This submission is made on behalf of REDWatch Incorporated (REDWatch). REDWatch was set up in 2004 with the following objects in its constitution:

REDWatch is a group of community residents and friends from Redfern, Waterloo, Eveleigh and Darlington who support the existing diversity in these areas and wish to promote sustainable, responsible economic and social development.

REDWatch recognises the importance of the Aboriginal community to the area.

REDWatch has been formed to:

1. Monitor the activities of the Government (local, state and federal), the Redfern Waterloo Authority, and any other government instrumentality with responsibility for the Redfern, Waterloo, Darlington and Eveleigh area, to ensure that:

     (a) The strategy benefits a diverse community

     (b) Communication and consultation is comprehensive and responsive

     (c) Pressure is maintained on authorities

2. Provide a mechanism for discussion and action on community issues.

3. Enhance communication between community groups and encourage broad community participation.

This may involve: Holding regular meetings; Holding community forums and other events; Establishing a website; Communicating with the community through other means; Meeting with government representatives and authorities; Cooperating with other community organisations; And any other means the association deems appropriate.

The South Eveleigh to Waterloo Metro walking and cycling improvements exhibition impacts the Redfern and Waterloo communities, including Waterloo public housing tenants, who are often not involved in these conversations. REDWatch through our social media, participation in community meetings and holding a public meeting makes the following submission.

REDWatch expresses its appreciation to Council for providing Sarah Brickhill to attend the REDWatch public meeting on March 5 to discuss this and wider traffic issues and for an extension to make this submission after that meeting.

What is this proposal about?

The exhibited proposal was styled as about “walking and cycling improvements”. It is certainly about improvement for cycling, the assertion that it makes “walking more comfortable along Henderson Road and Raglan Street” is however not discussed nor demonstrated as it is not clear how this proposal assists walkability and in fact seems to remove some footpath space outside the Metro with new verge plantings and does not examine light timing and surge footpath requirements.

The project however is also about prioritising buses and removing vehicle access from Botany Road and Henderson Road into Raglan Street. Without these changes the proposal would just be about cycling and walking improvements and would be better able to fit into the project area.

Wider Context to proposal and this submission

At the REDWatch meeting the need to assess the proposal in its wider context was evident. Such project proposals draw a line around the area and do not look at outside ramifications in any detail. Issues were raised at the meeting about how these changes interact with other changes in Erskineville and with how people from Alexandria move into Waterloo. There was discussion about the need for projects to be seen in a more regional context and for the interactions between this project and its implications to be made transparent.

A number of issues raised at the meeting were outside the current direct scope of the proposal but either interacted with it or were exacerbated by it. These issues are hence considered relevant to providing comprehensive feedback on the project proposal.

REDWatch understands that the current consultation is an early-stage proposal and hence encourages Council’s bike, pedestrian and traffic teams to consider the wider issues raised by the community about the proposed project. As the community has not been able to talk directly with TfNSW about its elements in the plan we urge Council to take these community concerns up with TfNSW on the community’s behalf.

As this project directly impacts residents on the Waterloo public housing estate both in terms of location and impacts, REDWatch requests Council carefully apply an equity lens over this project to ensure that the public housing community isn’t adversely impacted and that the needs and desires of the public housing community are given appropriate weight.

Traffic refunneling

Introducing major traffic changes under the guise of cycling and pedestrian improvements are fraught as the changes have ramifications outside the scope of the exhibited project. What do these changes mean for east west movements in Alexandria and Waterloo and north south movements through Redfern? None of this wider work was available to help people assess the impacts.

Given the proposed redevelopment of Waterloo South to accommodate around 2,500 extra homes and subsequent redevelopment of the north and central parts of the estate to add a further 2,000 homes there is a need for wider traffic modelling if the main thoroughfare is to be Wellington Street. While the Council argued that the streets could handle the change this was not demonstrated.

Stockland are in the process of doing traffic modelling for the Waterloo South redevelopment and along with Homes NSW were not aware of the proposed traffic changes.

At a community level the proposed closure of Raglan Street to general traffic and the funnelling of traffic through Wellington Street reawakened concerns that Pitt Street being opened to McEvoy might again be considered to cope with the traffic generated by the Waterloo South redevelopment. This proposal had earlier been dismissed in the 2022 rezoning.

