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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.