Waterloo South Post Exhibition Report & Proposal Amendments Guide

by

What DPE said in its email

After careful consideration of the feedback received during
public exhibition and findings from the additional studies, the department made
improvements to the plan that:

  • remove the proposed opening of Pitt Street to
    McEvoy Street
  • make the purpose of the design guide clearer
  • make information more consistent across the
    planning documents and better aligned with local planning rules
  • provide greater flexibility and opportunity for
    innovation in building designs
  • update the plan to meet with current state
    planning policy

The revised plan for Waterloo South has now been submitted
for review against the gateway conditions and finalisation. A final decision on
the plan will be made by the Minister for Planning and Homes (or their
delegate) in late 2022.

DPE have put more information on its at Waterloo South webpage. The amended documents have also
been posted on the NSW Planning Portal.

Finding the New Documents

As many found during the exhibition, the document handling
aspects of the NSW planning portal are poor, REDWatch below has provided direct
links to new material before providing a more detailed breakdown on our
observations of the planning proposal changes.

Post exhibition report / proposal as submitted for
final assessment

New Studies prepared post-exhibition

What are the main Changes?

Attachment A to the amended proposal sets out the main
changes in the proposal, although the implications of some sections of the summary
are not immediately evident. The summary below by REDWatch is based primarily on
Attachment A to try and highlight the areas likely to be of most interest to
the community.

Pitt Street extended but not being opened up to
McEvoy Street

In direct response to public submissions where concerns were
raised around the proposed opening of the Pitt Street extension to McEvoy
Street, Bitzios Consulting was re-engaged to prepare an addendum updated
transport assessment. This assessment investigated the impacts that would
likely result on the traffic network within the precinct if the proposed Pitt
Street extension did not allow vehicular movements on to or from McEvoy Street.

The work found that alternative access and egress routes are
available and not opening Pitt Street would be appropriate. This change was
supported by Transport for NSW.

It is now proposed that Pitt Street will be extended to the
south, but it will not allow vehicular movements on to or from McEvoy Street

Percentage of social and affordable housing
retained

While LAHC argued in their submission that percentages for
social and affordable housing should not be included, the amended proposal
retains them.

Amendments have been made clarify that the minimum
percentage of social and affordable housing also applies to increases from
design excellence. LAHC wanted the percentages removed in their submission but
they have been retained.

Change in Tower Foot prints and overshadowing

The footprints of the three taller buildings along McEvoy
Street have been enlarged and moved.

  • This has been done to allow additional
    flexibility in the design and placement of these buildings, noting they will be
    subject to design competitions requiring five entries.
  • For the taller buildings at the corners of
    George/McEvoy Streets and Pitt/McEvoy Streets, the footprints have been
    extended to the north. This ensures overshadowing impacts on residential
    apartments on the south side of McEvoy Street are minimised.
  • The footprint of the taller building at the
    corner of Cope/McEvoy Streets has been extended to the north and slightly to
    the east. To ensure overshadowing impacts on the southern pocket park are
    minimised, an additional provision has been included in the design guide to
    ensure that at least 50% of the park area receives a minimum of 4 hours
    sunlight at the winter solstice between 9am and 3pm.
  • The amended footprints are as below.
    • From 733sqm to 913sqm (25% increase) at corner
      of Cope and McEvoy Streets
    • From 724sqm to 844sqm (16% increase) at corner
      of George and McEvoy Streets
    • From 702sqm to 878sqm (25% increase) at corner
      of Pitt and McEvoy Streets
    • No changes to footprint at corner of Kellick and
      Gibson Streets

According to the Overshadowing analysis the increase in
Footprint at Cope and McEvoy decreases solar access on the small park. The
exhibited proposal provided 56.% of the park received four hours of sun between
0am and 3pm mid-winter, while the new footprint reduces this to 50.25%.

Some minor amendments to Height of Building (HOB) maps were
required and the heritage item at 225-227 Cope Street has been mapped with a 9m
maximum.

Floor Space Ratio (FSR) changes primarily for
private sites

FSRs for private sites have been mapped as proposed in
Council’s original proposal with the exception of 233 Cope Street and 110
Wellington Street where the additional 0.25:1 Basics stretch  have now been included.

Amendments have been made to adjust the proportions of total
floor area that will be subject to a higher percentage contribution on Private
sites and these will be handled through a new schedule to the Sydney LEP.

FSRs for all heritage items have been mapped as proposed in
Council’s original proposal.

FSR maps have been amended to exclude land for road
widenings (i.e. maps are consistent with future road alignments) but including
landscape and other setbacks to ensure consistency between FSR and HOB maps.

The planning proposal as submitted does not include any land
reserved for acquisition, and the land reservation acquisition map that was
exhibited has been removed.

The Design Guide to now to provide “detailed
flexible provisions”

In response to LAHC’s submission where it raised concerns
that design guide controls will be elevated to development standards when the
design guide is given effect through the proposed site-specific clause, which
DPE says was not its intent, the design guide has now been prepared to provide
a hierarchy of objectives, design guidance and other provisions to guide future
development in the area.