Closing Raglan Street to traffic puts the discussion about the capacity and issues within Wellington Street as that flows from the proposal. People at the meeting raised concerns about the impact on pedestrians, cyclists and cars from stop signs being changed at the corner of George Street and Wellington to give Wellington Street priority.

Of concern was the lack of visibility on Wellington Street heading west at the corner of George Street. The earlier stop sign meant that cars had to stop and could see bikes and pedestrians. Given the location in the middle of an estate with many older and disadvantaged people there were also concerns about pedestrian safety both for motor vehicles as well as bikes on the existing bike path. A suggestion for this intersection to have a scatter crossing has been made.

Concerns were also raised about queueing and turns out of Wellington into Botany Road and also Elizabeth Street. This is particularly an issue at school times when children from Mount Carmel or Alexandria Park are moving through those intersections.

Problems on Wellington Street are expected to become worse if traffic into Waterloo South is channelled through Wellington Street with access closed to Raglan Street. In the short term this will also be the route for demolition and construction vehicles, and concerns were also raised about potential road closures in the street during construction if this was the main throughfare.

While Wellington will take the bulk of the traffic from the east, south and west, it is expected that closing Raglan Street will also lead to more traffic through Redfern from the north with traffic needing to go down Pitt and to a lesser extent George Street.

Questions were also raised about the impact of the proposed Raglan Street closure on the Cope Street kiss and ride. It was suggested that people are unlikely to use the kiss and ride if they cannot easily get back onto the main road and are hence more likely to do drop offs in easier locations impacting traffic movements.

All this seems out of scope of the exhibited proposal, but at a community level is very much part of the discussion as the proposal required the existing traffic using Raglan Street to go somewhere.

Bus issues

The creation of the bus only section in Raglan Street opposite the Metro reignited the debate about the appropriateness of the 392 bus route on Raglan Street east of Pitt Street which was introduced 6-7 years ago rather than buses being routed via Wellington Street as was the case with the 355 bus route. Raglan Street east has many heritage properties facing onto a hill with noise and vibration concerns – see this Current Affair story about the issues which were raised at the meeting.

Local residents also complain that allowing buses to make a right turn from Elizabeth Street into Raglan against the no right turn sign, locals argued that this has encouraged many cars to follow suit. For cars this intersection is supposed to be only left in and left out.

At the meeting concerns were raised about what appeared to be the movement of the Raglan Street bus stop to in front of the Metro. The point was made that if the stop was moved to the Metro then tenants would have to walk up and down the hill to get from their homes to the bus and that local mobility needed to be considered not just for people getting on and off the Metro. This is especially a concern given the mobility concerns for aged and disabled people among the public housing tenants on the estate. These are clearly walking issues that are within scope if the proposal includes the relocation of any of the Raglan Street bus stops.

While TfNSW fed into the exhibited plans, it was not in attendance to answer questions about the changes it had proposed in the plan and its implication for its services. It is not helpful for the community to be told that it is a TfNSW issue when its elements are included in a City of Sydney exhibited plan without proper explanation.

Bike Issues

The missing link in the George Street Cycleway is also appears out of scope. This was caused by the 1970s closure of George Street as part of the Endeavour public housing project. Council have been unable to negotiate a solution with Homes NSW for the bike path to continue across Waterloo Green which is LAHC owned land.

This sees a dedicated cycleway to the North and South of Waterloo Green with a nominal “low traffic street or bike lane” around LAHC land via Raglan, Cope and Phillip Streets to join the dedicated paths. In practice cyclists do not dismount or use the alternative path but continue to ride across Waterloo Green.

It seems unlikely that Homes NSW will allow a separated bike path across its land until Waterloo North is redeveloped and potentially George Street is reopened. Thought needs to be given as to what might happen over the next 10-20 years until this might happen.

Linking the Henderson Street cycle path to George Street next to Waterloo Green will increase the number of people who cycle across Waterloo Green rather than dismount and walk across.

There is an opportunity with the proposed cycleway to encourage cyclists to use the other two legs of the bike route via Cope Street north of Raglan and Phillip Street to access the northern section of the George Street cycleway. As earlier stated, this route already appears as a “low traffic street or bike lane” on the Council’s cycling map and it should be formalised and positively encouraged.

