Mixed Use Development - 903-921 Bourke St Waterloo

I live on Morehead Street, about 280 metres from the former Sydney Water site on Bourke Street. I bought my home here to put down roots: to be close to family, to raise my child in a neighbourhood with footpaths, parks, and a real community, and to grow old here. I am writing because this proposal, as submitted, will make that harder for people like me and significantly harder for people more vulnerable than me.

My concern is not that this site should have less housing. It is that this neighbourhood needs housing that lets people age in place rather than being pushed out when their circumstances change. Housing close enough to schools and family that grandparents can do the school run and adult children can check in on parents. Housing that a nurse, a teacher, or a childcare worker can actually afford. What is proposed here is 580 apartments starting at $985,000 for a one bedroom. That is not housing for the people who need it most.

My objections cover three areas: gaps in the evidence base that should pause this application; community protections being removed without binding replacement; and an affordable housing offer that, on close reading of the applicant’s own documents, may produce no affordable dwellings at all.


The evidence base

The contamination assessment is incomplete

Two new basements are proposed that were not part of the original approved consent D/2021/1415. The Young Street North basement sits in the northern part of the site where the applicant’s own contamination consultant identified historical soil vapour contamination from the former Lawrence Dry Cleaners. The Bourke Street South basement has not been fully assessed.

The contamination cover letter (EI Australia, Appendix 13 of the EIS) states:

“While the finished floor level of the basement (BSS) in the south-eastern portion of the site is not available at the time of writing this letter… the potential of vapour intrusion risk into the proposed basement is considered unlikely.”*

I ask the Department to require finalised floor levels and full vapour intrusion modelling for both new basements before any consent is granted.

The wind assessment relies on an unapproved development

The wind report (Mel Consultants, Appendix 33) concludes that pedestrian safety standards are met, relying in part on wind shielding from the Coronation development at 881-885 Bourke Street. That project is currently under exhibition as an SSD and has not been approved. If Coronation is not built, or is built differently, this wind assessment is unreliable.

I ask the Department to require a revised wind assessment based only on approved developments.



Two community protections are being removed with nothing binding offered in return

When this site was originally rezoned and approved through the City of Sydney, two obligations applied. The first required a competitive design process, run twice for this site, providing independent scrutiny of design quality. The second required community infrastructure contributions for Green Square, recognising that a growing population needs schools, childcare, libraries, and open space.

This application seeks exemption from both.

The revised proposal is nearly double the approved height with no independent design review. At 126 metres on a heritage-sensitive site, self-assessment of design excellence by the developer’s own consultants is not sufficient.

The applicant’s own Social Impact Assessment (Sarah George Consulting, Appendix 17) acknowledges that Waterloo is already experiencing cumulative pressure on childcare, schools, recreation space, and aged care. The same application then seeks exemption from the levy that exists to fund those things.

On the Voluntary Planning Agreement: the VPA was negotiated for a development of 347-376 apartments. The same plaza, footpath widenings, and heritage square are now presented as community return for 580 apartments. The public receives identical infrastructure while the development grows 55% larger.

I ask the Department to refuse the exclusion of Clause 6.21D and Clause 6.14, and to require the VPA to be renegotiated to reflect the actual scale of what is proposed.


The affordable housing offer may produce no affordable dwellings

The planning statement (Sutherland & Associates, March 2026) presents a 12% affordable housing contribution on the uplift floor space as a significant community benefit. The same document states:

*“The City of Sydney Affordable Housing Program is an internal Council policy and the subject application is not bound by this Council policy.”*

The 12% figure comes from a policy this application is explicitly not bound by. Voluntary commitments in planning statements do not bind developers once consent is granted unless secured through a condition or Voluntary Planning Agreement. No binding VPA is proposed for the affordable housing component.

Both the mandatory 3% baseline under Clause 7.13 and the proposed 12% uplift contribution can be discharged through “an equivalent financial contribution” rather than actual dwellings. The entire affordable housing offer can be paid as cash, with no affordable dwelling built on this site.

This neighbourhood needs the family that can no longer afford the rent to stay near their children’s school. It needs the older resident who has lived here for thirty years to have somewhere to go when their circumstances change. It needs the community worker, the paramedic, the cleaner, to live within reach of the place they work.

I ask the Department to require affordable housing to be delivered as actual dwellings on this site, managed in perpetuity by a registered community housing provider, secured through a binding VPA that cannot be substituted with a financial contribution.

Cumulative transport has not been assessed

The EIS claims the proposal generates fewer vehicle trips than the approved DA by capping car parking at 376 spaces for 580 apartments. The transport burden is transferred to public transport, which is not assessed. The Coronation project, the Barings development on O’Dea Avenue, and the Waterloo Metro Quarter are each assessed individually as having negligible impact. Cumulatively, they do not.

I ask the Department to require a cumulative transport assessment covering all concurrent developments in the precinct before consent is granted.

Summary of requests

I ask the Department to:

- Require completed contamination assessments for both new basements, with finalised floor levels and vapour intrusion modelling, before consent is granted
- Require a revised wind assessment that does not rely on unapproved neighbouring development
- Refuse the exclusion of Clause 6.21D or require an independent design review
- Refuse the exclusion of Clause 6.14 or secure an equivalent contribution through a binding VPA
- Require the VPA to be renegotiated to reflect the 55% increase in apartment yield
- Require affordable housing as actual on-site dwellings, managed in perpetuity by a community housing provider, secured through a binding VPA, not dischargeable as a financial contribution
- Require a cumulative transport assessment across all concurrent developments in the precinct
- Direct that a public hearing be held

What happens on this site will shape what Waterloo becomes: whether it remains a place where people of different ages and incomes can stay and belong, or whether it becomes somewhere that only certain people can afford to enter. I am asking the Department to weigh that carefully.

I am writing to firmly oppose the amended development. I live near the site, and I invested in this neighbourhood to build a stable, long‑term home for my family. This proposal, as it stands, undermines the liveability and sustainability of the area for current and future residents.
My objection is not to additional housing — it is to the wrong kind of housing. What is being proposed is 580 high‑priced apartments starting at nearly $1 million for a one‑bedroom unit. That does nothing for families, essential workers, or long‑term residents who need housing they can actually remain in as their circumstances change. This is density without community benefit.
My concerns fall into four key areas:
1. Critical evidence gaps
The contamination assessment is incomplete. Two new basements are proposed in areas with known vapour risks, yet final floor levels and full modelling are missing. Approving a project of this scale without complete contamination data is irresponsible.
The wind assessment relies on shielding from a neighbouring development that is not approved. If that project does not proceed, the modelling collapses. A revised assessment based only on approved developments is required.
2. Removal of community protections
The proposal seeks to bypass both the competitive design process and the community infrastructure levy — obligations that existed for good reason. The building is now nearly double the approved height, yet the developer wants to self‑assess design excellence. That is unacceptable for a 126‑metre tower on a heritage‑sensitive site.
The VPA was negotiated for a much smaller development. The public is being offered the same infrastructure despite a 55% increase in apartments. That is not a fair or reasonable exchange.
3. Affordable housing that may deliver nothing
The so‑called 12% affordable housing contribution is not binding. The applicant openly states they are not subject to the policy from which that figure is drawn. Without a binding VPA, the entire contribution can be paid out as cash, resulting in zero affordable dwellings on site.
This community needs actual homes — not financial offsets — for families, older residents, and essential workers who keep this area functioning.
4. No cumulative transport assessment
The proposal shifts transport pressure onto public infrastructure without assessing the combined impact of multiple major developments in the precinct. This is a significant oversight and must be addressed before any approval is considered.
I ask the Department to:
Require complete contamination assessments and vapour modelling
Require a revised wind assessment based only on approved developments
Reject the removal of Clause 6.21D and require independent design review
Reject the removal of Clause 6.14 or secure an equivalent binding contribution
Renegotiate the VPA to reflect the increased yield
Require affordable housing as actual on‑site dwellings, secured in perpetuity
Require a cumulative transport assessment
Hold a public hearing
This decision will determine whether Waterloo remains a mixed, inclusive community or becomes a precinct only accessible to those who can afford premium apartments. I urge the Department to act in the long‑term interests of the neighbourhood.
Sincerely,
Sean Brown

