I support the further development of the Green Square City Centre, including the proposed construction on the nominated sites. The location’s close proximity to the train station makes it an ideal area for high-density development.
That said, the proposal includes several tall buildings built in close proximity to one another. These buildings, which are similar in height, create a "canyon effect." It could be beneficial to introduce a variety of building heights to enhance architectural diversity and reduce the visual impact of uniformity.
Additionally, the area along Ebsworth Street is already subject to significant wind tunnels caused by existing buildings. I would strongly encourage the proponents of this development to prioritize measures that mitigate and reduce wind tunneling in the Green Square region as part of the planning and design process.
Finally, as a regular user of public transport, I am concerned about the current strains on the Green Square train station and local bus services (343, 320, 304). These services are already at near-capacity, and a development of this scale, combined with the numerous other ongoing and proposed developments in Green Square, Zetland, and Waterloo, will only exacerbate the issue. It is essential that both the proposed metro station in Zetland and the Waterloo/Zetland light rail project be fast-tracked to accommodate the extraordinary population growth in this densely populated area.
Supporting infrastructure must be prioritized alongside development to ensure sustainable and livable outcomes for the community.

I do not agree that the density and building height should be increased. I object to this project going ahead.

The originally planned design is sufficient and an unecessary increase will negatively impact the suburb.

We have concernes for this over development which would increase inner city stress and affect livability- impacting Green Square precinct, environment and community, making it less suitable, attractive and comfortable, and directly impacting residents’ quality of life and long-term well-being.

While I support building more quality housing near major public transport hubs, I am opposed to several elements of the current proposal.

I object to the rezoning proposal and the increase in permitted building height. Most other buildings in the area comply with the existing height requirements, and I believe new developments should do the same in order to maintain the visual consistency of the area. I am aware that some buildings in the area have recieved exemptions, but I do not believe that this pattern and precedent should continue. Increasing the permitted height also raises concerns about overshadowing. While the analysis indicates limited impacts on surrounding buildings, it also highlights significant shadowing of nearby roads and thoroughfares. Reduced access to sunlight in these public spaces can negatively affect the physical and mental wellbeing of the community.

Excluding these developments from the application of affordable housing is also concerning, particularly during the current housing affordability and cost of living crisis. Developments of this scale should contribute to making housing more accessible. Exempting them risks pushing Zetland further out of reach for young couples and families, who form the heart of the existing community.

I am also opposed to the proposed increase in permitted floor space ratio, as it would increase density and make the area feel more crowded for the broader community. Similarly, excluding the site from the application of active street frontage requirements is not beneficial for local businesses or the community, as active frontages contribute to a more vibrant and welcoming streetscape.

This proposal should also be considered in the context of the significant amount of development already occurring in the surrounding area, and the cumulative impact that continued increases in height and density may have on local infrastructure, public spaces, and overall liveability.

Furthermore, construction beginning at 7:30am on a Saturday morning would create significant disruption for surrounding residents.

While I understand that the absence of visitor and retail parking may technically comply with planning requirements, it is not realistic in an area that already has extremely limited parking. This is likely to create further pressure on the already limited parking on surrounding streets.

Additionally, the proposed above-ground parking structures do not appear to be a good use of space. That space could instead be used for housing or to reduce the overall height of the building.

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.