Alongside this, tenants are looking to Council to actively discourage bike riding across Waterloo Green along with education and enforcement measures. This issue cannot be ignored and should not be considered out of scope. One way of doing this is to not provide an easy exit off the bike path towards Waterloo Green as well as well-placed signs in both directions where the two cycleways meet.

At the meeting people raised concerns about the viability of cyclists heading south on George Street north of Phillip Street. Concern was raised about the height of plantings and the need for regular maintenance. There was also concern about both the visibility and speed of bikes to cars on Phillip Street and of bikes entering LAHC land, often at high-speed coming down the hill.

Directing bikes to the Phillip Street low traffic street / bike path would also enable the redirection of bikes away from Waterloo Green and the issues raised by tenants at this location to be addressed.

Also considered out of scope were community questions about why the bike path was going down Raglan Street when Wellington Street is already on cycle maps as a “low traffic street or bike lane” shown on Council’s cycling map which links through to Mitchell Road and Erskineville. Channelling bikes through the high traffic Henderson, Wyndham Botany Road intersections was seen as a higher risk alternative to using the bike route down Wellington past Alexandria Park.

While we see the problem with the Henderson Road bike path not connecting, the preferred link for this path is the connection between Railway Parade and Wilson Street via Alexander Street and Locomotive Street. The dream of this connection was on the cover of an earlier City of Sydney Cycling Plan.

REDWatch with FOE and ARAG have recently formed the Eveleigh Bridge Alliance to expand the push for a pedestrian and cycle bridge across the railway corridor near Carriageworks. The first action of the Eveleigh Bridge Alliance was to access documents with a GIPA application which shows TfNSW in June 2025 decided on a preferred location for a bridge and a way to construct it. Council has long supported a potential Cycle and Pedestrian Bridge at this location and with some of the technical issues addressed to some extent the possibility for this connection between the Henderson Street and Wilson Street Cycleways may still be achievable.

REDWatch encourages Council to consider all the issues raised above as related to the exhibition and to investigate how they can be addressed.

Comments on the Exhibited Plan

In commenting on the proposal as set out we will do so in relation to separate elements, the Bike Path, traffic changes to deliver the path, the Raglan bus only proposal and walkability. REDWatch’s comments reflect issues raised that need to be explored in further development work.

The Bike path

There is strong support from cyclists for the connection of the Henderson Cycleway to the George Street Cycleway. There is also strong support from cyclists for the George Street cycleway to extend across Waterloo Green which is opposed by public housing tenants on safety grounds.

On the flip side there is strong concern about the impact of the proposal from the loss of so much scarce inner-city parking and how that might impact local residents, visitors and deliveries. Special concerns were raised in relation to loading zones near the Waterloo shops and the Abbotts Hotel which can only get deliveries in Raglan Street.

Concern was also raised about access to parking for those delivering services and visiting those in public housing. It was however recognised that a lot of parking in the area in unrestricted parking was from people parking and then going to work.

Earlier in our submission we have raised issues about the proposal increasing the number of people who ride across Waterloo Green. To minimise this REDWatch has suggested that the bike connection in Cope Street north of Raglan be encouraged at the link to the Redfern end of the George Street cycleway via Phillip Street.

We have also proposed that the Bike path in Raglan and Phillip with George not facilitate easy access off the bike path to the pedestrian path across Waterloo Green. At both places where the George Street cycleway leads onto LAHC land we request clear signage to stop bikes and direct them via Cope Street which is the formal link shown on Council’s bike path maps.

REDWatch is sure Council will get lots of submissions both supporting the bike path and raising its impacts on those who are directly impacted. Council will need to weigh up the impacts and find solutions that lessen the bike lane impact on local residents and businesses for this to proceed.

Traffic changes to deliver the path

Concern has been raised about the traffic changes needed to facilitate the bike lane in Henderson Road. At the REDWatch meeting there was concern that at high road use times the restriction on two lanes turning from Mitchell Road into Henderson Road will be problematic. It is not clear why Henderson Road has only one east bound lane at Davey Road when it becomes 2 lanes within the next block.