To: NSW Department of Planning and Environment
Re: Submission of Objection – SSD-95997711 (903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo)
To the Planning Officer,
I am writing to formally lodge my strong objection to the proposed modifications for the residential development at 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SSD-95997711).
As a resident living directly across the road from this site, the proposed amendments represent a gross departure from the originally approved plans and will have a direct, detrimental impact on my daily life and the broader Waterloo community.
My objections are based on the following critical concerns:
1. Significant Loss of Solar Access
Living directly opposite the site, I am highly concerned by the proposal to increase the Bourke Street North building from 12 to 31 storeys, and the Young Street Tower from 21 to 38 storeys. This massive increase in height will result in severe overshadowing of my home and the surrounding public spaces. The cumulative effect of these towers, alongside the adjacent proposal at 881-885 Bourke Street, will drastically reduce natural light during the winter solstice, affecting both my well-being and the energy efficiency of my residence.
2. Traffic Congestion and Parking Shortfall
The proposal adds 233 additional apartments over the approved plan (a total of 580 units) yet provides only 20 extra parking spaces. The local streets, particularly the intersection of Bourke and McEvoy, are already heavily congested. Adding thousands of new residents without adequate parking or road infrastructure will create a permanent traffic gridlock, making it increasingly difficult for local residents to navigate the area or find parking for essential services.
3. Infrastructure and Amenity Strain
Our local services are already at a breaking point. I frequently observe the 304 bus and Green Square trains operating at full capacity, often passing by commuters because there is no room. Adding "a small country town's worth of residents" to this specific block without a proportional increase in public transport and amenities—such as library space and seating—is unsustainable and will significantly diminish the quality of life for current residents.
4. Overbearing Scale and Wind Impacts
The proposed height is visually overbearing and entirely out of character with the existing streetscape. Furthermore, the creation of 30+ storey "walls" along these corridors poses a high risk of severe wind tunnel effects. As a pedestrian who uses these footpaths daily, I am concerned that the street-level environment will become hostile and potentially unsafe due to these downdrafts.
Conclusion
While I support sensible, sustainable growth in Waterloo, this specific proposal is excessive. The leap from 12 storeys to 31 is not a minor modification; it is a complete reimagining of the site that ignores the local context and the constraints of our infrastructure.
I urge the Department to reject these amendments and hold the developer to the scale originally approved by the City of Sydney.
Sincerely, Grant

I object to this proposal on multiple grounds as a longstanding resident of Waterloo since 2012. The proposal seeks to drastically alter the original plans approved by the City of Sydney to increase 1 tower from 12 to 31 storeys and another from 21 to 38 storeys to add ~200 apartments with only 20 car spaces. This combined with other substantial developments puts additional strain on the densest suburb in the city which is already under pressure.
Infrastructure:
The extra residents will place unnacceptable pressure on local roads, parking and public transport, all of which are already stretched. the 304 and 343 are the only two bus routes within walking distance that go into the city. They are both full during peak periods and the services can't keep up. Green square station is already over capacity and with planned developments - will not be able to meet the forecasted demand. The Metro is too far for walking distance - there are hills to navigate and the 392 bus adds extra cost to a commute to the city (it's cheaper to take the 343 or 304 hence why both are over capacity). To begin considering this development, the state needs to commit to high density travel options such as dedicated metro lines, light rail and/or more efficient public transport to handle the strain of the planned developments in the area.

Amenities:
These are also already under pressure. Local doctors are limiting new patients, RPA (hospital) is stretched, green square public school is already over-subscribed and Alex Park High school is the same. The proposed school on Young st was declined - the state needs to seriously consider funding a dedicated high school for the increase in residents.

Liveability
The propose height changes are out of character with the existing neighbourhood and surroundings, undermining the current character of the area. The City of Sydney had rightly already approved a mix of low rise and medium rise in keeping with the current community - balancing housing needs and making the area a place where residents can have quality of living standards. Further, combined with the proposed 38 storey tower at the adjacent 881-885 Bourke street site - this development would create significant cumulative overshadowing that hasn't been modelled in the proposal. This would affect nearby homes and public open space that would be affected during the winter months, driving up heating costs for impacted residents. I firmly support developments that deliver quality, liveable housing - this change request is not in keeping with that and is not the solution to alleviate the housing shortage in Sydney - especially adding more density to the densest suburb in the city as it stands today.

This development modification request is an excessive, gross departure from the original plans approved by the City of Sydney. I implore the state to decline this amendment in the best interests of local residents who live in a suburb which has already done its fair share of the work to improve housing accessibility in NSW.

As the owner-occupier of a residential unit at 1 Danks Street, Waterloo, I strongly object to the amended Development Application for 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.
Our understanding as residents of 1 Danks Street has always been that this area is governed by a planning framework intended to limit building heights adjacent to low-rise residential properties and maintain the character of this long-established community.
The already approved scheme for 903–921 Bourke Street already sits well above our three-storey building. The current proposal to further increase building heights is therefore deeply alarming. The revised application proposes extreme height increases, most notably the Young Street tower, which is proposed to rise from 21 storeys to 38 storeys. This is almost double the approved height. This scale is unprecedented in the immediate locality and it is almost impossible to reconcile with the Design Report’s claims that the development responds to local character.
At a previous community information session, the developer Dasco presented the proposed increase in scale and sought community feedback. The feedback at that time was overwhelmingly negative. Despite this, the current submission appears to retain the same height outcomes with no meaningful response to community concerns. The consultation process gives the impression of being a procedural ‘box-ticking’ exercise rather than genuine community engagement, with little evidence that local input has had any influence on the outcome.
My primary concern is the impact of the proposed scale on existing residential amenity. Concentrating the tallest built form toward the centre of the site is presented as a design response, however it results in significant bulk being positioned closer to the low-rise dwellings along Danks Street. The so-called “Danks Street District” branding appears to appropriate our street name for development marketing purposes while simultaneously overwhelming the existing small-scale residential context.
Privacy impacts are a major issue. A 38-storey tower in close proximity to low-rise housing will result in direct overlooking and ongoing visual intrusion. This will materially reduce residential privacy and significantly alter day-to-day living conditions. There will also be substantial loss of daylight and increased overshadowing, with corresponding impacts on the liveability of existing dwellings.
The application also suggests that increased height is justified by a separate and currently unapproved development lodged by Coronation Property for the neighbouring 881–885 Bourke Street site. It is not appropriate to rely on a proposed neighbouring development to justify additional height in this application, particularly where that proposal has not yet been determined and has itself attracted significant community concern.
Overall, the proposed scale places disproportionate built form on the edge of a low-rise residential precinct. It does not provide a meaningful transition to surrounding homes and instead intensifies height and density at the interface with established residential buildings. This will increase pressure on local amenity, including privacy, sunlight access, outlook and streetscape character.
In summary, the proposal significantly increases the burden on a residential area that was intended to be protected by a considered planning framework. The impacts on privacy, overshadowing, noise and overall liveability are substantial and, in my view, unacceptable in the context of the existing built environment at Danks Street.

