[North Eveleigh] No April REDWatch / Waterloo – Demolitions, New Relocations & Metro RtS / Eveleigh Bridge Questions

Tue Mar 31 16:09:15 AEDT 2026

Dear REDWatch members, supporters and agencies,

No April 2 REDWatch meeting next meeting on May 7

Waterloo Demolition Approved for 247-251 Cope St & 339-341 George St, Waterloo

What is expected to happen in Waterloo South this Year

Waterloo South Phase 2 Relocation notices issued.

Waterloo Metro Over Station Development Response to Submissions

REDWatch Metro Quarter Community Facilities concerns

REDWatch Metro Quarter Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Concerns

Community Expertise needed on Eveleigh Bridge Issues

Nominations for the 2026 Counterpoint Community Service Awards!
Please note – this email contains hyperlinks. This means that if you see a blue underlined word or phrase that you can click on it and go directly to a document or to get more information.
No April 2 REDWatch meeting next meeting on May 7
As the next REDWatch meeting is on Maundy Thursday at the beginning of the Easter long weekend, REDWatch has decided not to hold its monthly meeting on this night.
Before our May 7 meeting Stockland expect that its Waterloo South Concept Plan and rezoning will be on public exhibition. As a consequence, REDWatch’s May meeting will likely focus on the exhibited Concept Plan and its Social Impact Assessment.
Waterloo Demolition Approved for 247-251 Cope St & 339-341 George St, Waterloo
Homes NSW has advised in this notification letter<https://www.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/noindex/2026-03/waterloo-renewal-project-resident-letter.pdf> to tenants and surrounding neighbours that the proposed demolition works, along with associated site works including the removal of trees in Waterloo South Stage 1, have been approved. The main document is the Review of Environmental Factors<https://apps.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/DocMgmt/v1/PublicDocuments/DATA-WORKATTACH-FILE%20PEC-DPE-EP-WORK%20P5-2025-391!20260302T021205.453%20GMT>, which provides an overview and addresses the specific concerns raised in submissions.
The full set of documents including a Traffic Report, a Waste Management Plan, an Arborist Report, a Biodiversity Assessment Report, an Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System and other reports can be found on the NSW Planning portal here<https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/part-5/demolition-247-251-cope-st-339-341-george-st-waterloo>.
The demolition work of all buildings listed above is expected to begin around mid-2026 as part of a staged demolition program over 6-9 months. One building at 29 John Street is currently being used as part of a short-term rental program until approximately mid-2027.
What is expected to happen in Waterloo South this Year
This Stockland Waterloo Renewal Briefing Feb 2026<http://www.redwatch.org.au/RWA/Waterloo/stage1/260219stk/view> provides an overview of some of the key things Stockland heard during its pre-lodgement consultation on the Concept Plan that will inform its exhibited proposal in the coming month. The presentation also provides an excellent foreshadowing of what is expected to happen regarding planning for the redevelopment for the remainder of 2026.
The presentation was originally shared separately with service providers in February and public housing tenants as part of the Waterloo Redevelopment Group in February and March 2026.
In an ideal world such presentations should be made publicly available to everybody on the www.waterloorenewal.com.au<http://www.waterloorenewal.com.au> website rather than needing REDWatch to make such basic information more widely available.
Waterloo South Phase 2 Relocation notices issued.
In late March Homes NSW issued relocation notices to the next batch of tenants to be relocated from Waterloo South. You can see the relocation notice for those tenants on the Homes NSW Waterloo South website as Waterloo relocations factsheet (for tenants who are relocating) (PDF 378.22KB)<https://www.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/noindex/2026-03/waterloo-relocation-fact-sheet-march-2026.pdf>. The notices give six months’ notice that the tenants will be relocated.
Homes NSW are using the term “Phase” in relation to relocations to distinguish the relocation steps / areas from the building redevelopment, which are being referred to as “Stages”.
Phase 2 relocations cover both tenants in a building on John Street, as well as tenants opposite the Waterloo Metro, on half of what will become the new park.  The Phase 2 relocation areas are shown in pink on this Waterloo south relocations map (PDF 513.8KB)<https://www.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/noindex/2026-03/waterloo-staging-map-march-2026.pdf> and covers