As traffic heading onto or across Botany Road is expected to be similar to the present, it is not clear if a single lane will be adequate in Henderson Road at Botany Road. It might be adequate if all traffic has to turn right and there are not greater pedestrian crossing delays. If motor vehicles are allowed to continue onto Raglan Street then the existing delays in being able to turn right will impact through traffic which is solved by the current two lanes.

The community would like the City of Sydney to complete traffic modelling on the proposed changes and the flow on impacts before finalising the proposal.

Raglan bus only proposal

There is concern about the aspect of the proposal that makes Raglan Street into a bus only zone as the community has not seen any modelling of this change and its impacts. While the change directly means that traffic which approaches Raglan Street from Henderson Road will have to turn right and use Wellington Street, this will also increase traffic through Pitt and to a lesser extent George Street Redfern.

While the change may stop cars to and from Alexandria and Erskineville using Raglan Street to get to Elizabeth Street which some locals consider a rat run, its closure means that travel times for those trips will also increase, putting more car minutes and congestion on the road for those who need to use a car.

We have highlighted earlier some of the community concerns about the impact on Wellington Street and public housing tenant concerns.

Council should consider the possibility of Raglan Street remaining open to motor vehicles even if the bike lane proceeds. If the proposal proceeds as currently drafted then the wider traffic impacts need to be assessed and impacts made transparent alongside what will be done to mitigate the impacts.

Walkability

It is not clear how the current proposal improves walkability. REDWatch has argued that TfNSW and Council need to address the pedestrian improvements needed on pedestrian desire lines from the Waterloo Metro. The pathway towards Redfern’s Southern Concourse and Boundary Street for South Eveleigh are especially problematic.

While this proposal claims to be also about pedestrian improvements this is not evident in the proposal. In fact, the proposal seems to reduce pedestrian space in some locations such as in front of the Metro. The proposal also does not assess if the footpath design with grass verges remains appropriate for pedestrian surges as a result of long light wait times combined with periodic pedestrian discharges from the station.

The proposal also does not demonstrate if the traffic changes and potential light phasing may improve or impact walking times.

Improving the movement of people from the Metro towards South Eveleigh and Sydney University should be a major focus of Council.

It has to be remembered that currently the Bankstown line is not directly connected to the Metro so it is likely that some people are currently accessing South Eveleigh via Redfern Station who will remain on the Metro and hence want to move to South Eveleigh or Sydney University from Waterloo Metro.

Conclusion

In our submission REDWatch has covered broader community concerns inked to the project proposal that need to also be taken into account in refining the proposal. We have also raised some concerns about the facets of the exhibited proposal that we would also like to clarified.

REDWatch requests Council to take these community concerns into account in its next steps on this proposal. We also encourage Council to be able to provide clear impact and remediation proposals for the refined plan so people can assess the proposal and its surrounding implications.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal and the extension of time to accommodate this feedback after our meeting.

Yours Faithfully 

Geoffrey Turnbull 

Spokesperson 

On behalf of REDWatch Inc 

c/- Counterpoint Community Services 

67 Raglan Street Waterloo NSW 2017                                         

Ph Wk: (02) 8004 1490                                                     

email: mail@redwatch.org.au

web: www.redwatch.org.au

A June 2025 Transport for NSW (TfNSW) ‘Optioneering Report’ reveals a preferred Eveleigh bridge concept, location and an approved way to launch the bridge across the railway corridor.

The preferred bridge would ramp from Wilson Street Darlington near Carriageworks over the railway corridor to Locomotive Street South Eveleigh between the Large Erecting Shop and the Locomotive Workshops. It is not possible to ramp in South Eveleigh and a combination of lifts and escalators are proposed at that end.

Construction could be by launching a steel truss, bridge built next to the site in stages across the railway tracks. The process requires supports at both ends and a permanent pier in the middle. Two temporary piers are required for construction. A steel trust launch methodology was developed for the Redfern Station Southern Concourse in 2020 in consultation with Sydney Trains but was not adopted as it did not result in savings for that site.

The TfNSW ‘Optioneering Report’ was one of the documents received when REDWatch on behalf of the Eveleigh Bridge Alliance (EBA) made a Government Information Public Access (GIPA) request for bridge studies since 2020.

The EBA was formed by REDWatch, Friends of Erskineville (FOE) and the Alexandria Residents Action Group (ARAG) to kick start a broad-based community campaign for the delivery of the bridge.

