To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,

I am a local resident of the Green Square / Zetland area and would like to provide comments on the proposed rezoning and development.

I acknowledge that Green Square is intended to accommodate significant urban growth and that additional housing close to public transport is generally appropriate. However, I would like to raise several concerns regarding the proposed planning changes.

1. Increase in building height
The proposal seeks to significantly increase the maximum building heights beyond the limits set under the current planning controls. Given that Green Square Town Centre has been developed through a coordinated master planning framework, such height increases should be carefully assessed to ensure they do not adversely impact the planned skyline, overshadow surrounding buildings (such as the central garden of Green Square Library) or reduce public domain amenity.

2. Increase in floor space ratio
The proposed increase of FSR from 5.47:1 to 7.63:1 represents a substantial uplift in density. This should be carefully considered in relation to infrastructure capacity, residential amenity, and the cumulative impacts of recent developments within the precinct.

3. Active street frontages
The proposal seeks to exclude the site from the requirement for active street frontages. Maintaining active ground floor uses is essential to the walkability, safety and vitality of the Green Square Town Centre. Any approved scheme should ensure strong street engagement and active edges at ground level.

In summary, while additional housing in this location is appropriate in principle, I encourage the Department to carefully review the proposed increases in height and density and ensure the development maintains the quality of the public domain and liveability of the precinct.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback.

Kind regards,

Frank

In summary the project shows a large departure from the previous DA for these sites - reference is Development Application D/2022/548 (23 June 2022) in which it was proposed that building heights of sites 7, 17 and 18 were to be 16, 13 and 20 storeys but now it is proposed these should be 20, 20, and 21 storeys respectively. These buildings are twice the height of 18 and 28 Ebsworth Street which are each 10 storeys in height and the new 3 buildings will represent a large visual intrusion to the residents overlooking Ebsworth Street. This is an additional 12 storeys over the 3 buildings which creates higher over shadowing of existing buildings in Ebsworth Street (18 and 28) and greater wind tunnelling in Ebsworth Street, Barker Street, Tweed Place, and the Green Square pavement area above the library. There are no reasons specifically given for the increased building height & whether these proposed heights exceed building compliance limits. Any reasons should be made very clear in the proposal. They are not made clear.

Additionally the floor space ratio is also a large increase over allowed building limits from 5.47:1 to a ratio of 7.63:1. The only reason given is that this is needed to make the project economically viable. This is not a rational reason for allowing consideration of these building compliance limits to be exceeded by such a large amount. It is a one dimensional statement and does not articulate any assessment or other reasons. The response should be for the applicant to show more in depth reasons why building compliance limits should be considered to be allowed to be exceeded. There are as yet no reasons that could be reasonably considered and Council should ensure that any decisions in this regard are carefully supported by rational and credible assessment and argument by the applicant. The reasons in this application fall well short of providing the reader, or Council, any valid arguments and this should be rejected.
The other observations supporting my objections to the proposal are detailed in the attached submission.
And finally, I understand that City of Sydney Council has a current Fire Safety Order issued for 18 and 28 Ebsworth Street Zetland which is being challenged by Mirvac with Council. I cannot see how the City of Sydney Council can consider any further building approvals for Mirvac given they were the builders of 18 and 28 Ebsworth Street Zetland with cladding that is subject to this Fire Safety Order. Until the Fire Safety Order is permanently withdrawn or the cladding is replaced by Mirvac, I cannot see how Council can possibly entertain any more building approvals from Mirvac. I am writing to the Mayor about this particular issue today.
Thank you for considering my objection to this proposal, but it is quite flawed, and I would expect that Council should reject it and require Mirvac to have the above cladding issue resolved.
Steve Bisson
908/28 Ebsworth St, Zetland.

I live nearby, I see no issue with the proposed development.

I recall the earlier proposal had additional commercial floorspace, provided its feasible I see no reason why the developer cannot be provided with additional floor space and building heights to provide both commercial floorspace and the additional housing they are looking to provide with this DA.

TO BE CLEAR I AM NOT IN SUPPORT OF REDUCING RESIDENTIAL TO INCREASE COMMERCIAL FLOORSPACE, losing residential floorspace in a housing crisis would be bad outcome. I see a large number of studios, I think this will be especially helpful for students, if you search for "room sharing" on flatmates[dot]com near UNSW you'll unfortunately find this is an option some people face. I personally moved here from north queensland and faced a similar situation in 2016 (before people realised the level of housing affordability was unreasonable). I can even see these studios being great for single working professionals as well.

We should be providing as much housing here as we can. What I struggle to understand is why we can't also have both the original proposed commercial floorspace as well as this additional residential. To be clear, I do think we should be open to increasing building heights and floor space. We should keep the current setbacks, but I think if more floorspace can be provided by awnings, as in the higher levels extending over the footpath with sufficient clearance.

Currently most restaurant options here are quite expensive so more commercial floorspace will provide some more options. The area is also just kind of dead and some mixed use next to the station could add some dynamism like we see in places like burwood. I like the fact this development provides additional landways between the center and Ebsworth St.

To be clear I am in support of further increasing floor space and building heights.

Me and my partner moved here a year ago and the intense levels of sun in the center is quite unbareable so a building providing additional shade will be a much needed reprieve as well.

While I support the building of new dwellings and commercial spaces in Zetland, I have major problems with several aspects of the proposal.
Firstly, I am opposed to the rezoning proposals:
- Increase permitted height: the current restrictions are good. There is no need to allow a building as tall as 20 stories. I am very strongly opposed to allowing an exemption to this rule.
- Exclude site from application of affordable housing: in the current housing crisis, it is irresponsible to exempt from this
- Exclude the site from application of active street frontages: to benefit the whole community, this rule should always be applied.

