Dear Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,

I am a resident living near the proposed development site at 17–24 Loftus Crescent, Homebush.

I understand the broader housing objectives and acknowledge that mixed-use development can provide long-term benefits if appropriately managed. However, I have serious concerns about the construction impacts and ongoing neighbourhood impacts given the size of the proposal (including two residential towers up to 27–35 storeys, demolition and basement works, and a concurrent rezoning request).

As a resident living on Level 3 with a balcony facing Loftus Crescent, I expect the most significant impacts to relate to noise, vibration, heavy vehicle movement and parking congestion. I request the Department apply strict conditions to minimise impacts on existing residents and ensure the project can proceed without unacceptable disruption.

1) Construction noise, vibration and disruption (major concern)

The proposal involves demolition, excavation and major construction over a multi-year period. Noise and vibration impacts will be particularly significant for nearby residents on lower levels (including my dwelling).

I request conditions requiring:

strict limits on construction hours including:

clear controls on early morning starts

limits on weekend work

strong restrictions on any out-of-hours works (and clear approval process if needed)

a comprehensive Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) including:

noise monitoring at sensitive residential receivers

vibration monitoring (especially during excavation, piling and concrete works)

clear triggers for action if noise/vibration exceed thresholds

advanced notification to residents for high-impact works (e.g. demolition days, concrete pours, major truck movements)

complaint handling requirements with:

a single point of contact

response time commitments

reporting transparency and corrective actions

2) Dust, air quality and general liveability impacts

Dust and airborne particles from demolition/excavation will significantly affect surrounding residents and balconies, particularly for nearby apartments at lower levels.

I request conditions requiring:

strong dust suppression measures and active monitoring

restrictions during high wind days

ongoing cleaning of surrounding footpaths/roads affected by construction activity

management of airborne emissions during demolition and spoil handling

3) Construction traffic + truck routes (access and safety)

Given the scale of the project, heavy vehicle movements will materially impact local streets and residents’ access.

I request:

a detailed Construction Traffic and Transport Management Plan including:

nominated heavy vehicle routes designed to minimise impacts to residential streets

strict controls to prevent truck queuing, idling, and blocking roads

clear pedestrian safety controls (including around crossings and driveways)

strict timing controls to avoid peak congestion periods where possible

4) Parking congestion and impacts to local residents

This proposal will increase local density significantly and will likely worsen parking pressures both during construction and following occupation.

I request conditions requiring:

a construction workforce parking plan that prevents workers from using local residential street parking

active enforcement measures and signage during the construction period

ongoing traffic/parking assessment for operational impacts, with mitigation requirements if spillover parking impacts become excessive

5) Road capacity, congestion and appropriateness of density increase

The proposed development scale (including the concurrent rezoning for increased building height and floor space ratio) appears excessive given the existing local road network and congestion levels in and around Homebush.

I am concerned the current road and surrounding infrastructure does not appear suitable to accommodate the additional traffic, servicing vehicles, visitors, deliveries and rideshare activity generated by an additional 318 dwellings and associated retail uses.

I request the Department require:

a robust and transparent traffic assessment that reflects realistic peak demand and cumulative impacts

measures to prevent significant worsening of congestion and local access conditions

appropriate mitigation works where impacts are identified

6) Overshadowing and loss of solar access to surrounding buildings

Given the proposed tower heights (up to 27–35 storeys), I am concerned about the potential for unacceptable overshadowing and loss of solar access to surrounding residential buildings and public areas.

I request the Department ensure:

detailed shadow diagrams are provided for key times of year (especially winter)

the design is amended where overshadowing impacts are excessive or unreasonable

building setbacks and massing are adjusted to minimise solar access impacts to existing residents

7) Neighbourhood amenity and street safety

A development of this scale should not reduce the safety or usability of the surrounding public domain during construction.

I request:

safe and clearly separated pedestrian paths during the works

appropriate lighting and safety controls in areas affected by construction hoarding or reduced footpath access

strong management of retail/activation outcomes to ensure amenity is improved without causing nuisance impacts

Closing

In summary, my primary concerns relate to construction noise/vibration, dust, heavy vehicle impacts, parking congestion, and the broader issue of whether the proposed scale is appropriate given existing road capacity and congestion.

I request the Department impose strict, enforceable conditions and (where required) design changes to minimise impacts on neighbouring residents and protect local amenity.

Thank you for considering my submission.

I object to the project in it's current form, because I do not think it includes a sufficient amount of affordable housing given the context of the housing crisis. I am one of the tenants that would be displaced for my home to be demolished and developed into flats. I am not against turning these 5 or so houses into apartments, but it is insulting and inadequate that only 12 of 318 residences are to be designated affordable housing. If we are to address the housing crisis, we need to build housing for people not profit. I am sure the developer would still make a worthwhile amount of money from the project even if it were 100% affordable housing, rather than the measly less than 4% that is currently proposed.