DPE say the change is to allow a degree of flexibility and
allow for appropriate merit-based assessment to ensure applications demonstrate
satisfaction of objectives. REDWatch has not tried to assess the increased
flexibility changes in the design guide or their implications.

Other Design Guide changes

  • In response to Council’s submission, reference
    to Council’s Alternative natural ventilation of apartments in noise
    environments performance pathway has been added
  • Minor rewording in Design excellence guidelines
    following consultation with Government Architect NSW to ensure design
    excellence processes are referenced correctly. The design excellence procedure
    remains and does not appear to have been changed as requested by LAHC.
  • Minor rewording in Design excellence guidelines
    following consultation with Government Architect NSW to ensure design
    excellence processes are referenced correctly. The design excellence procedure
    remains and does not appear to have been changed as requested by LAHC
  • Amendments have been made to align with recent
    changes in NSW planning instruments,
  • General wording has been amended to make the
    document clearer, and minor errors have been corrected.

If you notice anything we have missed or you think is
important to add then please contact REDWatch by email on mail@redwatch.org.au

Brief Comments on the Studies

Submissions report

A submissions report has been prepared by Keylan Consulting
for DPE to address and analyse all submissions and feedback received during
public exhibition. Regrettably the report is very general and breaks all
submissions comments down to general key issues and some sub issues which it
then mostly dismisses as adequately addressed in the proposal. Key areas raised
by Government or Council submissions, that lead to changes in the proposal are
not noted or covered in the report.

People who made submissions may want to see if their
concerns made it into the issues and sub-issues and how they were responded to.

Like REDWatch, some NGOs, Council and lots of individual submissions,
you may have raised the need for a Social Impact Assessment. You will not find
it acknowledged in the report nor how it fits within the reports key themes
approach.

Presumably this fits in the conclusion catchall in the
report that says: Consideration of other
issues raised in the submissions are deemed to be adequately addressed or
alternatively warrant further consideration as part of any future Development
Application for development on the site.

Crime Prevention through Environmental Design
(CPTED) report

In direct response to public comments and submissions where
concerns around safety and security were raised, DPE engaged Mecone to prepare
a CPTED report. This report assesses the built form and layout proposed in the
planning proposal, including through-site-links, parks and other public spaces.  The report makes recommendations as to what
measures need to be considered to make the area, including cross block connections
safe and to allow active surveillance.

Addendum updated transport assessment

We have dealt with this earlier but for completeness will
repeat the summary here.

In direct response to public submissions where concerns were
raised around the proposed opening of the Pitt Street extension to McEvoy
Street, DPE re-engaged Bitzios Consulting to prepare an addendum updated
transport assessment. This assessment investigated the impacts that would
likely result on the traffic network within the precinct if the proposed Pitt
Street extension did not allow vehicular movements on to or from McEvoy Street.

The work found that alternative access and egress routes are
available and not opening Pitt Street would be appropriate. This change was
supported by Transport for NSW. It is now proposed that Pitt Street will be
extended to the south, but it will not allow vehicular movements on to or from
McEvoy Street.

Urban design review and overshadowing analysis

To facilitate amendments, Hassell were re-engaged to update
their urban design review with any changes, including Pitt Street no longer
allowing vehicular movements to McEvoy Street and enlarging of tower
footprints.

Following feedback during public exhibition, Hassell were
also engaged to prepare an overshadowing analysis. This analysis has been
prepared to consolidate overshadowing drawings and analyse the shadows cast on
Waterloo Park, the southern pocket park, and Our Lady of Mount Carmel.

Waterloo South – North Eveleigh Comparison

For those with an interest in both planning proposals, it is
worthwhile noting that the proposals take a very different approach to
rezoning. In Waterloo South the floor space ratio is set for each development block
in the Sydney Local Environment Plan (LEP). In South Eveleigh a floor space is
set in the LEP equally across the site, meaning that areas set down to be roads
and public spaces all have an FSR of 2.78:1. The North Eveleigh Planning
proposal allocates this space in the lesser design guide administered by DPE,
meaning there is much less certainty and changes to where FSR is allocated does
not need to amend the LEP planning controls.

In Waterloo South, the land use zoning is more nuanced that
in North Eveleigh with the site broken up into three use zones where in North Eveleigh
other than a little railway use near Redfern Station the whole area, including
public space is zoned B4 mixed use. In Waterloo South there is a RE1 – Public Recreation
Zoning and B2 Local Centre Zoning with the predominantly residential areas and
the small park zoned as B4 mixed use. In Waterloo Council hailed to Public
Recreation Zoning for the park as a major win in ensuring that the space would
be guaranteed as public space into the future as opposed to the current
situation on Waterloo Green where the space could be used for redevelopment in
the future.

It is likely that North Eveleigh will follow the South
Eveleigh model where public spaces are controlled by the developer for the
first 25 years before eventually going to Council. In the case of South
Eveleigh REDWatch was successful in getting positive covenants and easements
put in place to ensure public access to public space and facilities, heritage
and access through the site.

If you notice anything we have missed or you think is
important to add then please contact REDWatch by email on mail@redwatch.org.au