The 338 pages of released documents also include engineering feasibility studies by ARUP on a number of bridge and tunnel options, a ‘Heritage Assessment’ by Curio Projects and three versions of a ‘Bridge catchment analysis’ by SCT Consulting. The catchment studies are based on an earlier option to the east of the Paint shop. Costings of options were not released.

The EBA was pleased to find that TfNSW continued to assess options after it ruled a bridge out of scope during the North Eveleigh rezoning. While TfNSW has addressed some of the major technical barriers its reports also indicate it does not think that usage of the bridge will be high enough to justify the expense of building across an active railway corridor.

Media reports indicate that a consortium preparing a bid for the Paint Shop Precinct in North Eveleigh plan to include a bridge in their bid to provide sound stages and film studio facilities when the NSW Government calls for expressions of Interest in March 2026.

The EBA plans to work with surrounding institutions, businesses and the potential users of the bridge to convince the government that the bridge, promised in 2004, needs to be delivered one way or another. A website and social media presence for the EBA is under construction.

Looking at the GIPA documents

Geoff Turnbull REDWatch for Eveleigh Bridge Alliance – 1 March 2026.

(Some of this information also appears in the March South Sydney Herald.)

Where there are significant differences within an area, as there is in Waterloo and surrounding Alexandria and Redfern, it is not adequate to look at a statistical average. Different communities will possibly be impacted differently by a development. The SIA does not look at the potential impact on the most marginalised, who also will live closest to the re-development. As a consequence, the SIA ignores even acknowledging the adverse interactions in the earlier stage of this development between the developer and its local neighbours and local public drinkers.

REDWatch has strongly suggested in its SIA interview that rather than pay to have off duty police at the site so that the workers will work, the developer needs to train its contractors how to deal with people who have suffered trauma and have complex issues as well as having mechanisms for de-escalating situations that arise. The SIA does not even mention this historical social impact nor how it might be better handled in the future.

The community facilities section of the report is also not up to the standard the community should expect of an SIA. For example, three Aboriginal Organisations (AMS, AHC and Mudgin-Gal) are mis-located on the facilities map in the report. Other key community facilities like Counterpoint Community Services’ The Factory and its Multicultural Services are not included at all, along with a number of other local NGO services. The community facilities recognised include the LAHC owned James Cook Community Garden and LAHC owned Waterloo Green described in the report as “an open community park situated to the north east of the redevelopment” – land which after a new Waterloo Park is built is most likely destined for redevelopment rather than staying LAHC owed open space and gardens. Some local health facilities have been included while others ignored.

All of this supposedly exists to identify what is already in the area and hence what needs to be provided as community facilities by this development. While the Waterloo Metro OSD only expects to generate a need for 17 children aged 0-4 the SIA argues that additional childcare facilities will be needed to service the population increase associated with ongoing development in Waterloo and the OSD is keen to provide those childcare places (which a provider will undoubtably pay for). It is instructive then to look at how the SIA looks at child care facilities in the immediate area.

The SIA says “A desktop audit of childcare facilities found that there are no childcare facilities within 400m of the site, specifically none within the immediate social locality, as indicated by the Social Locality map in Chapter 5. The closest facilities are SDN Redfern, SDN Waterloo, and The Green Elephant Waterloo, each located approximately 1.5 km away. Refer to Appendix B.”

So those who know the area will know that SDN Waterloo (Louis Barker) is within 300m of Waterloo Metro. They would also know that SDN Redfern is about 450m away and Green Elephant Waterloo within 800m. A quick check of Google maps shows the following are also within an 800m radius - Eveleigh Early Leaning Preschool, KU Sunbeam Pre School, KU James Cahill, Honey Bird Childcare and Wunanbiri Preschool. It is particularly worrying that an incorrect SIA can be used to advance a developer’s preference for the provision of facilities over other possible community facilities uses.

One of the flaws in the earlier community facilities studies was to not assess the suitability of the buildings used by existing community facilities and to assume that they could continue to provide services from those locations into the future, when many organisations are not in premises that are fit for purpose or for which they are paying rent not covered in their funding. The option of providing community facilities for a not-for-profit agency should have been considered if the community facilities review had adequately assessed facilities rather than the services they managed to provide.

