Waterloo Metro Quarter OSD - Northern Precinct Detailed Design SSDA

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

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.

Please find attached EES response

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."

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.

Project ruins the character of Waterloo & also to rip up heavy rail system is illogical .

The REDWatch submission is attached

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.

A copy of the TfNSW response letter is attached.

Dear Russell

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

Regards
David Zabell