Skip to main content

State Significant Development

Determination

Waterloo Metro Quarter OSD - Northern Precinct Detailed Design SSDA

City of Sydney

Current Status: Determination

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination

Design and construction of the northern precinct comprising commercial and retail uses

Attachments & Resources

Notice of Exhibition (1)

Notice of Exhibition_05112020_081829

Response to Submissions (22)

Request RTS_14122020
Response to Submissions Report - SSD-104
Appendix A_Amended Architectural Drawings
Appendix B_Supplementary Design Report
Appendix C_Amended Landscape Plans
Appendix D_Landscape Response Memo
Appendix D1_Amended Landscape Design Report
Appendix E_Amended Design Integrity Report
Appendix F_Amended Design and Amenity Guidelines
Appendix G_Pedestrian Wind Environment Assessment
Appendix H_Public Benefit Advice
Appendix I_Overshadowing Assessment Memo
Appendix J_Visual Impact Technical Memo
Appendix K_ESD Technical Memo
Appendix K1_ESD Technical Memo
Appendix K2_ESD Technical Memo
Appendix L_Facade Technical Memo
Appendix M_Supplementary Traffic and Parking Memo
Appendix N_Pedestrian Modelling Memo
Appendix O_Waste Management Memo
Appendix P_Flooding Technical Memo
Appendix Q_Clause 4.6 Variation Request

Agency Advice (3)

EESG to RtS SSD 10440
TfNSW_Waterloo MQ OSD Northern (SSD-10440) - RtS
City of Sydney to RtS - SSD 10440

Additional Information (8)

RFI - Att B - Bike Parking Comparison Summ
RFI - Att A - Façade Design Memo
Northern Precinct SSD-10440 - RFI Response
RFI - Att C - Landscape Design Response
RFI - Att E - Supple Waste Response
RFI - Att D - Supple Flooding Response
RFI - Att C1 - Revised Section D Plan
RFI Request for Additional Information_15042021_125215

Determination (4)

Stamped Plans
Development Consent
Assessment Report
Notice of Decision

Post-determination Notices (1)

SSD-10440 - Notice of Determination

Approved Documents

There are no post approval documents available

Note: Only documents approved by the Department after November 2019 will be published above. Any documents approved before this time can be viewed on the Applicant's website.

Complaints

Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?

Make a Complaint

Enforcements

There are no enforcements for this project.

Inspections

There are no inspections for this project.

Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.

Submissions

Filters
Showing 1 - 20 of 20 submissions
Elizabeth Bushby
Object
ALEXANDRIA , New South Wales
Message
The precinct should be considered with conjunction with the scale and size of the central and southern precincts - they all impact the local area. No objection to an office building but given COVID and change to work practices the scale could be reduced and the height reduced. I support the retail premises - I think that will be positive for the area. More green space and less density for the whole project would be better. The city of Sydney proposal for the area is better and more i keeping with the local area
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY
Comment
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
Based on the information provided, the proposal does not constitute a Scheduled Activity under Schedule 1 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act). At this stage, the EPA does not consider that the proposal will require an Environment Protection Licence (EPL) under the POEO Act.

As an advisory note, the development will be located in the vicinity of tunnels containing operational rail lines, for which the EPA has a regulatory responsibility. The consent should include acceptable vibration and ground borne noise limits for spaces within the development drawn from the EPA’s Rail Infrastructure Noise Guideline (EPA, 2013) and Assessing Vibration: A Technical Guideline (DECC, 2006).

As the applicant is a private developer and not a NSW public authority, the EPA would not be the appropriate regulatory authority under the POEO Act for the environmental performance of the OSD project.

The EPA has no comment on EIS.
Biodiversity and Conservation Division
Comment
PARRAMATTA , New South Wales
Message
Please find attached EES response
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Counterpoint Community Services Inc
Comment
WATERLOO , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Waterloo Public Housing Action Group
Object
WATERLOO , New South Wales
Message
We object to the project on the basis that the community's vision for the project outlined in the Engagement Report by Urbis is to create a new space to live, with a focus on social, affordable & market housing mix, and suitable level of essential services and facilities to support the increase in population. However, the total commercial floor space proposed in the Northern Precinct will take up 50% of total floor space across the entire Overstation Development. Together with the Student Housing floor space in the Southern Precinct, 67% of total floor space will be used for commercial purposes. This is completely out of line with the community's vision for the project established during the consultation period for a predominantly residential development. We propose that this project be rejected, and a predominantly residential design aligned to the original community vision be adhered to."
Name Withheld
Object
COLEDALE , New South Wales
Message
I'm objecting to the current proposal due to the constant removal of community facility and housing. This project should be held to its previous commitment of 35 affordable housing appartments the community needs affordable housing and the previously promised Community Centre, which should exists along side the newly proposed child care centre. Have some vision & support the community with integrity and generosity, and the project will be supported in return.
Grant Donohue
Object
WATERLOO , New South Wales
Message
Project ruins the character of Waterloo & also to rip up heavy rail system is illogical .
Lorraine Byrnes
Object
WATERLOO , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
REDWatch Inc
Object
REDFERN , New South Wales
Message
The REDWatch submission is attached
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
ALEXANDRIA , New South Wales
Message
I would like to object to the Waterloo Metro Quarter OSD - Northern Building. As a long term, owner occupier of a single storey heritage terrace on Wyndham Street, I would like to highlight the below reasons:
- 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.
- 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.
Department of Transport
Comment
Chippendale , New South Wales
Message
A copy of the TfNSW response letter is attached.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
WATERLOO , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
City of Sydney
Object
SYDNEY , New South Wales
Message
Dear Russell

Please find attached the City's consolidated response to the Waterloo OSD SSD applications.

Regards
David Zabell
Attachments
Sydney Metro Corridor Protection
Comment
SYDNEY , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Sydney Water
Comment
PARRAMATTA , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Inner Sydney Voice
Object
WATERLOO , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
NSW Health - SLHD
Comment
Camperdown , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Sydney Airport Corporation
Comment
Canberra , Australian Capital Territory
Message
Attachments
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Comment
Phillip , Australian Capital Territory
Message
Attachments

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSD-10440
Assessment Type
State Significant Development
Development Type
Residential & Commercial
Local Government Areas
City of Sydney
Decision
Approved
Determination Date
Decider
Director

Contact Planner

Name
Russell Hand