Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Macquarie Park
,
New South Wales
Message
I am an owner and resident of Natura, 82 Waterloo Rd, Macquarie Park, and I formally object to Application No. SSD-94006708.
I strongly oppose the Minister’s decision to fast-track this proposal as State Significant Development. This pathway enables an unjustified rezoning, increasing the allowable height from 65m to 212m and expanding the project from 255 to 858 apartments - a 236% increase. This scale is excessive, incompatible with the area, and unsupported by existing infrastructure.
We call for the reinstatement of the original approval for two buildings of up to 20 storeys.
Key grounds for objection:
1. Severe infrastructure strain: Macquarie Park’s water, energy, and essential services are already under pressure. Existing residents are funding overdue upgrades through rising costs. Further density without capacity is unacceptable.
2. Environmental harm and loss of amenity: The towers will cast extensive, permanent shadow over Shrimptons Creek, impacting endangered ecological communities. They will also significantly reduce sunlight and amenity for surrounding residents, including Natura.
3. Overloaded transport network: Metro capacity is already exceeded during peak periods. Additional density without upgrades will further degrade reliability.
4. Precedent and planning integrity: This proposal uses a fast-tracked pathway to override established controls. A height increase from 65m to 212m is a fundamental breach - not a minor variation. Approval would undermine confidence in the planning system.
5. Construction impacts: This project will impose years of noise, dust, vibration, and heavy vehicle traffic. It will materially impact nearby residents and poses risks to surrounding buildings. These impacts are significant and unjustified.
This proposal is overdevelopment driven by planning shortcuts, not coordinated infrastructure delivery. Macquarie Park is already under strain. Further intensification at this scale is unjustified and unsustainable.
The Minister must reject this proposal and restore the 20-storey limit in line with existing planning controls and community expectations.
Please direct correspondence to the Natura Owners Corporation (SP104187) via the contacts below.
Chair
Annie Lin – [email protected]
Treasurer
Jacqueline Khuu – [email protected]
Secretary
Hannah Phang – [email protected]
I strongly oppose the Minister’s decision to fast-track this proposal as State Significant Development. This pathway enables an unjustified rezoning, increasing the allowable height from 65m to 212m and expanding the project from 255 to 858 apartments - a 236% increase. This scale is excessive, incompatible with the area, and unsupported by existing infrastructure.
We call for the reinstatement of the original approval for two buildings of up to 20 storeys.
Key grounds for objection:
1. Severe infrastructure strain: Macquarie Park’s water, energy, and essential services are already under pressure. Existing residents are funding overdue upgrades through rising costs. Further density without capacity is unacceptable.
2. Environmental harm and loss of amenity: The towers will cast extensive, permanent shadow over Shrimptons Creek, impacting endangered ecological communities. They will also significantly reduce sunlight and amenity for surrounding residents, including Natura.
3. Overloaded transport network: Metro capacity is already exceeded during peak periods. Additional density without upgrades will further degrade reliability.
4. Precedent and planning integrity: This proposal uses a fast-tracked pathway to override established controls. A height increase from 65m to 212m is a fundamental breach - not a minor variation. Approval would undermine confidence in the planning system.
5. Construction impacts: This project will impose years of noise, dust, vibration, and heavy vehicle traffic. It will materially impact nearby residents and poses risks to surrounding buildings. These impacts are significant and unjustified.
This proposal is overdevelopment driven by planning shortcuts, not coordinated infrastructure delivery. Macquarie Park is already under strain. Further intensification at this scale is unjustified and unsustainable.
The Minister must reject this proposal and restore the 20-storey limit in line with existing planning controls and community expectations.
Please direct correspondence to the Natura Owners Corporation (SP104187) via the contacts below.
Chair
Annie Lin – [email protected]
Treasurer
Jacqueline Khuu – [email protected]
Secretary
Hannah Phang – [email protected]
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
MACQUARIE PARK
,
New South Wales
Message
Opposing this project on a quiet residential street is not about resisting change for its own sake—it is about ensuring that change is appropriate, sustainable, and respectful of the existing community. While urban renewal and increased housing supply are important goals, this particular proposal raises significant concerns that cannot be overlooked. The scale, density, and placement of the development are fundamentally at odds with the character and capacity of the neighbourhood.