It is also worth mentioning that classic SIA approach for assessing the accessibility of local facilities by if they fall within certain radii of the development is flawed if there are major physical barriers, like the railway corridor, to access a facility.  So, the SIA says Carriageworks is within 1 km of the site when by foot or car it is actually 1.3km away and will remain so until the community gets the NSW Government to deliver the 2004 promised bridge across the railway corridor at Carriageworks.

There are variations of the Social Impact Assessment for each of the DAs, above we have drawn on those from the Second Amending Concept SIA. We encourage readers to have their own look at this report as we are sure that there will be other areas where people will have concerns. For example, we have not gone into the grading within the report where the assessing of increased housing supply in accessible locations? is assessed as a “high positive” when the oft referred to affordable housing only remains affordable for 10 years.

At a basic level community members need to be able to recognise their community accurately described in such reports. There is a long history of inadequate desktop community facilities and social sustainability reports for Waterloo that have been roundly criticised by REDWatch and other agencies.

In part this seems to come from developers expecting consultants to do cheap desktop studies requiring little understanding of what is on the ground. SIAs need to accurately assess impact, especially on those most impacted and seriously address how any impacts can be mitigated. This is especially so when dealing with vulnerable communities like those in public housing.

Hopefully when Stockland presents its SIA for Waterloo South, the SIA will not contain such fundamental errors and Stockland will insist on a much more robust SIA that assesses the impact of the development on the public housing tenants directly impacted by the redevelopment and how those impacts can be mitigated.

If you want to look further at the demographics of the area you can look at different statistical areas for your local area at https://atlas.id.com.au/sydney/

Source: Adapted from REDWatch Email Update 7 January 2026. On 12 January 2026 REDWatch added the additional concern about the SIA and EIS on this project.

Waterloo Metro Developer reduces community facilities

The Waterloo Metro developer wants to reduce community facilities floorspace by 994sqm. That is space that could be used by local community controlled not for profits. The table opposite compares what is approved for the site with what the developer is asking to change.

Also, the Social Impact Assessment says: “This Second Amending Concept DA alone will not generate enough demand for a purpose-built childcare facility” (Concept SIA p40). But the developer only wants to deliver a “community centre in the form of a childcare centre” (Concept SSDA p40) even though the developer’s own figures show they do not generate enough childcare need to justify its childcare proposal.

There are community-controlled organisations that need low-cost permanent facilities but don’t have them. There are others that operate from inappropriate spaces to deliver their services. At the same time the Waterloo Metro developer is trying to avoid providing that kind of community facilities benefit.

Actual community facilities have to be provided to a non-government organisation or a Council while health facilities and childcare facilities can be provided to for profit providers at commercial rents. Understandably developers prefer spaces they can maximise income from.

If you don’t think the developer should not get away with this change, we encourage you to object irrespective of any other views about the project you might have. If you have already made a submission but missed this element, because it is not spelt out in the text of the proposal, please make a short additional submission on this.

In REDWatch’s last email update, we drew attention to the Metro Site Second Amending Concept Social Impact Assessment (SIA) that did not properly look at the needs of local community facilities and also misrepresented the amount of child care facilities in proximity to the Waterloo Metro site.

You can object to the change of community facilities change of use proposed in the Second Amending Concept Plan (SSD-79307765) at https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/major-projects/projects/waterloo-metro-quarter-second-amending-concept

Please also note that the Planning NSW website is now showing 15^th January as the cut off for submissions rather than the initially advised 14^th January.

REDWatch apologises that the reduction in community facilities space has only recently been identified. While it appears in this table the reasons for the reduction is not covered in the text of the EIS. As a result, it was not covered in our earlier email updates hence this small update to alert you.

Source: Adapted from REDWatch Email Update 12 January 2026

We are especially concerned about the projects Social Impact Assessment and how the project will mitigate impacts on the vulnerable community adjoining the development (see REDWatch’s Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Concerns raised by Metro OSD).

For the Metro OSD there are four separate exhibitions. This includes a Second Amending Concept DA, which changes the planning controls, as well as three separate State Significant Development Applications (SSDAs) for the North and Central precincts of the site and the basement. There are hence four sets of documents with a lot of common content but each require their own submission.