As a resident and owner at 1 Danks Street, Waterloo, I wish to register a clear objection to the revised Development Application for 903–921 Bourke Street.
From the outset, those of us living at 1 Danks Street have understood that local planning controls were established to protect the scale and character of this area—particularly by preventing excessive building heights where new developments meet low-rise housing. That principle appears to be eroding.
Even in its approved form, the Bourke Street development already rises significantly above our three-storey building. The newly submitted amendments push this disparity much further. The most concerning change is the proposed increase of the Young Street tower from 21 to 38 storeys—an escalation that nearly doubles its height. Such a dramatic shift feels entirely out of step with the surrounding neighbourhood and sits uneasily alongside claims in the Design Report that the project is sensitive to its context.
It is also difficult to reconcile the current proposal with the feedback process that preceded it. At an earlier community consultation hosted by Dasco, residents expressed strong opposition to the increased scale. Despite this, the revised plans show little evidence that these concerns have shaped the outcome. The consultation appears to have functioned more as a formality than a genuine attempt to engage with or respond to the community.
Of particular concern is how the expanded bulk of the development is arranged. While the design rationale suggests concentrating height toward the centre of the site, in practice this shifts substantial mass closer to the lower-scale homes along Danks Street. The use of the term “Danks Street District” in project branding only heightens this tension—borrowing the identity of the street while introducing a development that fundamentally alters its character.
The implications for residents are significant. A tower of this height, positioned nearby, will lead to pronounced overlooking and a loss of privacy. Daily living conditions will be affected by increased visual intrusion, reduced access to natural light, and greater overshadowing. These are not minor changes but meaningful degradations to residential amenity.
Additionally, the justification for increased height appears to lean on a separate proposal by Coronation Property for 881–885 Bourke Street—a development that remains unapproved and is itself contentious. It is inappropriate to use an unresolved neighbouring application as a basis for intensifying this project.
Taken as a whole, the proposal introduces an excessive scale of development at the boundary of a low-rise residential area. Rather than stepping down to meet its context, it amplifies height and density at precisely the point where sensitivity is most needed. This places undue strain on key aspects of local amenity, including privacy, sunlight, outlook, and the established streetscape.
In essence, these changes undermine the intent of the planning controls that were meant to safeguard this community. The cumulative impacts—on light, privacy, noise, and overall quality of life—are considerable, and in this setting, they are simply not acceptable.

Summary of Objection
I vehemently object to the proposed increase in building heights at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo, for an additional 250 dwellings (from 367 to 617). The proposal to increase one building from 12 to 30 storeys and another from 21 to 37 storeys is excessive and inconsistent with the adopted LEP height limit of approximately 71.5 m. This scale of development will exacerbate existing wind tunnel effects, significantly increase traffic congestion at known pinch points, and further strain local infrastructure and public roads already affected by construction. Combined with other high-density developments in adjoining blocks, the proposal represents unsustainable overdevelopment in the precinct and is contrary to the strategic planning intent for Waterloo and Green Square.
________________________________________
As a long-term resident of the Waterloo precinct since 2007, I write to strongly object to the proposed increase in building heights at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo, specifically the proposed increase from 12 to 30 storeys on Bourke Street and from 21 to 37 storeys for Young Street.
The scale of these proposed increases represents a staggering departure from the established planning framework applying to the site. Under the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 (as amended), the mapped maximum height for the tallest portion of the site is approximately 71.5 metres. A 30-storey building is likely to reach approximately 90–100 metres, and a 37-storey building approximately 110–120 metres, depending on floor-to-floor heights. This would constitute an exceedance of approximately 20–40 metres above the adopted planning control.
The existing height controls were the product of a strategic planning process that balanced density, infrastructure capacity, heritage considerations, public domain outcomes and amenity impacts. A proposal of this magnitude fundamentally alters that planning balance and cannot reasonably be characterised as a minor or technical variation. It represents a wholesale change in scale and urban form out of proportion to the size of the lot in comparison to developments as close as the Green Square precinct.
Wind Impacts and Pedestrian Amenity
There are already severe wind tunnel effects in the surrounding area, particularly around the Meriton and Divercity complex directly across 903-921 Bourke Street (particularly the corner of Bourke and Potter Street), which consists of substantially smaller towers than those now proposed. Pedestrian comfort in parts of Bourke Street and surrounding streets is already compromised during periods of strong wind. The common areas located at the top of the neighbouring buildings, as well as balconies on higher floors, are already compromised by the strong wind and can be unsafe during these periods. Increasing building heights to 30 and 37 storeys is likely to materially intensify downdraft and ground-level wind acceleration effects to the point of compromising safety. The cumulative wind impacts of taller buildings in this location require careful assessment, particularly given the established pedestrian activity along Bourke Street and connections to Green Square.
Traffic and Transport Constraints
The surrounding road network already experiences significant congestion and pressure. Known pinch points include:
• The intersection of Bourke Street and McEvoy Street (continuing from Lachlan Street)
• Lachlan Street approaching the Eastern Distributor
• The intersection of McEvoy Street and Elizabeth Street
• Bourke Street and Phillip Street
• McEvoy and Elizabeth Street
These locations experience peak-hour queuing, merging delays and constrained turning movements. A substantial increase in dwelling numbers associated with 30- and 37-storey towers will add to traffic generation and service vehicle movements in an already stressed network. The newly built apartments on 890 Bourke Street and the planned apartments for 935 Bourke Street, will further worsen traffic congestion.
Additionally, ongoing construction on Bourke Street has already caused visible road damage immediately in front of 903 Bourke Street. Further intensification at this scale is likely to exacerbate these impacts, particularly during construction phases. Access to public transport during peak times is already difficult and would be further compromised by the proposed increase.
Cumulative Impact of Adjoining Developments
It is also important to note that there are current or proposed plans for adjoining blocks and estates in the Waterloo South and Green Square precinct, some of which also involve additional towers and high-density residential developments. Any approval for this complex must be considered in the context of the cumulative demand on road infrastructure, public transport, open space, and community facilities. Taken together, these proposals will result in a density that exceeds the capacity of existing and planned infrastructure and public domain, creating significant adverse impacts on amenity, traffic, pedestrian safety, the quality of life and community character of the precinct.
Strategic Planning Integrity
The integrity of the planning system relies on consistency with adopted controls. Any proposal to exceed the mapped height by this magnitude must clearly demonstrate why the established height limit is unreasonable or unnecessary. In the absence of such justification, the proposal risks undermining the certainty, transparency and strategic intent of the planning framework for this precinct, as well as compromising the welfare of the current community.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed modifications to the development at 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SSD-95997711).