Firstly, the street in question is currently a quiet, low-traffic residential area. This is not a minor detail—it is a defining feature of the community. Residents have chosen to live here precisely because it offers a sense of calm, safety, and limited congestion. Introducing two 60-storey towers will dramatically alter this dynamic. Such a development inevitably brings a substantial increase in traffic, including private vehicles, delivery services, rideshare activity, and construction-related transport. The existing road infrastructure was not designed to handle this volume. Narrow streets, limited parking, and already busy connecting roads will quickly become overwhelmed. Increased traffic does not just mean inconvenience—it raises safety concerns for pedestrians, cyclists, and children, and contributes to noise and air pollution that will erode the quality of life for current residents.
Equally important is the issue of privacy. A development of this height will overlook not only the immediate street but also surrounding residential properties. Many nearby homes and low-rise apartment buildings currently enjoy a reasonable degree of visual privacy. The introduction of two towering structures will fundamentally change that. Hundreds, if not thousands, of new residents will have direct sightlines into neighbouring homes, balconies, and backyards. This is not a trivial concern; privacy is a core aspect of residential amenity. The psychological impact of feeling constantly overlooked can significantly diminish people’s comfort in their own homes. Blinds drawn throughout the day, reduced use of outdoor spaces, and a general sense of exposure are likely consequences.
Another major impact is on sunlight access. High-rise buildings cast long shadows, particularly when they reach the height this project is proposing. Depending on their orientation, these towers could block natural light for large portions of the day, especially during winter months when sunlight is already limited. This affects not just individual homes but the broader streetscape. Reduced sunlight can make public spaces feel colder, darker, and less inviting. It also has implications for energy use, as residents may rely more heavily on heating and artificial lighting. In a neighbourhood where existing buildings were designed with a certain scale in mind, such a drastic change in built form disrupts the environmental balance.
Infrastructure capacity is another critical issue beyond the street of Cottonwood Crescent. The neighbourhood is already operating at or near its limits. There is only one shopping centre, a single metro line, and yes a few bus lines serving the area, however all are increasingly strained. Importantly, there are several other developments currently underway nearby, with many new residents yet to move in. This means that the full impact on infrastructure has not even been realised. Approving another large-scale project at this stage would be premature and irresponsible, as it fails to account for cumulative effects.
On top of that, this local infrastructure does not serve only the immediate neighbourhood. Residents from surrounding suburbs frequently rely on these amenities, particularly the metro line and retail facilities. This broader demand further exacerbates the strain. Adding more residents from a two-tower development will intensify overcrowding, longer wait times, and reduced accessibility for everyone. Without significant and clearly planned upgrades to transport, retail, healthcare, and community services, the area simply cannot support this level of density.
It is also important to acknowledge that redevelopment itself is not the problem. There is a clear and legitimate need to replace older housing with newer, safer, and more efficient residential buildings. Thoughtful redevelopment can enhance a neighbourhood, providing modern housing while maintaining livability. However, scale and context matter. A 60-storey twin-tower project is not a moderate or incremental improvement—it is a dramatic intensification that is out of proportion with the surrounding environment.
This concern is amplified by the fact that another development is already underway directly opposite the proposed site (already not taking into account the other developments underway/ close to completion in the wider Macquarie Park community). This existing project is already going to contribute to construction disruption, increased traffic, and changes to the streetscape. Adding a second, even larger development in such close proximity compounds these impacts. Residents would face years of overlapping construction, with noise, dust, and restricted access becoming a near-constant reality. Once completed, the combined density of both projects would place an even greater burden on local infrastructure and significantly alter the character of the street.
Urban planning should be guided by principles of balance, compatibility, and long-term sustainability. Developments should complement their surroundings, not dominate them. In this case, the proposed towers are clearly out of scale with the existing built form. They risk transforming a quiet residential street into a congested, high-density corridor without the necessary support systems in place.
To conclude, opposing this development is not an attempt to halt progress but to advocate for responsible planning. The concerns—traffic congestion, loss of privacy, reduced sunlight, and overburdened infrastructure—are substantial and well-founded. When combined with the presence of nearby developments already in progress, the case becomes even stronger. A more appropriate approach would involve lower-scale redevelopment that aligns with the character of the street and the capacity of local infrastructure. Growth is necessary, but it must be managed carefully to preserve the qualities that make a neighbourhood livable in the first place. Thank you for your serious consideration.
