
Operating from inappropriate or inadequate locations
Unable to meet community demand due to space constraints

The modification prioritises a use that can pay commercial returns over genuine community benefit.
3. Definitional Manipulation
There is a critical distinction between genuine community facilities and commercial operations:

Community facilities must be provided to non-government organisations or Council and operate on a not-for-profit basis serving community need
Childcare facilities can be provided to for-profit commercial operators paying market rents

By substituting childcare for community facilities, the developer avoids the requirement to provide affordable space to community organisations while still claiming to deliver "community infrastructure." This is a definitional sleight-of-hand that undermines the intent of the original planning conditions.
4. Timing and Procedural Concerns
The extremely short submission period (closing 15 January) for a modification of this significance limits meaningful community engagement. The reduction in community floorspace is not clearly articulated in the modification documents, making it difficult for community members to identify and respond to this change. This appears designed to minimise scrutiny of a substantial reduction in public benefit.
5. Precedent and Cumulative Impact
Approving this modification sets a dangerous precedent for developers across Sydney to substitute commercial uses for genuine community facilities. In an environment where affordable community space is increasingly scarce, allowing developers to avoid these obligations will have cumulative impacts on the capacity of community organisations to serve growing populations.
What Should Be Required
The development should deliver the full quantum of community floorspace as originally approved, provided to community-controlled not-for-profit organisations or Council at affordable rates that enable community use. If childcare is genuinely needed based on the development's population, this should be additional to, not a substitute for, community facilities.
The community facilities should be:

Made available to local community organisations at affordable rates
Of appropriate size and configuration to support community service delivery
Secured through appropriate legal mechanisms to ensure ongoing community use
Delivered in accordance with the original approval timeframes

Conclusion
I urge the Department to refuse this modification. The developer should not be permitted to reduce community benefit while proceeding with the profitable residential and commercial components of the project. The 994 square metres of community floorspace represents essential social infrastructure for a rapidly densifying area with demonstrated need.
If modifications to the development are necessary, these should not come at the expense of community facilities that serve the public interest rather than commercial returns.
I request that the Department:

Refuse the proposed reduction in community floorspace
Require delivery of the full quantum of community facilities as originally approved
Ensure these facilities are provided to community organisations at affordable rates
Impose clear conditions and timeframes for delivery of community infrastructure

I’m writing to object to two of the proposed changes to the Waterloo Metro Quarter development, specifically:
1. Increasing the Northern Precinct building height, and
2. Reducing the community floorspace by 994 square meters.

1. Increasing the Northern Precinct building height
The approved height for the Northern Precinct is 17 storeys, and the developer is pushing to increase this to 24-28 storeys to include a higher percentage of residential space.

It’s telling that in the summary contained in the EIS, this is framed as s ‘Change the approved building envelope, building height and concept land use for the northern precinct by replacing the 17-storey commercial office building envelope with a revised envelope’ without specifically mentioning the new proposed height of 24-28 storeys.

This revised building envelope will significantly overshadow the surrounding area, which runs contrary to the City of Sydney’s objective of new developments minimising overshadowing of nearby properties. I believe this will have a negative impact on the community.

There’s no reason why, if the developer wants to increase the proportion of residential housing, they couldn’t revert to their earlier approved residential plan.

2. Reducing community floorspace
The EIS also mentions a reduction in community space from 3,274 sqm to 2,330 sqm, which is a reduction of 994 sqm.

As noted in recent community engagement sessions (summarised in Appendix W – Social Impact Statement), ‘Some community members expressed interest in the proposed recreational and community facilities. Feedback emphasised the need for these facilities to remain accessible to the public and to be managed effectively for long-term community benefit. There were also requests for clarification on the delivery timelines for the public plazas and on the proponent’s role in managing the public and retail spaces.’

Reducing community space while increasing residential space runs counter to community concerns about lack of accessible community space, and there are many local community organisations that need appropriate space to deliver their services in the area.

I believe the two proposed changes outlined above will have a negative impact on both the existing local community, and new members of the community who will join in the future.

I welcome the timely addition of more housing to the neighbourhood to help relieve rental pressures. Additionally, the proposed design for communal facilities and serviced will be timely in a neighbourhood that is currently only serviced by small providers within the neighbourhood or nearby.

It must be noted I observe (and anecdotally so do my neighbours and other community members) that the current southern towers are visually unpleasant and have been received negatively since their completion. There seems to be a large discrepancy between how the concept designs were visually represented and the aesthetic quality of the final product. I expect that the Government represents the best interests of its community and ensures the design expectations are honestly represented and that the developer delivers them.

Dear Assessment Team,

Please find attached Counterpoint Community Services Inc.’s formal and public integrated submission as comments on the Waterloo Metro Quarter applications currently on exhibition. Our comments cover all four related development applications and the concept amendment:

• Northern Precinct – SSD 79307758
• Central Precinct – SSD 79307746
• Second Amending Concept – SSD 79307765
• Basement Modification 3 – SSD 10438 Mod 3

We welcome the ambition for a well-connected, transit-oriented precinct. However, we raise equity, governance, and technical concerns that must be addressed to ensure genuine community benefit—particularly for the public housing tenants living directly adjacent to the site. Please review our attached comments for your consideration and response.
Best regards,

Mike

Michael M Shreenan
CEO Counterpoint

The proposed changes in the Second Amendment Plan does not allow any community access space for any existing community services. It has reduced the proposed community space be a significant amount and now is only accounting for a child care centre. A centre that will duplicate existing services. Despite the developer claiming that the economic and social profile of the area is 'average', this is done on a selective account of ABS data and convenientlhy does not take into account the poorest in the area. the developer is supported by government to make large profits from this development and in return they offer not only nothing, but a removal of properties that existing services use to house their services and support local population in need.
This manipulation of data and lack of support for the local community sets a poor example, destroys the faith in the planning process and reflects badly on the government and administrative systems that allow this to happen.

I object to the reduction in community space proposed in this amendment.
We need as much low cost permanent community space as feasible to ensure the social success of this project.

The removal of social housing and community space is abhorrent and should be rejected. It furthers the alienation of the local community in favour of commercial interests.

I object to the reduction in Community Facilities space proposed in the Second Amended Concept.

A community's social health and resilience cannot just be something that you aspire to in an abstract sense. It has to be supported by processes and systems, and by groups and people who are accessible and engaged in that community. The most immediate way to make this happen is to make space for it to exist. I urge the assessment team to reject the proposed 30% reduction.

As Redfern neighbour I am deeply grateful for the professional and practical support that groups such as REDWatch have provided over the years. They are the perfect example of a community group that has earned the right to be incorporated into a meaningful way into the Waterloo Metro Quarter. The work that REDWatch has been doing to translate and communicate the planning and development process for the diverse local population is essential to negotiate better outcomes for Waterloo. This is proven by the fact that this proposed reduction in Community Facility space was not identified and flagged, in what can only be construed as an attempt to hide a reduction in future amenity.

REDWatch's submission is attached and it raises objections to aspects of the project.