I also oppose the proposal to have above-ground parking spaces. This is a waste of liveable space, and this could be replaced with housing to allow for a less tall building.

I would like to formally object to this proposed development due to concerns about overcrowding in the area. The development appears to introduce a high density of buildings and occupants within a limited space, which may place additional pressure on existing infrastructure, parking availability, traffic flow, and community facilities.

The current neighbourhood already experiences congestion, and increasing the density further could negatively impact the liveability, safety, and amenity of the surrounding area. Overcrowding may also reduce open space and privacy for nearby residents.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the proposal be reconsidered or revised to better reflect the capacity of the area and to ensure it does not result in excessive crowding or strain on local resources.

I am a resident of the Green Square precinct and wish to formally object to the proposed rezoning and development at the above site. As someone who lives in the area and regularly walks through the surrounding streets and public spaces, I am concerned about how additional height and density will affect sunlight access, pedestrian comfort, and the overall liveability of the neighbourhood.

I believe this proposal raises a number of significant planning and community concerns that outweigh its potential benefits.
Grounds for Objection

1. Excessive Height and Scale
The proposed building height represents a substantial departure from the current planning controls. Approving a development of this scale risks undermining the integrity of the existing planning framework and may set an undesirable precedent for further height exceedances in the area.

Planning controls exist to provide certainty and consistency in the built environment. Significant variations should only occur where there is a clear and compelling planning justification.

2. Overdevelopment and Bulk
The proposal seeks a much denser outcome than what was originally allocated for the site. This would increase building bulk and intensify the site beyond what local infrastructure was initially planned to support. Green Square is already one of the most densely developed precincts in Sydney. Any further intensification should carefully consider the cumulative impacts on surrounding residents, infrastructure capacity, and the quality of public space.

3. Overshadowing of Public Spaces
The increased height and bulk are likely to reduce sunlight access to surrounding streets and pedestrian areas. This may negatively affect the amenity of nearby public spaces and diminish their usability for the community. Access to sunlight is an important element of urban liveability, particularly in high-density environments where outdoor public space is limited and heavily relied upon by residents.

4. Wind Impacts at Street Level
Tall buildings can significantly alter wind conditions at ground level. Parts of Green Square already experience strong wind tunnel effects due to existing towers. Additional buildings of this height could worsen downdrafts and wind speeds at street level, which could reduce pedestrian comfort and impact the usability of surrounding streets, walkways, and outdoor areas.

5. Loss of Active Street Frontage Requirements
The proposal seeks exemption from active street frontage rules. This is concerning as it may reduce retail and community-facing uses at ground level. Active frontages play an important role in creating vibrant, walkable streets and supporting local businesses. Removing this requirement risks weakening the street-level character of the town centre and contradicts key planning principles that guide mixed-use urban precincts.

6. Infrastructure and Amenity Pressure
Green Square has experienced extremely rapid population growth in recent years. Further intensification raises concerns about whether local infrastructure can adequately support additional residents, including:
- Increased pressure on public transport
- Limited open space capacity
- Demand for community facilities
-School and childcare availability
Additional density should be accompanied by clear evidence that infrastructure capacity can support further growth.

7. Traffic and Pedestrian Congestion
The site is located near key pedestrian routes connecting the station, library, and surrounding retail areas. Increased density can lead to higher pedestrian congestion and traffic activity in an area that already experiences significant crowding during peak periods. This would reduce safety and comfort for residents and visitors using these important public spaces.

8. Existing Sewerage and Odour Issues
There have been ongoing issues in the area relating to sewerage odours, with sewage smells occasionally reaching nearby apartment buildings. Additional large-scale developments may place further pressure on existing sewer infrastructure and potentially worsen these issues if they are not adequately addressed.

While individual impacts may appear manageable when assessed in isolation, the cumulative effects of increased height, density, and population must be carefully considered. A precautionary approach should be taken to ensure the long-term liveability of the Green Square precinct is not compromised. As a local resident of Green Square, I believe this proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site and an unwarranted departure from established planning controls. I respectfully request that the Department either refuse the proposal or require substantial revisions to reduce the height, bulk, and potential impacts on the surrounding community, while retaining important planning principles such as active street frontages and high-quality public spaces.

Thank you for considering this submission.

The transport infrastructure is already at capacity for the area and many more resident would negatively impact those already living in the area. Both public and private transport are already at capacity during peak hours and I often have to wait for multiple buses/trains to get to work in the morning. The exit to Bourke St via Ebsworth St is commonly backed up with cars and Ebsworth St has many delivery drivers and ubers constantly parked to drop-off, hindering traffic. I fear if there is another building on the street that there would be a significant impact on ability to use private transport. Unless improvements are made to the public and private transport infrastructure in the area before the building is completed, there is going to be a significant impact to residents in the area. If planning for this only begins upon commencement of the project, then there will probably be many years that the infrastructure will be subpar and cause much frustration.

The open spaced plaza above the library has also been an iconic space synonymous with the Green Square area. I'm worried that this development will abandon what has made Green Square such a desirable area to live in and turn the space into another souless residential district.

I support this project. Building higher-density apartments within walking distance of the train station and Woolworths is a very good idea. Apartments of 21 storeys are in line with other buildings in the area.

There is a housing affordability crisis, and I believe that having a reputable developer like Mirvac build and manage BTR units will help moderate rental yields and help enforce tenant rights and responsibilities.

Green Square already has many high-density apartments, and I don’t feel that adding more will ruin the community. It will support more retail and bring more people to shop. I hope there will be a greater variety of useful services nearby in the future, such as general stores and pharmacies.

Given the housing affordability crisis, it would be irresponsible to reject the amendments Mirvac has requested.

I support the project, I believe it will significantly improve housing availability and affordability in the area. I would however like to see more units in the development.