If the following two measures were introduced to the plan, I would support the project
1. Minimum 50% of the dwellings to be affordable housing
2. Priority access to that affordable housing given to my neighbors, the people who will be displaced to make way for this development.

I support the project

1. Overdevelopment and congestion in this part of Strathfield LGA.
As you're aware from Homebush onwards and towards the west, there are many unit vacancies available. Do a search on RealEstate.com.au and you'll see currently there are 33 2-bedroom units below $750K unsold in the suburb of Homebush. We're now adding more units even though existing units fail to sell. The reason they fail to sell is because of over congestion, traffic and no malls etc. We already have another 214 apartments nearby at 21 Parramatta Rd, Homebush which will add to this congestion.

2. The widening of Loftus Lane doesn't help
The widening of Loftus Lane only supports access in inner roads surrounding the project. It doesn't help traffic for nearby residents as there will be a hold up to enter Loftus Lane and Subway Lane from Parramatta Rd, since it's only 2 lanes going in 1 direction and both Loftus Lane (where the project is), and Subway Lane is a one way street.

3. The proposed shop lots will be empty.
Like many of the others shops along Parramatta Road, with lack of street/public free parking, retails outlets will not thrive in this environment. Look at all the retail shop lots along Parramatta road. If they're already not successful, why build more when there won't be any business and will therefore only end up with empty lots or unattractive businesses?

4. Strathfield LGA not doing their part.
Have a look at the inner road condition at Loftus Lane (the whole stretch) and observe the portholes. Look at the uneven road entrances (terrible strip of road condition) to Crane St from Parramatta Rd. The council is not doing anything to address the safety of vehicles. Many blind spots when entering Crane St from Loftus Lane, cars parking on both sides causing only 1 car lane on Crane St when it's supposed to be 2 lanes. This is my only entry from and exit to Parramatta Road. Adding another few hundred units to this part of Homebush doesn't help as the widening of road (not just at Loftus Lane) and parking issues have to be addressed.

5. Use other parts of Strathfield LGA.
Strathfield LGA is big, and there are many big houses occupying lands where nearby there are no apartments. More buyers will be attracted to these areas since they get no traffic congestion and perfect unblocked views from above. We have to spread out the density. There's now like the poor side of Strathfield LGA (huge density like in Homebush) and the rich side nearer to Strathfield station where hardly any units available for sale because of....Strathfield Plaza and it's a major station. Why not have a Homebush Plaza occupying 17-24 Loftus Cr, or even the unused 11-16 Loftus Cr? If the upcoming Metro is at Homebush I have no objection as many will use public transport...but the thing is it's at North Strathfield so you'll need more apartments there, not here. Homebush unlike Strathfield doesn't have that Express train that makes 2-3 stops to Central even though our population is increasing due to oversupply of units in this suburb.

I know targets need to be met to build more homes, but trust me, if this project goes ahead it will be a failed project with many avoidable issues, unless we first start with building a Homebush Plaza (with Coles or Woolies) with multilevel parking. Then whatever apartment you propose/approve to build will be welcomed by residents as it will be a win-win for all. Eg. when undercover parking provided, street parking not required making way for 2 way traffic etc.

35 storeys is a lot of height and will overshadow the surrounding area.
There is a lot of traffic already in the area and getting in and out of Homebush is often difficult. Adding 352 more cars will create havoc and huge traffic problems.
Where are these families going to send their kids to school. The little local school is already full. Homebush station is already crowded adding so many extra people will make getting train almost impossible. I do not object to a smaller block of units being built but there has to be a considered assessment of the problems that any new development will cause.

The height of the proposed building is too high and not compatible with the surrounding developments. This will bring congestion to the roads nearby, especially in the morning school runs, which I see daily. Whoever did the consulting omitted this fact. Homebush train station will also get busier, with peak hour services already crowded. Local schools might not be able to cater for the influx of people. This area is being over-developed at present, with at least 3 residential towers already under construction. Once completed the problems mentioned previously will get exacerbated.

I have major concerns for the traffic reprot and utiltiy and flood reports.

1. Traffic and Infrastructure Concerns Regarding Appendix O – Transport Impact Assessment
I strongly object to the conclusion of the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) that the existing road infrastructure can accommodate the proposed development without capacity upgrades. My concerns are outlined below:

A. Morning Peak Traffic Conditions
The TIA indicates only minor increases in delays (1–2 seconds) at major intersections; however, this analysis relies on average delays and Level of Service (LOS), which do not reflect the worst-case scenarios or the experience of local drivers.
Key arterial intersections (Parramatta Rd/Bridge Rd and Parramatta Rd/Knight St) are projected to operate at LOS C/D by 2035—technically “satisfactory,” but close to capacity. Any incident or signal fault could result in significant delays.
The analysis fails to account for future adjacent developments, including the proposed 75m building at 21 Loftus Crescent and 136m building at 12 Loftus Crescent.

B. Trip Generation Assumptions
Residential trip rates (0.19 trips/unit/hr in AM) are at the lower end for Sydney, assuming high public transport uptake. If actual car usage is higher—due to school runs, shift workers, or limited public transport—traffic volumes will exceed forecasts.
Retail trip estimates are modest; however, if a high-turnover retail outlet operates, these figures may be underestimated.

C. Loftus Lane Usage
Loftus Lane must not be used for construction vehicles. It is a one-way road, yet the swept path analysis (Page 135 of Appendix O) shows dual-direction vehicle movements, which is unacceptable.

D. Pedestrian and Cyclist Impacts
Pedestrian LOS at signals is LOS E (54-second delay), which is poor.
No upgrades are proposed to improve pedestrian or cyclist safety at intersections expected to experience increased traffic.

2. Appendix II – Utilities Infrastructure
The report does not confirm whether the existing utilities infrastructure can adequately support the proposed development. Key authorities, including Ausgrid, Jemena, and Sydney Water, have not been contacted, and no formal confirmation has been obtained. A Section 73 Feasibility Application should be lodged with Sydney Water to verify water and sewer capacity before proceeding.

3. Appendix M – Flood Impact Risk Assessment
Shelter in place - the floor level shall be higher than the PMF, not only to the relative FPL. Also the PMF level should also consider climate change factor (20%).

To the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure,
I write to object to the proposed mixed-use development at 881–885 Bourke Street, Waterloo NSW 2017 on the grounds that the scale and intensity of the project are incompatible with the capacity and established character of the existing neighbourhood.
The proposed building height is entirely out of character for the precinct, which is defined by a lower-scale built form. The height and massing of this development would create an inappropriate visual impact, overshadowing, and a sense of overdevelopment that is inconsistent with the surrounding streetscape.
In addition, the excessive number of apartments will place significant and unsustainable pressure on already overstretched local infrastructure. Roads in the area are consistently congested, parking availability is severely limited. Traffic is already congested and many secondary roads are being used as a "rat race" with speeding and traffic infringements a plenty. The limited policing in the area simply creates a new norm.
Public transport services are frequently overcrowded. Local schools, community facilities, medical facilities and essential services are operating near or at capacity, and this development would worsen these conditions.
Pedestrian footpaths have become increasingly hazardous with the rising use of e-bikes. Public transport (particularly buses) during peak times are already overwhelmed and over crowded. Furthermore, the distances to Green Square Station, the Light Rail, and the new Waterloo Metro Station, make these options impractical for many commuters and do not provide a reliable alternative to car use. The size and height of the 35+ storey tower will
The proposal does not demonstrate that the surrounding infrastructure or local environment can support such a substantial population increase, nor does it provide adequate mitigation measures. Approving this development in its current form would diminish local amenity, reduce quality of life for existing residents, and undermine responsible, evidence-based urban planning.
I respectfully request that the application be refused or significantly amended to address these concerns.

We object to SSD-80441462 on the following grounds:
1. Late and inadequate notification: Exhibition letters arrived after the exhibition began, preventing fair opportunity to review extensive SSDA material.
2. Failure of community engagement: Despite claims of pre-lodgement contact, no residents on Morehead Street received any engagement material or invitations to briefings/webinars. More than 70% of the street consists of public housing tenants who face barriers to participation.
3. Excessive height and bulk: The proposal seeks an uplift from 29m to 125m with oversized frontages (up to 71m), far exceeding local context and eliminating vistas, sunlight and ventilation. Reliance on distant Green Square towers for justification of heights is inappropriate in the existing and planned context of the area.
4. No transition to the Waterloo Heritage Conservation Area (HCA): The proposal presents a 10–19 storey street wall at the edge of a 2–4 storey HCA. The VIA testing did not adequately cover the impact of the proposal when viewed from residential streets at the edge of the Waterloo HCA.
5. Heritage and visual impacts: Overlays show the proposed form overwhelmingly dominates views from Morehead Street and Grosvenor Terrace, removing sky views and altering the heritage setting.
6. Residential amenity: Deep floorplates, overshadowing, limited cross-ventilation and an investor-heavy apartment mix undermine both internal and neighbouring amenity. Lack of family housing contradicts strategic housing goals.
7. Missing CMP: No construction timeline or staging plan is publicly available despite references in multiple documents. The community cannot assess construction impacts.
8. Barriers to participation: The Planning Portal requires new login accounts and rejects existing Service NSW emails; the site was also offline for times during the exhibition period. These barriers make submissions inaccessible to many residents.
We support redevelopment and believe the site is under-utilised by the approved DA, but cannot support a proposal that exceeds reasonable density, disregards design excellence principles for transitioning building scales and undermines equitable participation of the community through a short and inaccessible review process.
We request reduced heights to the north and western edges in keeping with principles of the approved DA to transition from the higher density to the south-east, full HCA visual testing, improved housing mix to address the lack of affordable family-sized dwellings, release of a CMP, and re-exhibition or extension of the exhibition period.