  *   the two buildings on the corner of Cope Street and John Street (241 Cope Street and 6 John Street). The John Street site houses 18 units and is planned to become new social housing and as it adjoins the stage 1 redevelopment area is understandable. The only other public housing in this block is not covered and this area with 10 units is planned to deliver more community centre space for the City of Sydney, which does not need to be delivered immediately.
  *   the area bounded by Cope Street, Wellington Street, Cooper Street and Raglan Street. REDWatch understands that the big park needs to be delivered by halfway through the Waterloo South development and that Stockland has had to provide two years notice to Council, so Council can plan for this park. Hence it is not clear why it is necessary to relocate people living in these 99 tenancies at this time. Homes NSW has provided no explanation for its choice of this area.
Unlike Phase 1 relocations, where there was the option of new properties for tenants wanting to stay in Waterloo, this phase does not have readily available new properties to allocate to those who wish to remain in the area. Tenants wanting to remain in the area will replace priority allocations into properties that become available many of which are expected to be existing properties that will not be as desirable as those offered to tenants in phase 1.
As a result, it is expected that there are likely to be more relocation impacts on tenants than in phase one. Homes NSW has cut independent support after phase 1 as they say it was little used. Tenant representatives on the Waterloo Redevelopment Group have written to Minister Rose Jackson regarding Maintaining funding for independent relocation advocacy for tenants in the Waterloo Redevelopment Area<http://www.redwatch.org.au/RWA/Waterloo/stage1/260313wrgt/view>.
While both Homes NSW and agencies say that phase one relocations seem to have gone smoothly, there is concern that there is no independent assessment of the relocation impact with Homes NSW managing messaging between services and the relocation teams and impacted tenants.
Waterloo Metro Over Station Development Response to Submissions
The developer for the Waterloo Metro Quarter has provided Planning NSW with its Response to Submissions (RtS) for the four proposals on exhibition. The Department of Planning is now assessing the projects and the RtS. You will find these responses on the Response to Submissions tab on the Planning NSW Major Projects website for the following applications:

  *   Waterloo Metro Quarter - Second Amending Concept<https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/major-projects/projects/waterloo-metro-quarter-second-amending-concept>
  *    Waterloo Metro Quarter - Central Precinct<https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/major-projects/projects/waterloo-metro-quarter-central-precinct>
  *    Waterloo Metro Quarter - Northern Precinct<https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/major-projects/projects/waterloo-metro-quarter-northern-precinct>
  *    Waterloo Basement - Modification 3 for internal layout changes<https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/major-projects/projects/waterloo-basement-modification-3-internal-layout-changes>
Specific issues raised just for one building will be in the responses for that building while general concerns about the amended concept will be in that response. There is a lot of duplication of responses (with an occasional small difference) across the four responses.
REDWatch Metro Quarter Community Facilities concerns
REDWatch raised significant concerns about the proposal to cut nearly 1000 sqm of Community Facilities space as shown in table 9 “Summary of concept Application of the exhibited EIS”<https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1292566486233543&set=pb.100064406121052.-2207520000>. This table in the exhibited documents showed the approved community space was 3,274 sqm and the community floorspace in the exhibited amendment was only to be 2,330 sqm.
The response to Submissions does not acknowledge this reduction describing it as a “perceived loss” without explanation. In fact, the response seems to reduce the square metres of community facilities by a further 79sqm as it says there will now be 2,251 sqm of community space [RtS Concept p19]. There is no new comparison table to show how the floor space is being distributed.
Some of the complexity in the proposal is in the language, as childcare facilities can be classed as community facilities. The Concept RtS says that “Post approval of the Central Precinct SSD, the childcare centre will be registered on title as a community facility and managed by a not-for-profit entity. [p19]”. So, when the Response to submissions referrers to community facilities it is not clear if it is talking about the childcare centre or something else.
The only indication that something other than a childcare centre might exist are a couple of references that say:

  *   “In addition to the childcare centre, WL Developer Pty Ltd also proposes additional areas to be used as community facilities (subject to future tenant) within the Southern and Central Precincts”. [Concept RtS p19]
  *   “To enhance the expected positive impacts: Provide essential community facilities, such as a childcare centre and a community hub. Integrating communal spaces within the development would address the limited access to space in Waterloo and support local services” [Concept Mitigation Measures p 3 Social Impact].
So the bottom line is there are no new figures for community facilities usage. So maybe the community is losing that 1,000sqm and the developer is playing with “community facility” words or maybe the earlier EIS figures might be wrong and it is a perceived loss. If it is not a loss then it might be delivered or not “subject to a future tenant” or if not already being part of the already built Southern Precinct. Who knows? Not anyone reading the Response to Submissions for sure! Hopefully the Department, in assessing the project, cares enough to get to the bottom of it to make sure the community does not lose community facility’s floor space.
REDWatch Metro Quarter Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Concerns
REDWatch remains concerned about the adequacy of the SIA and the Response to Submissions (RtS) does not answer the objections raised by REDWatch. The RtS argues it needed to look broadly at the project and hence investigated a wide “social locality” to fit the scale of the project. The RtS also argued that by choosing the wider “social locality” highlighted the “disadvantage across the local area”.
REDWatch did not dispute the need to look at this wider area or that it highlighted disadvantage across that area. The REDWatch concern was that under the guidelines where a community within that “social locality” is identified that might be differentially impacted by the development then the SIA also has to investigate how that marginalised community might be impacted and not just assess the impact on the wider “social locality”. The SIA did not assess the impact on the public housing community. This is especially important given the history of interactions between parts of the public housing community and earlier development stages on this site.
The RtS states that “The SIA was prepared in accordance with the DPHI requirements as outlined in the Social Impact Assessment Guideline (2025) and applied a transparent and robust methodology consistent with current industry best practice”. Asserting this does not make it so.
REDWatch also finds the Response to Submissions does not assess the errors within the original SIA in regards to availability of surrounding childcare facilities used to justify childcare as the only community facility use. It appears that a proponent can mis-represent the availability of surrounding childcare services and still claim the “suitability of a childcare centre on the site has been assessed using relevant and current evidence” [Concept RtS p22].
Now that REDWatch has seen the response to our concerns we will ask the Department to undertake a Peer Review of the original SIA and the RTS on the SIA issues to determine if they meet the Department’s Guidelines for SIAs. The Department is trying to improve the quality of Social Impact Assessments with new guidelines last year and this SIA seems to be a good candidate for a peer review to assess its adequacy.
Community Expertise needed on Eveleigh Bridge Issues
The Eveleigh Bridge Alliance is still looking for community expertise on the Transport for NSW (TfNSW) GIPA documents covering work on a proposed Carriageworks to South Eveleigh pedestrian and cycle bridge. Following is some of the questions we are exploring where there may be community expertise to assist.
Bridge Height – The TfNSW preferred plan<http://www.redwatch.org.au/RWA/statesignificant/northeveleigh/bridge/260301gipatfnswpref> has the height over the tracks as being 8 metres. We understand that the bridge could be as low as 6.5m without wiring or 5.9m with wiring – as for the Redfern Station Southern Concourse. Does anyone know what needs to happen to get the bridge lower? Is the extra height needed because of the preferred construction method? (Also see Redfern North Eveleigh Bridge Feasibility Studies ARUP (2022-3)<http://www.redwatch.org.au/RWA/statesignificant/northeveleigh/bridge/260301gipaarup/view> which uses 9m and 10m track clearance).
