Plans for the Waterloo Metro Quarter Precinct and the Waterloo Metro Quarter Over Station Development are both open for comment until Wednesday, 30th Jan:
It’s OK to make the same submission at both websites – although they are two parts of the same project, they each have their own separate review process.
Your submission doesn’t need to be long and detailed. It does need to be lodged by Wednesday.
Your submission can be lodged here:
And also here:
City of Sydney planners have the following concerns with the project, which you may wish to include in your own objection, although it’s always best to put forwards your own concerns in your own words:
- 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.
Alexandria Residents' Action Group 
Thank you for this Ben, Greatly appreciated indeed. Hope all is well in your world ✌️
Sent from my iPhone
>
Hello
Have you considered the proposed 24 precinct the Council is proposing in Alexandria
Kind regards
Tass
On Mon, 28 Jan. 2019, 10:43 am Alexandria Residents’ Action Group Ben Aveling posted: “Plans for the Waterloo Metro Quarter Precinct and the > Waterloo Metro Quarter Over Station Development are both open for comment > until Wednesday, 30th Jan: It’s OK to make the same submission at both > websites – although they are two parts of the same proj” >
Dear ben, What in the hell is a kiss and ride facility in cope st? Objective 1.3 Cheers Michael fawcett
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
A ‘kiss and ride’ is a spot where you can stop a car for a few minutes and and let someone off or pick someone up.
PS. My submission, just lodged with both Major Projects and with Planning:
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.
I have just submitted!
Some of the points I made:
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.
As the EIS itself notes, this is an area which has been subjected to much higher rates of density than average 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.
There is still time to lodge an objection…. just!