REDWatch suggests that you are best way to get an overview of the changes is from the Amending Concept Plan document and then look at the SSDAs for the building details.

The links to the Waterloo Metro Quarter Concept Plan and State Significant Development modification exhibition documents are below:

• Waterloo Metro Quarter - Second Amending Concept
• Waterloo Metro Quarter – Northern Precinct
• Waterloo Metro Quarter - Central Precinct
• Waterloo Basement - Modification 3 for internal layout changes

The amendment makes no change to the maximum permitted Gross Floor Area, as the floorspace will be redistributed within the revised envelopes. Further, the amended proposal will not exceed the permissible building height for the site under the Sydney LEP 2012. The main changes are:

• Northern Precinct: ­ Change the approved building envelope, building height and concept land use for the northern precinct by replacing the 17-storey commercial office building envelope with a revised envelope for a retail ground floor and three levels of commercial office space within a 4-storey podium with two tower forms above, totalling 29-storeys (Building 1A) and 26-storeys (Building 1B) in height (including plant level). The residential towers will include market housing, communal facilities and the provision of 5% affordable housing.
• Central Precinct: ­ Change the approved building envelope and conceptual land use for the central precinct by replacing the residential apartment tower with a co-living housing tower, still above a non-residential podium, comprising retail and a community facility including childcare. The proposed built form will allow for a 26-storey (including plant level) building.
• Basement: Redistribute basement space between Northern and Central precincts pursuant to Section 4.55(2) of the EP&A Act to modify the detailed Basement SSDA (SSD 10438) relating to the basement levels to buildings within the northern and central precinct.

These changes primarily reflect a commercial downturn in commercial office space in the area, which was planned with large floor plates and its replacement with residential buildings, which require good solar access to meet apartment design requirements, including an additional co-living tower.

Those with an interest in how shadowing may impact the new Waterloo Park to be delivered by the Waterloo South redevelopment will be interested in the Point of Time Shadow Diagrams for the future Waterloo Estate park p42-46 of the Concept Plan Appendix J - Overshadowing which shows some marginal improvements from the earlier scheme over the proposed Waterloo Park. The shadowing over the new park is in excess of what it would have been if the park existed prior to the original approval, but given the earlier approval, the developer only has to ensure changes do not make overshadowing worse.

REDWatch is aware of concerns about the proposed second co-living building potentially becoming a second student housing building on the site. Currently the developer is saying that it will fill a different housing need but if this model does not work, the building could easily be turned over to a student housing provider.

It also revealed that “private consortium Distillery Capital wants to build eight state-of-the-art sound studios, co-located editing suites and rehearsal spaces, community green space and up to 500 affordable inner-city dwellings on disused railway yards at Redfern. The consortium of local filmmakers, architects and a construction giant have presented their informal proposal for North Eveleigh to the government”.

The article says “University of Sydney vice chancellor Mark Scott sees the Eveleigh plans as a way to finally realise a long-desired bridge linking Australian Technology Park with Carriageworks and its surrounding Tech Central precinct while providing much-needed student accommodation”.

The article reported that expressions of interest will open late March to deliver the Minns government’s promised $100 million investment in new sound stages and production facilities.

REDWatch, Friends of Erskineville and Alexandria Residents Action Group are currently seeking information from Transport for NSW about its earlier work on the feasibility of an Eveleigh bridge through a GIPA request. The groups are planning to launch a broad-based campaign for the bridge in the new year.

You can read the SMH article quoted above at: Bring us blockbusters: Frontrunners emerge for Sydney’s second film studio 

Recommendation 1: Alignment with Concept Plan

REDWatch requests that the findings from the Concept Plan consultation and the draft Concept Plan inform the Demolition REF and that as far as possible the demolition be aligned with the findings of the draft Concept Plan.

Recommendation 2: Alignment with the SIA and SIMP

REDWatch requests the implementation of the demolition be in accordance with the findings and recommendations from the Waterloo South Social Impact Assessment (SIA) and its preliminary Social Impact Management Plan (SIMP) to ensure that the demolition is in line with what has been learnt from the concept plan SIA consultation. Any Concept Plan identified social impacts requiring mitigation should also be mitigated similarly during the demolition.