The proposed increases in height, from 12 to 31 storeys on Bourke Street North and from 21 to 38 storeys on the Young Street Tower, represent a gross departure from the concept originally approved by the City of Sydney. These are not minor amendments. They fundamentally change the character and scale of what was agreed with the community.

My specific concerns are:

Infrastructure and transport. The area's infrastructure is already at capacity. The 304 and 343 buses and Green Square train services regularly run full during peak hours with 2 buses often passing before you can get on at Waterloo. Bourke Street and Lachlan Street are both already exceedingly busy at rush hour already with cars queued all the way along. Adding hundreds of new residents without meaningful transport and road infrastructure investment is not a planning decision, it is a deferral of a crisis.

Amenity and liveability. Public amenities including libraries, parks and community spaces are already under pressure. This development would make an already stretched situation significantly worse for existing residents.

Built form and neighbourhood character. The proposed towers are between five and ten times the height of existing apartment buildings nearby. The visual impact, compounded by other proposals in the area, would be severe and permanent, creating a development completely out of character with the surrounding streetscape.

Overshadowing. The cumulative overshadowing impact of this proposal, together with the adjacent Coronation development at 881-885 Bourke Street, would affect a large area of nearby homes and public open space, particularly during winter months.

The cumulative effect of this and other approved developments already represents an estimated 4,000 new apartments and up to 8,000 new residents in this precinct. That is an extraordinary concentration of density. This proposal adds to that burden with only 20 additional parking spaces, which is inadequate and frankly insulting to existing residents.

There is also a serious process concern here. This proposal follows a pattern where a developer secures initial approval through community consultation, delays construction long enough to sell the approved apartments, and then applies to nearly double the height of the development, leaving residents minimal time to respond and offering nothing in return by way of additional infrastructure or amenity. That is a pattern the NSW Government should refuse to reward.

These developments are not addressing housing affordability. A two-bedroom apartment at the nearby Dank Street District starts at $1,450,000. These projects are targeting wealthy investors, not the ordinary Sydneysiders who live and work in this area.
Housing affordability is a genuine crisis, and as a renter I feel that acutely. But the answer is not to approve overpriced 40-storey tower blocks that will be snapped up by investors, built without the infrastructure to support them, and pushed through in defiance of existing planning approvals.

Sydney's appeal is inseparable from its character, its neighbourhoods, its streetscapes and its liveability. That is not a small thing to sacrifice. Once it is gone, it does not come back. Towers of this scale are not a housing solution for ordinary Sydneysiders. They are a windfall for developers, dressed up as progress.

I strongly urge the NSW Government to decline this modification and uphold the planning controls agreed through proper community process. We can do better than this.

I object to the proposed development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.

As a long-term resident and a mother raising a young family in this community, I would like to express my deep concern regarding the scale and impact of this proposal.

Over the years, this neighbourhood has developed into a relatively low- to moderate-density residential area that supports a safe, family-friendly environment. This balance is extremely important for households like ours, where daily life depends on access to manageable, uncrowded, and safe surroundings.

1. Impact on safety and daily liveability
A development of this scale, with a very high number of additional residents, will inevitably increase congestion in already constrained local streets and public spaces.
As a parent, I am particularly concerned about:

• Increased traffic risks for children walking in the area
• Overcrowding in footpaths and shared spaces
• Reduced sense of safety in what is currently a relatively quiet and peaceful environment

These are not abstract concerns, but practical, day-to-day realities for families.

2. Overcrowding of essential family-oriented amenities
Facilities that families rely on are already under pressure. Playgrounds, parks, and open spaces are often crowded, especially during peak hours. It is common to see children waiting to use basic play equipment.

Similarly, access to everyday services such as healthcare, childcare, and local shops is becoming increasingly strained.

A significant population increase without meaningful expansion of these services will directly impact the wellbeing of families living in the area.

3. Disproportionate scale compared to community character
The proposed height and density are far beyond what has been established in this neighbourhood. Previous developments have generally been moderate and have respected the existing urban character.

This proposal introduces a level of density more comparable to a central business district, which is not appropriate for a neighbourhood that has evolved as a residential community.

4. Lack of supporting infrastructure and planning balance
It is particularly concerning that the proposal seeks flexibility around infrastructure requirements. Growth must be accompanied by proper planning and investment in supporting facilities.

Without this, the burden is shifted onto existing residents, reducing overall quality of life.

5. Long-term impact on community cohesion
One of the strengths of this area is its sense of community, where neighbours interact and families feel comfortable living long-term.

A sudden and significant increase in density risks undermining this balance and changing the nature of the community in a way that may not be reversible.

In conclusion, I respectfully submit that this proposal is excessive in scale, inconsistent with the needs of families, and unsupported by adequate infrastructure.

I strongly urge that the development be refused, or significantly redesigned to better reflect the character, capacity, and long-term liveability of the community.

I object to this project, as it sets a precedent for CBD high-rise office tower height apartment blocks in small residential suburbs, which will cause shadowing and unsightly big buildings as well as added congestion to already busy streets. Also, many people have bought apartments in surrounding suburbs and paid $100,000 plus for uninterrupted Sydney skyline views in high locations where it would be inconceivable that the view would ever be blocked due to their location/height, yet apartment towers at these extraordinary heights proposed here would never have been predicted, as their heights are only found in CBD locations such as Sydney, Parramatta, North Sydney, etc., not in residential Waterloo.

Dear Assessment Team,

I am a resident of Danks Street in Waterloo, NSW, and I am writing to formally submit my objection to SUB-117619490 in its current iteration. While I appreciate and support the necessity for well-planned densification within our inner-city suburbs, I believe this specific proposal is drastically out of step with the established and emerging character of the surrounding neighbourhood.

1. Unacceptable height and incompatibility with local character
The proposed 36-storey skyscraper, reaching an elevation of roughly 125 metres, is entirely disproportionate to the existing urban fabric of this precinct. Current developments in the immediate vicinity generally range between 4 and 13 storeys, meaning this tower would be more than double the height of its neighbours. Such an extreme increase in scale creates a visual disconnect and lacks the necessary transition to integrate with the streetscape. A building of this magnitude is perhaps appropriate for a regional transport hub, but it is fundamentally misplaced on a mid-block site along Bourke Street.

2. Unjustified deviation from established planning controls
This site is already subject to a prior development approval that was granted under significantly more modest height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) limits. This new application seeks a massive uplift, moving from a 29-metre limit to 125 metres and increasing the FSR from 2.15:1 to 3.05:1 without offering a proportional public benefit in return. As a local resident, I find it concerning that the predictability of the planning system is being undermined, as many of us made long-term decisions based on the previously approved building envelopes for this site.

3. Significant loss of solar access and natural light
I am deeply concerned about the reduction of sunlight to neighbouring residential properties caused by the height and positioning of these towers. Upon reviewing the proponent's Solar Access report, it appears there is a failure to assess the overshadowing impacts on several directly affected buildings, such as Cameo at 6 Lachlan Street and Aria at 4 Lachlan Street, as well as various west-facing homes on adjacent streets. This lack of comprehensive modelling is a major oversight in the Environmental Impact Statement.

4. Establishment of a detrimental planning precedent
If a 36-storey residential tower is approved in this location, which lacks immediate proximity to a major transport interchange and is surrounded by low-to-mid-rise buildings, it will set a dangerous precedent for the area. Other developers will inevitably use this approval to justify similar disproportionate rezonings and uplifts throughout Waterloo. This approach contradicts the principles of orderly and strategic development as outlined in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

5. Critical pressure on public transport infrastructure
Waterloo currently lacks a centrally located train station, and the upcoming Waterloo Metro is a 15-minute walk from this site, being closer to Redfern. Existing bus services, particularly the 304, 392, and 348, are already operating at peak capacity and frequently bypass commuters because they are full. Introducing approximately 850 new apartments to this corridor without a confirmed and significant upgrade to transport frequency will cause these essential services to fail entirely.

6. Increased traffic congestion and road safety concerns
The intersections at Bourke, Lachlan, Danks, and McEvoy Streets are already heavily burdened by traffic. As arterial routes become more congested, local residential streets are being used as shortcuts, which compromises the safety of pedestrians and the amenity of the area. The provided Traffic Impact Assessment does not seem to take into account the cumulative effect of this proposal alongside other major nearby projects, such as the Dasco development and the broader Waterloo Estate renewal.

7. Overburdening of essential local services
Local community infrastructure is already reaching a breaking point. Green Square Public School is at capacity, there is a distinct lack of nearby public high schools, and local medical practitioners are increasingly difficult to access. This proposal introduces a massive influx of new residents without providing any substantial commitment to the social infrastructure required to support such a population boom.

8. Inadequacy of proposed public open space
The central park included in the plans is touted as a public benefit, but in reality, it is a small area that will be overshadowed by towers ranging from 13 to 36 storeys. The space appears to have very limited recreational utility, lacking basic amenities like play equipment, functional lawn areas, or facilities for pets. It cannot realistically meet the needs of 850 new households while also serving the existing community.

9. Cumulative impacts of ongoing construction
Our precinct has been subject to continuous construction for years, leading to persistent issues with noise, dust, vibration, and heavy vehicle traffic. Adding a project of this scale will significantly worsen these disruptions. Should the Department move toward approval, it is vital that a transparent and enforceable Construction Management Plan be implemented to strictly regulate work hours, noise levels, and haulage routes in coordination with other active sites.

10. Exacerbation of wind tunnel effects
The sheer mass and height of the proposed towers are likely to intensify wind tunnel effects throughout the precinct. This will make outdoor areas, including balconies, the proposed park, and the surrounding footpaths, uncomfortable for residents and pedestrians. I do not believe the wind impacts have been sufficiently modelled or mitigated in the current application.

11. Threat to the neighbourhood atmosphere
The unique neighbourhood feel of Waterloo is at significant risk of being eroded by hyper-dense developments that ignore the human scale. Without a more sensitive approach to design and density, there is a real danger that this vibrant community will be transformed into an impersonal and sterile urban wasteland, devoid of the character that makes our suburb a desirable place to live.

Requested outcome

I request that the Department refuse the application in its current form or require major amendments. Specifically, there must be a significant reduction in the maximum building height to ensure it aligns with the existing built form of the precinct. Furthermore, I request a more transparent and comprehensive solar access assessment and a robust, enforceable Construction Management Plan. To be clear, I do not oppose the redevelopment of this site entirely; however, I strongly object to a development of this excessive scale and height under the current planning framework.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours sincerely,

Sandra Kontos
Danks Street, Waterloo NSW

Dear Assessment Team,

I am a resident of Danks Street in Waterloo, NSW, and I am writing to formally submit my objection to SSD-80441462 in its current iteration. While I appreciate and support the necessity for well-planned densification within our inner-city suburbs, I believe this specific proposal is drastically out of step with the established and emerging character of the surrounding neighbourhood.

1. Unacceptable height and incompatibility with local character
The proposed 36-storey skyscraper, reaching an elevation of roughly 125 metres, is entirely disproportionate to the existing urban fabric of this precinct. Current developments in the immediate vicinity generally range between 4 and 13 storeys, meaning this tower would be more than double the height of its neighbours. Such an extreme increase in scale creates a visual disconnect and lacks the necessary transition to integrate with the streetscape. A building of this magnitude is perhaps appropriate for a regional transport hub, but it is fundamentally misplaced on a mid-block site along Bourke Street.

2. Unjustified deviation from established planning controls
This site is already subject to a prior development approval that was granted under significantly more modest height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) limits. This new application seeks a massive uplift, moving from a 29-metre limit to 125 metres and increasing the FSR from 2.15:1 to 3.05:1 without offering a proportional public benefit in return. As a local resident, I find it concerning that the predictability of the planning system is being undermined, as many of us made long-term decisions based on the previously approved building envelopes for this site.

3. Significant loss of solar access and natural light
I am deeply concerned about the reduction of sunlight to neighbouring residential properties caused by the height and positioning of these towers. Upon reviewing the proponent's Solar Access report, it appears there is a failure to assess the overshadowing impacts on several directly affected buildings, such as Cameo at 6 Lachlan Street and Aria at 4 Lachlan Street, as well as various west-facing homes on adjacent streets. This lack of comprehensive modelling is a major oversight in the Environmental Impact Statement.

4. Establishment of a detrimental planning precedent
If a 36-storey residential tower is approved in this location, which lacks immediate proximity to a major transport interchange and is surrounded by low-to-mid-rise buildings, it will set a dangerous precedent for the area. Other developers will inevitably use this approval to justify similar disproportionate rezonings and uplifts throughout Waterloo. This approach contradicts the principles of orderly and strategic development as outlined in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

5. Critical pressure on public transport infrastructure
Waterloo currently lacks a centrally located train station, and the upcoming Waterloo Metro is a 15-minute walk from this site, being closer to Redfern. Existing bus services, particularly the 304, 392, and 348, are already operating at peak capacity and frequently bypass commuters because they are full. Introducing approximately 850 new apartments to this corridor without a confirmed and significant upgrade to transport frequency will cause these essential services to fail entirely.

6. Increased traffic congestion and road safety concerns
The intersections at Bourke, Lachlan, Danks, and McEvoy Streets are already heavily burdened by traffic. As arterial routes become more congested, local residential streets are being used as shortcuts, which compromises the safety of pedestrians and the amenity of the area. The provided Traffic Impact Assessment does not seem to take into account the cumulative effect of this proposal alongside other major nearby projects, such as the Dasco development and the broader Waterloo Estate renewal.

7. Overburdening of essential local services
Local community infrastructure is already reaching a breaking point. Green Square Public School is at capacity, there is a distinct lack of nearby public high schools, and local medical practitioners are increasingly difficult to access. This proposal introduces a massive influx of new residents without providing any substantial commitment to the social infrastructure required to support such a population boom.

8. Inadequacy of proposed public open space
The central park included in the plans is touted as a public benefit, but in reality, it is a small area that will be overshadowed by towers ranging from 13 to 36 storeys. The space appears to have very limited recreational utility, lacking basic amenities like play equipment, functional lawn areas, or facilities for pets. It cannot realistically meet the needs of 850 new households while also serving the existing community.

9. Cumulative impacts of ongoing construction
Our precinct has been subject to continuous construction for years, leading to persistent issues with noise, dust, vibration, and heavy vehicle traffic. Adding a project of this scale will significantly worsen these disruptions. Should the Department move toward approval, it is vital that a transparent and enforceable Construction Management Plan be implemented to strictly regulate work hours, noise levels, and haulage routes in coordination with other active sites.

10. Exacerbation of wind tunnel effects
The sheer mass and height of the proposed towers are likely to intensify wind tunnel effects throughout the precinct. This will make outdoor areas, including balconies, the proposed park, and the surrounding footpaths, uncomfortable for residents and pedestrians. I do not believe the wind impacts have been sufficiently modelled or mitigated in the current application.

11. Threat to the neighbourhood atmosphere
The unique neighbourhood feel of Waterloo is at significant risk of being eroded by hyper-dense developments that ignore the human scale. Without a more sensitive approach to design and density, there is a real danger that this vibrant community will be transformed into an impersonal and sterile urban wasteland, devoid of the character that makes our suburb a desirable place to live.

Requested outcome

I request that the Department refuse the application in its current form or require major amendments. Specifically, there must be a significant reduction in the maximum building height to ensure it aligns with the existing built form of the precinct. Furthermore, I request a more transparent and comprehensive solar access assessment and a robust, enforceable Construction Management Plan. To be clear, I do not oppose the redevelopment of this site entirely; however, I strongly object to a development of this excessive scale and height under the current planning framework.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours sincerely,

Sandra Kontos
Danks Street, Waterloo NSW

I am a resident of Waterloo writing to formally object to this application (SDD 95997711) for alterations and additions to the approved mixed use development at 903-921 Bourke Street and 3 McEvoy Street, which proposes to increase apartments from 347 to 580 and to add 17 storeys to the Young Street tower (21 to 38 storeys) and 19 storeys to the Bourke Street north tower (12 to 31 storeys), via the Housing Delivery Authority pathway with a concurrent amendment to Sydney LEP 2012.

I note that this application is being assessed simultaneously with an adjacent proposal at 881-885 Bourke Street (SSD-80441462), which proposes 850 apartments including a 36-storey tower, also via the HDA pathway. I have reviewed both applicants' EIS documents. They contradict each other on cumulative traffic impact, and neither accounts for the other's effects on solar access or infrastructure. My objection raises four grounds, each supported by the applicants' own documents.

FIRST GROUND: CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC - CONTRADICTORY ASSESSMENTS

Section 2.3 of this EIS states that cumulative traffic impacts would not significantly affect the road network and would be minor and acceptable. This directly contradicts the findings of the adjacent Coronation application's Traffic Impact Assessment (Genesis Traffic, October 2025), which assessed the same intersections and found that Bourke Street/Lachlan Street already operates beyond capacity in the AM and weekend peaks and declines from Level of Service B to LOS F in the PM peak under the Coronation proposal alone, with average delay increasing from 26 to 104 seconds. Danks Street/Bourke Street already operates beyond capacity on weekends, with the degree of saturation worsening from 1.203 to 1.439 under Coronation alone. Even after the Coronation applicant's proposed mitigation, both intersections remain over capacity on weekends.

The DASCO traffic assessment was conducted without modelling the Coronation development's traffic generation, yet concludes the network is not significantly impacted. The two assessments concern the same intersections and the same peak periods and cannot both be correct. Furthermore, Section 8.6 of the Coronation Traffic Impact Assessment - the cumulative impact assessment required by that application's SEARs - was never completed. It consists of a single sentence deferring to further consultation with TfNSW or Council. Neither application has therefore produced a credible combined cumulative traffic assessment for the precinct.

I ask: which assessment does DPHI accept, and why? Has DPHI required either applicant to produce a combined cumulative traffic model for the Danks Street South Precinct that accounts for both developments together, alongside City West Housing (74 dwellings completed), and the potential development at 923-935 Bourke Street currently under assessment?

SECOND GROUND: SOLAR ACCESS - PRECINCT COMPLIANCE NOT MODELLED

The Coronation application's Solar Access report (Bates Smart + SJB, September 2025) discloses that the Coronation proposal alone reduces the DASCO precinct's solar compliance from 73.5% to 70.9% of dwellings achieving 2 hours of mid-winter solar access - sitting at the absolute DCP minimum of 70%. This EIS does not appear to model the solar access impact of the Coronation proposal on this precinct's dwellings, nor does it assess whether the combined shadow envelope of both developments maintains precinct compliance. The DASCO proposal adds 233 apartments and substantially increases building height. If both developments proceed, the precinct is at or below the 70% threshold before the increased DASCO massing is factored in.

I ask: has the solar access assessment for this application been modelled with the Coronation development in place? If not, can the Department confirm that precinct solar compliance is maintained under the combined shadow envelopes of both developments? Has DPHI assessed whether both applications can proceed without the precinct falling below the 70% DCP minimum?

THIRD GROUND: DESIGN EXCELLENCE WAIVER - INADEQUATE BASIS

This application obtained a waiver of the competitive design process under Clause 6.21D(2) of SLEP 2012 on the basis that construction has already commenced, making a new competition disproportionate. The Coronation application relies on an analogous argument - that HDA timeframes make the mandatory competitive design process impossible. Both arguments produce the same outcome: the mandatory precinct-level design quality requirement, established specifically to govern the Danks Street South Precinct, is waived for both of the precinct's two largest developments simultaneously. The original DASCO consent (D/2021/1415) was the product of a competitive design process. The proposed 38-storey and 31-storey towers are not. This EIS describes the addition of 17 and 19 storeys to existing approved towers as alterations and additions for the purpose of the waiver. Adding nearly double the approved height to a building already under construction is not, by any ordinary meaning, a minor alteration, and the waiver provision was not designed for an intervention of this scale.

I ask: on what basis is it unreasonable or unnecessary to hold a design competition for towers that will add 17 and 19 storeys above an originally competitively-designed scheme? Is the Government Architect's endorsement of the Alternative Design Excellence Strategy a public document, and will it be published as part of the formal assessment record?

FOURTH GROUND: CONCURRENT REZONING AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

This application seeks not only development consent but a concurrent amendment to Sydney LEP 2012, including amendments to the Height of Buildings Map and insertion of new site-specific provisions. This permanently entrenches the proposed heights as permitted controls for the precinct. The community consultation recorded in Appendix 31 of this EIS explicitly captured feedback including traffic impacts, scepticism of the planning pathway being utilised, and a lack of confidence that community feedback will be considered - concerns recorded in the applicant's own document. Both the DASCO and Coronation applications seek concurrent LEP amendments via the HDA pathway affecting the same precinct, and both remove City of Sydney Council from the determination process, despite Council having formally objected to the adjacent Coronation proposal.

I ask: has City of Sydney Council been formally notified of and invited to respond to the proposed SLEP 2012 amendments sought by this application? Has DPHI considered whether the concurrent LEP amendments sought by both applications should be assessed together as a single planning proposal rather than as separate development applications, given that they affect the same precinct and are being progressed through the same pathway simultaneously?

CONCLUSION

I am not opposed to housing development in Waterloo and recognise the genuine need to increase supply. My concern is that two large applications on adjacent sites are being assessed in parallel, using the same fast-track pathway, with technical studies that contradict each other on the central question of cumulative impact and with no mechanism in either assessment to consider the combined effect on the precinct's infrastructure, solar access, and public domain. The residents of this precinct will not experience these developments separately. They will experience them as a single built environment of three towers reaching 31, 36, and 38 storeys above streets whose intersections are already beyond capacity. Neither EIS accounts for that reality. I ask that each question raised above receive a written response.

I strongly object and condemn the amendment to the building project which benefits solely the builder and its bottom line and is at the expense of the local community. Based on the submission for additional 204 units and based on the plans that can be found on: https://meetings.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/documents/s70408/Attachment%20B%20-%20Architectural%20Drawings%20Tower%20and%20Plaza%20Buildings.pdf and https://meetings.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/documents/s70409/Attachment%20C%20-%20Architectural%20Drawings%20Young%20Street%20North%20and%20Young%20Street%20South%20Buildings.pdf
I can clearly see that the intention is to put the most of the additional planned units to a high-rise which is overshadowing the surrounding smaller planned residential buildings. This is also confirmed by the proposed drastic change to the floor space ratio!
Firstly, I don't want lex specialis of any form for a benefit of a corporation. I come from a country where this was done through political pressure and I thought Australians were better than this.
Secondly, I don't want high density in an area which is already quite dense in terms of population especially as I am a father of the young child and these plans are putting significant pressure on the future of my child (and future children). More specifically by granting DASCO this privilege you have put more pressure on local schools (most important for me), facilities and opportunities for my child to have a more peaceful childhood. Furthermore, I don't see any plans for better transportation (more bus lines, a tram line or some other form of public transportation) to absorb additional ~1000 people per day from the planned increase.
Thirdly, I expect my street, which is currently quite peaceful to become congested with much more traffic as all the extra cars are set off in the morning to workplaces.
Fourthly, I don't want any negatives (foreseen or unforeseen) from a highrise which might impact wind patterns, sewage, garbage collection, insolation given the about 100 to 150 m proximity of my dwelling to the planned construction.

I welcome that there is going to be a lot of additional commercial real estate meaning more restaurants, shops and entertainment venues but I categorically oppose that profit driven (and I'm sure this is the case) motives are now causing whining on corporate part for special rules and privileges. They had access to the zoning laws at the time when they were buying the property, they had ample time to do all sorts of financial modelling and they had ample time to consider all sorts of unfavorable scenarios which they could have stress modeled and tested.
I do not want higher buildings in this neighbourhood, I want my child and future children to have more chances for proper schooling and facilities and I don't want profit motives of others to impact my life any more than they currently are!

The proposed expansion of the project significantly departs from the initial proposal, and will place unsustainable pressure on existing infrastructure and amenities, including roads, public transport and parks. The added height of the building will impact on the sunlight that reaches the surrounding roads and homes and will be visually overbearing. An expansion of this magnitude would need to be accompanied by a significant investment to increase public transport, free communal public spaces like parks, and other amenities like gyms. The proposal will fundamentally, adversely change the nature of the neighbourhood. I am strongly opposed to the proposal.

I write to express my profound disappointment and personal outrage at the scale and nature of the proposal put forward for the redevelopment of the former Water Board site at 903–921 Bourke Street in Waterloo.

The proposed escalation in height and density is, in my view, an opportunistic and excessive overreach that disregards both the original approved scheme and the reasonable expectations of residents. Increasing the buildings to 30 and 37 storeys is not a minor amendment — it is a dramatic intensification that fundamentally alters the character, impact, and consequences of the development.

I am particularly disturbed that such extreme height is being pursued despite known flight path constraints associated with Sydney Airport. Any proposal of this magnitude must transparently address aviation height restrictions, safety considerations, and cumulative impacts. The apparent disregard for these constraints raises serious questions about the appropriateness and planning integrity of the revised scheme.

Beyond the technical issues, I am deeply concerned that this proposal reflects a prioritisation of maximum yield over community wellbeing. The excessive height will dominate the skyline, erode neighbourhood amenity, intensify overshadowing, and further burden already strained local infrastructure. It represents a clear departure from balanced, responsible urban planning.

Also here are other concerns:

Building noise and street disruption for the next 4 years

The proposed building heights are markedly disproportionate to the established and emerging character of the Waterloo precinct. The scale of these towers would dominate the surrounding streetscape and materially alter the neighbourhood context.

Loss of Solar Access
Buildings of 30–37 storeys will result in substantial overshadowing of adjacent residences and public areas, diminishing natural light and impacting residential amenity.

Pressure on Local Infrastructure
A density increase of this magnitude will intensify demand on local roads, parking availability, and public transport services, which are already experiencing significant constraints.

Wind and Pedestrian Amenity
The additional height, particularly the 37-storey tower, raises serious concerns regarding adverse wind impacts at street level, with potential consequences for pedestrian safety and comfort.

I ask that my strong objection — and my profound dissatisfaction with the developer’s proposal — be formally recorded. I also request to be kept fully informed of all future stages of this application, as I intend to continue making formal submissions as the process progresses.

I am writing as a local Waterloo resident to express my deep disappointment and strong objection to the State Government’s handling of the revised proposal for the former Water Board site at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo. While I support well-planned density and understand the need for increased housing, this proposal appears to have moved well beyond responsible urban planning. In my view, it represents an excessive and opportunistic attempt to maximise developer yield at the expense of community amenity, neighbourhood character, and the long-term liveability of Waterloo.

The proposed escalation in height and density is deeply concerning and, in my view, represents a serious departure from the expectations previously set for this site. Increasing the buildings to 30 and 37 storeys is not a minor amendment — it is a dramatic intensification that fundamentally alters the character, impact, and consequences of the development.

I am extremely disappointed in the state government's approach to this outrageous submission from a developer. As a local resident who respects density living for all its benefits now is out of control with what a future may look like for our society

I write to express my profound disappointment and personal outrage at the scale and nature of the proposal put forward for the redevelopment of the former Water Board site at 903–921 Bourke Street in Waterloo.

The proposed escalation in height and density is, in my view, an opportunistic and excessive overreach that disregards both the original approved scheme and the reasonable expectations of residents. Increasing the buildings to 30 and 37 storeys is not a minor amendment — it is a dramatic intensification in fact 67% that fundamentally alters the character, impact, and consequences of the development.

I am particularly disturbed that such extreme height is being pursued despite known flight path constraints associated with Sydney Airport. Any proposal of this magnitude must transparently address aviation height restrictions, safety considerations, and cumulative impacts. The apparent disregard for these constraints raises serious questions about the appropriateness and planning integrity of the revised scheme.

Beyond the technical issues, I am deeply concerned that this proposal reflects a prioritisation of maximum yield over community wellbeing. The excessive height will dominate the skyline, erode neighbourhood amenity, intensify overshadowing, and further burden already strained local infrastructure. It represents a clear departure from balanced, responsible urban planning.

Also here are other concerns:

Building noise and street disruption for the next 4 years

The proposed building heights are markedly disproportionate to the established and emerging character of the Waterloo precinct. The scale of these towers would dominate the surrounding streetscape and materially alter the neighbourhood context.

Loss of Solar Access
Buildings of 30–37 storeys will result in substantial overshadowing of adjacent residences and public areas, diminishing natural light and impacting residential amenity.

Pressure on Local Infrastructure
A density increase of this magnitude will intensify demand on local roads, parking availability, and public transport services, which are already experiencing significant constraints.

Wind and Pedestrian Amenity
The additional height, particularly the 37-storey tower, raises serious concerns regarding adverse wind impacts at street level, with potential consequences for pedestrian safety and comfort.

I ask that my strong objection — and my profound dissatisfaction with the developer’s proposal — be formally recorded. I also request to be kept fully informed of all future stages of this application, as I intend to continue making formal submissions as the process progresses.

I am writing to formally express my strong objection to the proposed major amendments submitted by DASCO (SSD-95997711) for the residential development at 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.

The original plans approved by the City of Sydney were appropriate for the area. This new proposal seeks to drastically and unacceptably alter those plans, negatively impacting the Waterloo, Zetland, and Green Square communities.

My primary concerns regarding this proposal are:

1. Unjustified Increases in Height and Density
The proposed height increases are staggering and entirely out of character for the neighborhood. Increasing the Bourke Street North building from the approved 12 storeys to 31 storeys, and the Young Street Tower from 21 storeys to 38 storeys, constitutes a massive overdevelopment. Furthermore, adding 233 apartments (bringing the total to 580) while providing a mere 20 additional parking spaces is grossly inadequate and will severely impact local street parking.

2. Severe Infrastructure Strain
The local infrastructure is already operating at or near capacity. Adding this volume of new residents will place unacceptable pressure on local roads and public transport. Services such as the 304 bus and peak-hour trains from Green Square are already heavily congested, with full buses routinely passing waiting commuters. Public amenities, including local libraries, are also under pressure and cannot support the cumulative impact of an estimated 8,000 new residents projected for the Waterloo and Zetland area.

3. Visually Overbearing Design
The sheer scale of the proposed towers is far too large for the surrounding area. Rather than integrating with the existing neighborhood, these structures will dominate the local streetscape, creating a serious visual impact that undermines the current character of Waterloo.

4. Severe Overshadowing
If approved, these two oversized towers—especially when combined with the proposed 38-storey tower at the adjacent 881-885 Bourke Street (SSD-80441462)—will create significant cumulative overshadowing. This will severely impact nearby homes and public open spaces, particularly during the winter solstice.

Conclusion
The cumulative impact of this development, alongside other major projects in the area, equates to dropping a small country town's worth of residents into our neighborhood within a few short years, without the necessary infrastructure to support them.

I strongly urge the NSW Government to reject these major amendments and enforce the original development plans as approved by the City of Sydney.

Thank you for your time and for considering the severe impact this proposal will have on our community.

Infrastructure strain — the extra residents would place unacceptable pressure on local roads, parking and public transport, all of which are already stretched. Services such as the 304 bus and peak-hour trains from Green Square are already at or near capacity, and buses often pass by because they’re full.
Overshadowing impacts - The two oversized towers proposed at 903-921 Bourke Street, together with the tower proposed at 881-885 Bourke Street, would create significant cumulative overshadowing during the winter solstice, affecting a large area of nearby homes and public open space.
Risk of severe wind tunnel effects at street level, that could impact pedestrian safety

Submission: Objection to SSD-95997711
Mixed Use Development – 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo

To: Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Application Number: SSD-95997711
Location: 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo
Position: Objection

I am a resident and property owner at 806 19–21 Dunkerley Place, Waterloo, located in close proximity to the proposed development, and I write to formally object to this State Significant Development application.

While I support the ongoing growth and renewal of the Green Square precinct, this proposal represents an excessive increase in scale that will have a direct and unreasonable impact on the amenity of surrounding properties—particularly through the loss of views, increased visual bulk, and diminished residential enjoyment.

⸻

1. Significant loss of views and visual amenity

A primary concern is the substantial impact this development will have on outlook from my property.

The proposed increase in building height to 126 metres will introduce a dominant built form that will materially obstruct existing views currently enjoyed from my residence, including from key living areas and my outdoor space, including my pool area.

This loss of outlook is not minor or incidental—it represents a permanent and meaningful reduction in amenity. Open views, natural outlook, and a sense of space are integral to the enjoyment of a property and are key considerations in residential planning.

The scale of this proposal will replace that openness with an imposing vertical structure, significantly altering the character of the surrounding environment.

⸻

2. Overbearing scale and lack of appropriate transition

The proposal more than doubles the permissible building height and significantly increases density.

Such a dramatic uplift fails to provide an appropriate transition to the existing built environment, particularly for nearby residential properties such as mine. The result will be an overbearing presence that dominates the skyline and diminishes the sense of openness currently experienced in the area.

This level of intensification is inconsistent with reasonable expectations of neighbouring amenity and sets a concerning precedent for further overdevelopment.

⸻

3. Impact on property value and enjoyment

The loss of views, increased density, and visual dominance of the proposed development will have a direct impact on the liveability and value of surrounding properties, including my own.

While planning decisions are not solely determined by property value impacts, the erosion of amenity—particularly loss of outlook and increased bulk—is widely recognised as a factor that affects both enjoyment and market perception of residential property.

⸻

4. Infrastructure strain and cumulative overdevelopment

The proposed increase in dwellings from 376 to 580 apartments will place additional pressure on an area already experiencing infrastructure constraints.

Residents in the Green Square and Waterloo precinct are already dealing with:

* Congestion in transport and public spaces
* Limited access to community infrastructure
* Insufficient open space relative to population growth

Approving further density without clear infrastructure upgrades will exacerbate these challenges and reduce overall quality of life for existing and future residents.

⸻

5. Lack of confidence in ground-level activation

Recent developments in the surrounding area have consistently delivered poor retail outcomes, characterised by:

* Repetitive takeaway food outlets
* Limited diversity in retail and dining experiences
* A lack of community-oriented or destination venues

There is little in this proposal that provides confidence this pattern will change. Without stronger planning requirements, this development risks contributing further to an already uninspiring and homogeneous streetscape.

⸻

6. Requested actions

I respectfully request that the Department:

1. Refuse or significantly reduce the scale of the development, particularly building height, to minimise impacts on surrounding properties.
2. Undertake a more rigorous assessment of view loss and visual impact on neighbouring residences, including those at 19–21 Dunkerley Place.
3. Ensure that any approved development includes:
* Appropriate height transitions
* Reduced bulk and improved setbacks
* Measures to protect neighbouring amenity where possible
4. Require stronger commitments around infrastructure contributions and delivery.
5. Introduce clearer planning controls to ensure meaningful and diverse retail and community uses at ground level.

⸻

7. Conclusion

This proposal, in its current form, prioritises density and yield over the amenity of existing residents and the long-term quality of the built environment.

For residents such as myself at 19–21 Dunkerley Place, the development will result in a substantial and permanent loss of views, increased visual bulk, and reduced enjoyment of our property.

For these reasons, I strongly object to the application.

Yours faithfully,
John Foley
806 19–21 Dunkerley Place
Waterloo NSW