South Eveleigh Ramping – The TfNSW preferred plan<http://www.redwatch.org.au/RWA/statesignificant/northeveleigh/bridge/260301gipatfnswpref> at 8m says ramping is possible for Wilson Street but that the bridge is too high for ramping at South Eveleigh and needs to be serviced by lifts and escalators. Does a lower permitted height make bicycle ramping possible towards Alexander Street so cyclists can ride from Henderson Road to Wilson Street? (Also see Redfern North Eveleigh Bridge Feasibility Studies ARUP (2022-3)<http://www.redwatch.org.au/RWA/statesignificant/northeveleigh/bridge/260301gipaarup/view> which used higher track clearance in its ramping assessments).
Catchment Analysis - The Bridge Catchment Analysis v 5.0 July 2023 (GIPA)<http://www.redwatch.org.au/RWA/statesignificant/northeveleigh/bridge/260301gipacatchment/view> has been used as a basis for the likely bridge usage and productivity gains which TfNSW has argued are not sufficient to justify the cost of the bridge. The basis for the figures in this report is not self-explanatory. For example summary figures change across versions 1, 3 and 5 of this report without explanation and version 5 includes a retail sensitivity analysis for the bridge in a different location. It has been suggested to us that a range of potential movements across the bridge have not been captured. In a cost benefit analysis, it is important that the benefit be properly captured. Are you able to explain this report and or recognise movement that might not be covered? [Versions 1 and 3 of the SCT Consulting Report can be found in the full TfNSW Eveleigh Pedestrian Bridge Studies - GIPA release Feb 2026<http://www.redwatch.org.au/RWA/statesignificant/northeveleigh/bridge/260211tfnswgipa/view>]
Heritage Impact – the Pedestrian Bridge Heritage Assessment August 2023 (GIPA)<http://www.redwatch.org.au/RWA/statesignificant/northeveleigh/bridge/260301gipaheritage/view> raises concerns about the potential Heritage impact of a bridge especially on the interpretation of Traverser 1 which currently sits rotting between Carriageworks and The Paint Shop. This is an important connecting part of heritage interpretation that is impacted by TfNSW’s preferred location and build. How can the traverser be retained and add to the site’s heritage interpretation given TfNSW’s preferred build? How can a bridge add to appreciation of the former Eveleigh Railway Workshops and how can the impact of the bridge on existing built heritage be minimised?
Project Costs – TfNSW did not release its cost estimates for the bridge, which makes a community cost benefit analysis difficult, especially when we are told that TfNSW significantly over-engineer and over-cost projects. TfNSW’s preferred build method proposes two temporary bridge supports for the build, which given railway line possessions to build, would increase the time to build above ARUP’s estimates of about 4 years. Does anyone have any expertise on a construction like this and its likely costing?
This is the link to the full TfNSW Optioneering Report for Eveleigh Bridge June 2026 (GIPA)<http://www.redwatch.org.au/RWA/statesignificant/northeveleigh/bridge/260301gipatfnswoptions/view> from which we have extracted the preferred plan above. The ARUP studies also assess possible bridge and tunnel alternatives.
If you have any insights / expertise on any of these questions then please let us know by an email to  info at eveleighbridgealliance.org.au<mailto:info at eveleighbridgealliance.org.au>
Nominations for the 2026 Counterpoint Community Service Awards!
Do you know someone who goes above and beyond for their community? A volunteer whose passion, dedication, and impact deserve to be recognised? Now is the perfect time to nominate them. Now id the time to nominate then for an award. This year’s national theme is: “Your Year To Volunteer.”
Nomination Criteria - Nominees do not have to be a resident of the Inner City but should meet at least one of the following criteria:

  1.  They are an unpaid volunteer or group of volunteers whose contributions provide extraordinary services, projects, assistance, or care which benefits to families, individuals or groups within the Inner-City areas.
  2.  They continually commit their time, talent, and energy, without pay, to improve the quality of life in the community.
  3.  They have been voluntarily involved in a program or project that has had a lasting benefit for the Inner-City communities and its residents.
Please return your nomination forms and photos by Monday, 20th April, or sooner if you can to info at counterpointcs.org.au or contact Counterpoint for more details.
Regards,

Geoff
Geoffrey Turnbull
REDWatch Spokesperson
Ph Wk: (02) 8004 1490  Mob: 0418 457 392
email: spokesperson at redwatch.org.au<mailto:spokesperson at redwatch.org.au>
web: www.redwatch.org.au<http://www.redwatch.org.au/>
FB: www.facebook.com/RedfernEveleighDarlingtonWaterlooWatch/<http://www.facebook.com/RedfernEveleighDarlingtonWaterlooWatch/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.redwatch.org.au/pipermail/northeveleigh/attachments/20260331/f17da6b0/attachment-0001.html>