Firstly, the street in question is currently a quiet, low-traffic residential area. This is not a minor detail—it is a defining feature of the community. Residents have chosen to live here precisely because it offers a sense of calm, safety, and limited congestion. Introducing two 60-storey towers will dramatically alter this dynamic. Such a development inevitably brings a substantial increase in traffic, including private vehicles, delivery services, rideshare activity, and construction-related transport. The existing road infrastructure was not designed to handle this volume. Narrow streets, limited parking, and already busy connecting roads will quickly become overwhelmed. Increased traffic does not just mean inconvenience—it raises safety concerns for pedestrians, cyclists, and children, and contributes to noise and air pollution that will erode the quality of life for current residents.
Equally important is the issue of privacy. A development of this height will overlook not only the immediate street but also surrounding residential properties. Many nearby homes and low-rise apartment buildings currently enjoy a reasonable degree of visual privacy. The introduction of two towering structures will fundamentally change that. Hundreds, if not thousands, of new residents will have direct sightlines into neighbouring homes, balconies, and backyards. This is not a trivial concern; privacy is a core aspect of residential amenity. The psychological impact of feeling constantly overlooked can significantly diminish people’s comfort in their own homes. Blinds drawn throughout the day, reduced use of outdoor spaces, and a general sense of exposure are likely consequences.
Another major impact is on sunlight access. High-rise buildings cast long shadows, particularly when they reach the height this project is proposing. Depending on their orientation, these towers could block natural light for large portions of the day, especially during winter months when sunlight is already limited. This affects not just individual homes but the broader streetscape. Reduced sunlight can make public spaces feel colder, darker, and less inviting. It also has implications for energy use, as residents may rely more heavily on heating and artificial lighting. In a neighbourhood where existing buildings were designed with a certain scale in mind, such a drastic change in built form disrupts the environmental balance.
Infrastructure capacity is another critical issue beyond the street of Cottonwood Crescent. The neighbourhood is already operating at or near its limits. There is only one shopping centre, a single metro line, and yes a few bus lines serving the area, however all are increasingly strained. Importantly, there are several other developments currently underway nearby, with many new residents yet to move in. This means that the full impact on infrastructure has not even been realised. Approving another large-scale project at this stage would be premature and irresponsible, as it fails to account for cumulative effects.
On top of that, this local infrastructure does not serve only the immediate neighbourhood. Residents from surrounding suburbs frequently rely on these amenities, particularly the metro line and retail facilities. This broader demand further exacerbates the strain. Adding more residents from a two-tower development will intensify overcrowding, longer wait times, and reduced accessibility for everyone. Without significant and clearly planned upgrades to transport, retail, healthcare, and community services, the area simply cannot support this level of density.
It is also important to acknowledge that redevelopment itself is not the problem. There is a clear and legitimate need to replace older housing with newer, safer, and more efficient residential buildings. Thoughtful redevelopment can enhance a neighbourhood, providing modern housing while maintaining livability. However, scale and context matter. A 60-storey twin-tower project is not a moderate or incremental improvement—it is a dramatic intensification that is out of proportion with the surrounding environment.
This concern is amplified by the fact that another development is already underway directly opposite the proposed site (already not taking into account the other developments underway/ close to completion in the wider Macquarie Park community). This existing project is already going to contribute to construction disruption, increased traffic, and changes to the streetscape. Adding a second, even larger development in such close proximity compounds these impacts. Residents would face years of overlapping construction, with noise, dust, and restricted access becoming a near-constant reality. Once completed, the combined density of both projects would place an even greater burden on local infrastructure and significantly alter the character of the street.
Urban planning should be guided by principles of balance, compatibility, and long-term sustainability. Developments should complement their surroundings, not dominate them. In this case, the proposed towers are clearly out of scale with the existing built form. They risk transforming a quiet residential street into a congested, high-density corridor without the necessary support systems in place.
To conclude, opposing this development is not an attempt to halt progress but to advocate for responsible planning. The concerns—traffic congestion, loss of privacy, reduced sunlight, and overburdened infrastructure—are substantial and well-founded. When combined with the presence of nearby developments already in progress, the case becomes even stronger. A more appropriate approach would involve lower-scale redevelopment that aligns with the character of the street and the capacity of local infrastructure. Growth is necessary, but it must be managed carefully to preserve the qualities that make a neighbourhood livable in the first place. Thank you for your serious consideration.