This should be possible given the time line for the preparation of the Concept Plan and the timeline of the REF and the appointment of contractors.

Recommendation 3: Worker training on dealing with people with complex issues

Of particular concern to REDWatch is that all people working on the demolition site receive training that prevents adverse interactions with tenants and others with complex issues. Such training should take a trauma informed approach and focus on conflict avoidance, de-escalation and where possible provision of supports.

Supports and respite may be required those in proximity to the site for people with complex issues or those on shift work that sleep during the day.

This will be the first work on the Waterloo Estate site and it will need to overcome the legacy of interactions between locals and the Waterloo Metro site developer that saw off-duty police needing to be paid by the developer so that work on the site could be undertaken. From the start the Waterloo redevelopment needs to handle this much better.

REDWatch has suggested that this provision should be part of a draft SIMP.

Recommendation 4: Rodent and Vermin Control

Rats were a major problem during the Waterloo Metro demolition and Homes NSW needs to have a control process in place prior to and during the demolition to minimise impact of vermin migrating of the demolition site and impacting those who live around the demolition site.

This should be done in coordination with the City of Sydney and may require a heavy baiting program leading up to demolition as well as demolition controls.

Recommendation 5: Keep the surrounding community informed

REDWatch would expect there will likely be periods where there are breaks when the site is not working. REDWatch recommends to keep the community advised as to when there will be work and breaks on the site. This is important as it lets people know when they may be impacted by noise, dust and lights and allows them to organise their time and activity accordingly. This predictability can provide useful respite periods when people know there will be no work on the site.

This is especially important for neighbours who may be shift workers, have sound sensitivities or who are operating with health isssues. Think about how you minimise the impact of the demolition and maximise respite opportunities for those living around the site.

Recommendation 6: Demolish the buildings but not the trees

As it is not known how long it will take to get DA approval and Homes NSW has indicated an intent to lay turf to create an interim park, REDWatch suggests that the tree demolition be left until the area is excavated for basement construction. The tree cover will make the place more desirable and also help provide shading to the turf.

Consideration needs to be given to how the turf will be watered and maintained when the area is operating as a park.

Recommendation 7: Recycle materials

To help minimise the carbon footprint of the demolition all materials should be recycled rather than go to landfill. Homes NSW should have a process in place to ensure its contractor meets this requirement.

Recommendation 8: Have a Green travel Plan

Explore provision of on-site tool lockers that allow workers on the site to use public transport or car-pooling to get to the site and to minimise the impact of worker parking on surrounding streets. Disagreements over parking between locals and construction workers has been an issue on developments in the area due to the areas limit parking and competition for it.

Recommendation 9: Truck movements

Enforce requirements for no queuing or marshalling of trucks on public road, especially around the estate. Also ensure entry and exits via Wellington Street and Botany Road and that all loads are covered to minimise impacts along the travel route.

Make sure that traffic wardens have received training in dealing with people with complex issues. This is especially important for those who will operate away from the site on Wellington Street who will be in close proximity to Oz Harvest crowds and public housing.

Recommendation 10: Explore the extension of Meanwhile Use

REDWatch supports public housing waiting for redevelopment being used for meanwhile use and would like to see this practice expanded as the CHP manager gains more experience. Ideally, we would like to maximise the housing used for meanwhile use and to keep properties occupied up to the point immediately prior to redevelopment. This is especially important given the homelessness and emergency accommodation problem in Sydney.

Ideally knocking down housing to prevent vandalism and anti-social behaviour should be replaced by a mechanism to better use the existing stock for temporary accommodation.

Recommendation 11: Be transparent

While Homes NSW has access to the REF process we encourage Homes NSW to use processes that take the community with them on the redevelopment journey even if those processes are not usually part of the REF or acceleration process.

Tenants around the site should be made aware of what is proposed and be given the opportunity to comment on what is proposed even if this is not required as part of the statutory process.

Homes NSW and Stockland, working in a community with many vulnerable people need to be a best practice developer and be seen to be making an effort to involve people and take their situation into consideration.

Conclusion

REDWatch welcomes the opportunity to make a submission on the Waterloo South Stage 1 Demolition REF and trusts that the above recommendations will be given due consideration if they are not already covered in Homes NSW’s planning for the demolition.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal.