Skip to main content

State Significant Development

Determination

Waterloo Metro Quarter OSD - Southern 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 southern precinct comprising student housing, social housing and retail uses.

Archive

Notice of Exhibition (1)

Notice of Exhibition_05112020_081909

Early Consultation (1)

Southern Precinct - Indicative Plans

Request for SEARs (1)

Scoping Report - Southern Precinct - FINAL

SEARs (1)

Issued SEARs_08042020_050151

EIS (64)

Environmental Impact Statement - Southern Precinct
Appendix A - SEARS
Appendix B – Quantity Surveyor Report
Appendix C1 - Site Title & Survey Plan
Appendix C2 - Site Title & Survey Plans
Appendix D - Architectural Drawings
Appendix E - Urban Design Report
Appendix F1 - Architectural Design Report
Appendix F2- Architectural Design Report
Appendix F3 - Architectural Design Report
Appendix F4 - Architectural Design Report
Appendix F5- Architectural Design Report
Appendix F6 - Architectural Design Report
Appendix G - Endorsed Design Excellence Strategy
Appendix H - Heritage Impact Statement
Appendix I - Transport Traffic and Parking Impact
Appendix J - Draft CTPM_Part1
Appendix J - Draft CTPM_Part1
Appendix J - Draft CTPM_Part2
Appendix K - Noise and Vibration_Part1
Appendix K - Noise and Vibration_Part2
Appendix K - Noise and Vibration_Part3
Appendix K - Noise and Vibration_Part4
Appendix K - Noise and Vibration_Part5
Appendix L - Operational Waste Management Plan
Appendix M -ESD and Sustainability Strategy
Appendix N - CPTED Assessment
Appendix O1- Stormwater and Flood Assessment
Appendix O2- Stormwater and Flood Assessment
Appendix P - Structural Report
Appendix Q - CEMP
Appendix R - BCA Assessment
Appendix S - DDA Assessment
Appendix T - Services and Utilities Infrastructure
Appendix U - Consultation Report
Appendix V - BDAR Waiver
Appendix W - Transportation Air Quality
Appendix X - Design and Amenity Guidelines
Appendix Y - Design Integrity Report
Appendix Z - Subdivision Plans_37
Appendix AA - Social & Economic Analysis
Appendix BB - Civil Engineering Report and Plans
Appendix CC - Heritage Interpretation Strategy
Appendix DD - Airspace Approval
Appendix EE - Fire Safety Strategy Report
Appendix GG - Reflectivity Statement
Appendix HH_Visual and View Impact Analysis
Appendix II - Landscape & Public Domain Drawing
Appendix JJ1- Landscape & Public Domain Report
z_Appendix JJ2 - Landscape & Public Domain Report
Appendix JJ3- Landscape & Public Domain Report
Appendix KK - Wind Impact Assessment
Appendix LL - Overshadowing Analysis
Appendix MM - Public Art Strategy
Appendix NN - Solar Access Report
Appendix OO1- Contamination and Remediation
Appendix OO2 - Contamination and Remediation
Appendix OO3 - Contamination and Remediation
Appendix PP - Geotechnical
Appendix QQ - Basix Statement Part 1
Appendix QQ - Basix Statement Part 2
Appendix RR - Natural Cross Ventilation Assessment
Appendix SS - Preliminary OPM
Appendix TT - Arborist Report

Response to Submissions (28)

Request RTS_14122020
Response to Submissions Report- Southern Precinct
A_Amended Architectural Plans
B_Supplementary Architectural Design Report
C_Amended Landscape Plans
D_Supplementary Landscape Report
E_Landscape Memo
F_Amended Design Integrity Report
G_Amended Design Guidelines
H_Pedestrian Wind Environment Assessment
I_Technical Memo Natural Ventilation Detail
J_Technical Memo for Acoustic Ventilator
K_Technical Memo Acoustic
L_Public Benefits Advice
M_Supplementary Solar Access Statement
N_Supplementary Overshadowing Assessment
O_Visual Impact Asessment
P_Facade Shading Analysis
Q_ESD Technical Memo
R_SEPP 65 Verification Statement
S_Supplementary Traffic and Parking Assessment
T_Revised Waste Management Report
U_Technical Memo Waste Management Requirements
V_Flood Risk Management Plan
W_Clause 4.6 Variation Request
OO - Contamination & Remediation Vol 1
OO - Contamination & Remediation Vol 2
Appendix OO - Contamination Vol 3

Agency Advice (3)

TfNSW_Waterloo MQ OSD Southern (SSD-10437) - RtS
EESG response to RtS
City of Sydney to RtS - SSD 10437

Additional Information (15)

Attachment F - Final BASIX Certificate Building 03
Attachment E - Waste Management Memo
Additional Flooding Response_Southern
RFI Request for Additional Information_15042021_125316
Attachment D - Bike Parking Analysis
Attachment C - Ventilation Technical Response
Attachment B1 - Landscape Section Plan
Attachment B - Landscape Design Response
Attachment A - Architectural Design Response
WMQ Southern Precinct SSD-10437 - RFI Response
RFI Request for Additional Information
RFI - Southern Precinct - 31.3.21
Appendix B - Amended Architectural (buidling 3)
Appendix B - Amended Architectural (buidling 4)
Attachment A -Updated Design Integrity Report

Recommendation (2)

Recommendation - Draft MOD Conditions
Recommendation - Assessment Report

Determination (4)

Stamped Plans - SSD 10437
Notice of Decision - SSD 10437 and SSD 9393 MOD 1
Development Consent - SSD 10437 Southern
Assessment Report - SSD 10437 and SSD 9393 MOD 1

Post-determination Notices (1)

SSD-10437 - Notice of Determination

Approved Documents

Other Documents (4)

Post Approval letter - SSD 10437 PA 1
Revised Architectural Plans
Revised Landscape Plans
Letter to satisfy condition B8

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 28 submissions
Name Withheld
Support
SYDNEY , New South Wales
Message
Thanks for providing some social housing.
Name Withheld
Object
REDFERN , New South Wales
Message
I'm concerned with the lack of green space. COVID lockdowns have already demonstrated how much residents value their local recreation spots. Redfern Park was filled to capacity when people were forced to stay home. Increasing the density in the area is only going to place more pressure on our limited, green resources. We need more parks not more apartment blocks. Please include more green space in these plans.
I'm also extremely concerned about the Government selling off public land to fund this development. Why can't we use some of this land for recreation space? I don't believe that the green space that's already in the Waterloo Estate has been counted as green space.
Finally, I see no plans for cultural space in any of the developments. Please can you include space for the arts? We don't need yet another childcare provider. The city is full of them! What we need is space for our artists.
Name Withheld
Object
ALEXANDRIA , New South Wales
Message
The proposal to add 25 story student housing is completely unnecessary for the area. There is student accommodation near redfern station and the very large amount being built on the old site of the Block. There was the option to build the metro closer to universities where more student housing could be appropriate but the decision was made to locate it in Waterloo - to displace a long standing community for a large amount of student housing/short term housing for people that are less likely to be committed and invested in the area is not for the benefit of local residents. The ratio of 25 stories for students vs only 9 stories for social housing is insufficient. 25 stories for either is too high/dense but the ratio could be reversed leading to greater stability for residents, families and the community. Far more emphasis should be given to subsidised or community housing than is currently being given. The community space/gym etc are fine. The project should be scaled back and more i keeping with the local area. The City of Syd proposals for more open space and less density is preferable but I still have concerns about parking/traffic.
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.
Name Withheld
Object
ALEXANDRIA , New South Wales
Message
The building height of the student housing is too tall. Otherwise it is an ok plan
Name Withheld
Comment
WATERLOO , New South Wales
Message
There is no parking bay for busses stopping at the Waterloo station on Botany road, the busses would block a lane on the extremely busy Botany road, which would make the road unusable.
Another issue is the wind effect around the highrises. Currently, in Green square there is a harricane every time it's windy. The design should include measures which prevent this.
The artist interpretation is misleading, it shows a lot of flowering plants amongst the skyscrapers- if to look at Green square as an example, not a single flowering tree in the shade and strong winds between the buildings.
No overshadowing analysis of the new park planned between Cope and George street by the State government.
Biodiversity and Conservation Division
Comment
PARRAMATTA , New South Wales
Message
Please find attached EES comments in response
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Counterpoint Community Services Inc
Comment
WATERLOO , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
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 student housing was never included as part of the community consultation process, approved Concept DA, nor is it in line with the community's vision for the local area. The proposal to dedicate an entire third of the development to student housing has reduced the number of residential homes that will be provided from the 700 new homes to 220, a 69% reduction. The development should also be making space for permanent residents and work to meet the housing shortfall, rather than servicing more transitory residents like students who will not be contributing to community life and contributing to an already oversaturation of student housing in the Redfern/Waterloo area. We propose that this project be rejected, and the original housing targets & community vision be adhered to.
Name Withheld
Object
WATERLOO , New South Wales
Message
I want to say that overall I support the project as I am a fan of infill and increasing density where appropriate. I object to only one part of the project. That part is the height and size of the student accommodation building in the southern precinct. That it is the highest building in the project, on the corner which will have the biggest negative impact on the surrounding area is just not acceptable. The Cauliflower Hotel, and its footpath tables (popular because they are sunny), the Wellington St Victorian terraces, the footpaths and intersections will be plunged in to shadow and darkness all winter. While the size and height will also make the utilitarian building oppressive and overbearing to the many units and small businesses to the immediate south. I note that the northern building has been reduced to 17 stories, I would have expected a 15 storey maximum for the southern building would have been acceptable, preferably with a greater setback from Wellington St.
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
Shelter NSW
Object
SYDNEY , New South Wales
Message
Shelter NSW cannot support this proposal in its current form. Shelter NSW recommends that a greater proportion of social and affordable housing be delivered through this development and that any student housing be required to be genuinely affordable.
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 - Southern Precinct. 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
Velocity Owners Corporation
Object
WATERLOO , New South Wales
Message
Letter of Objection to State Significant Project – Waterloo Metro Quarter – Southern precinct

The Executive Committee of the Owner’s Corporation of Velocity -180 Cope Street, Waterloo submit a letter of objection to the proposed Southern Precinct development for the construction and operation of two residential buildings, particularly a student housing building of 25 storeys on the corner of Botany Road and Wellington Street for approximately 474 students as well as the vehicle loading and service facilities access from Wellington Street.

180 Cope Street is located between Wellington Street and John Street, Waterloo. Our neighbourhood is predominantly characterised by single storey and two storey dwellings and terraces and residential dwellings varying between 3 – 4 storeys in height.

Any redevelopment in this area should provide a design that delivers a more suitable transition to the lower scale residential area which it borders and the urban landscape. Therefore, the overall size for the student accommodation building on Botany Road and Wellington Street should be significantly reduced in height.

In preparing this submission the following key documentation was reviewed but not limited to:
• Environmental Impact Statement_Amending DA
• Appendix F - Architectural Design Report
• Appendix G - Endorsed Design Excellence Strategy
• Appendix I - Traffic and Parking
• Appendix Y - Design Integrity Report

It is integral that John Holland, Mirvac and NSW Government give genuine and ongoing collaborative discussions on the future impacts on our property to guarantee our amenity, privacy, views and access to sunlight are adequately protected. Apartments facing North will entirely lose all open views, to be replaced by two oversized buildings. We feel at this point that our concerns have not been considered, although they have been raised at various forums throughout the stages of the planning process.

Of particular concern is the loss of privacy to our common shared rooftop and apartments facing north to Wellington St, and that the proposed buildings will allow overlooking in and out of apartments – this needs to continue to be minimised as far as possible and solutions prioritised.

Solar access and shadowing impact.
Six (6) of the apartments contained within 180 Cope Street, Waterloo have direct northerly aspect and access to sunlight through windows or doors opening onto their private balconies. (which is the only source of natural light into these apartments living areas). As depicted on the shadow diagrams prepared and submitted by the project planners, the impact of the proposed development will be detrimental as these owners will lose significant solar access.

Additionally, 3 apartments have a lightwell on the site’s northern boundary to allow additional sunlight to enter the units which front directly onto Cope Street. The southern precinct proposal does not offer any guarantee that it will not decrease the amount and source of natural sunlight that can be accessed into these apartments.

Vehicle loading and service facilities accessed via Wellington Street.

The proposed vehicle and service facilities situated on Wellington Street is concerning for both pedestrian, cyclists and driver safety, and will lead to an increase in overall traffic. The entrance and exit onto Wellington Street will be restricted to ‘left in and left out’ but this will increase traffic flow, create potential traffic banks on a very small stretch of road on Wellington Street, as a number of vehicles wait to access the loading dock area. Exiting vehicles will also increase the noise levels for apartments directly facing Cope Street. As the retail strategy for the Waterloo Metro Quarter is not finalised, it also remains unclear of the potential size of vehicles that will be able to access this entry point and at what times.

We recommend that this loading and service facilities area be relocated to Botany road (where a traffic hub is already planned (car park) as it would create a more effective and safer access and exit point.

Another concern is whole of government coordinated planning. The Waterloo Metro Quarter has limited green, open space and are we are aware that Waterloo South Planning Proposal has been lodged with the City of Sydney (Land and Housing Corporation) to create an approximate 2 hectare community garden/park from Cope/Wellington/Ragland/George Streets (Waterloo South). This is a great initiative and would be an asset to our local community. However, and unfortunately, this is only in its planning stage. It is recommended that before any final decisions are made on the plaza, community centre and rooftops spaces within the Waterloo Metro Quarter, discussions and agreement between government agencies on the community garden/park being developed is approved and finalised to ensure all local residents benefit from the planned developments in the area.

We look forward to ongoing discussions around adapted versions and alternative approaches to the proposed Southern precinct designs plans, particularly on building height, (the number of storeys), the close proximity of the two buildings to each other and increased vehicle traffic in our neighbourhood.

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSD-10437
Assessment Type
State Significant Development
Development Type
Residential & Commercial
Local Government Areas
City of Sydney
Decision
Approved
Determination Date
Decider
Executive Director
Last Modified By
SSD-10437-Mod-1
Last Modified On
16/08/2022

Contact Planner

Name
Russell Hand