Mixed Use Development - 903-921 Bourke St Waterloo

I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed high-rise development.

I have lived in the area for the past 10 years and have seen the neighbourhood change over this time. While I understand that development and growth are necessary, I do not believe that a high-density, high-rise development of this nature is appropriate for this location or what the area currently needs.

In my view, the project does not respond to the context in which it is located.

The scale, density and built form appear to be driven primarily by maximising development potential, rather than by creating a considered architectural response to the existing neighbourhood, its character and the people who live here.

Good architecture should respond to its context. It should consider the existing scale of development, streetscape, amenity, infrastructure, public and the relationship between new and existing buildings.

In this instance, I am concerned that the proposed development represents a significant departure from the established low-density character of the area and would fundamentally change the character of the neighbourhood.

I am particularly concerned about the cumulative impact of increasing density in an area where existing services and infrastructure already appear to be struggling to accommodate current demand. Local roads, public transport, parking, drainage, utilities and other community infrastructure should be considered in conjunction with any substantial increase in population and development intensity.

Introducing a significantly larger population and building footprint without sufficient infrastructure capacity risks placing further pressure on services that are already under strain.

I am also concerned about the precedent this development would establish. Approval of a high-rise development within an established low-density neighbourhood could make it increasingly difficult to prevent further developments of a similar scale. Over time, this could result in the gradual loss of the character that makes this area an attractive place to live.

I am not opposed to development or to appropriate increases in housing. However, I believe development should be appropriately scaled and carefully integrated into its surroundings. Growth should not come at the expense of neighbourhood character, residential amenity and the quality of the existing environment.

After living in this area for 10 years, and also considering the proposal from the perspective of an architect, I believe this development is inappropriate for its context and represents an excessive increase in density and scale.

I respectfully ask to carefully consider the impacts of the proposal on the existing community, infrastructure, neighbourhood character and residential amenity, and to refuse the application in its current form.

One of my greatest concerns is the proposed height of the development. I find it difficult to understand how a building exceeding 120 metres in height can be considered appropriate in a locality where the applicable planning framework identifies a maximum building height of 65 metres.

From a planning and architectural perspective, a variation of this magnitude should not even be taken into consideration a very strong and clearly demonstrated justification.

Doubling the nominated height limit represents a substantial departure from the intended built form of the area and raises serious questions about how the proposal responds to the planning objectives, the existing urban context and the future character of the locality.
I believe that any departure from an established height control should be carefully justified and should demonstrate a clear public benefit, rather than simply enabling a significantly greater development yield. In this case, I am concerned that the scale of the proposed development is fundamentally out of proportion with its surrounding context.

I OBJECT to the increase of number of units. It will be detrimental to the overall wellbeing of existing units.

Subject: Objection to the Proposed New Development
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally express my strong objection to the proposed new development at this site.
As a resident living near the site, I have invested in this neighbourhood with the intention of building a stable, long-term home for my family. I value the community, its character and the sense of belonging that has developed here over many years. I am concerned that the proposed development, in its current form, would have a significant and lasting impact on the liveability, character and sustainability of the neighbourhood.
I want to make clear that my objection is not to additional housing or development in principle. I understand that Waterloo is growing and that additional housing is needed. My concern is with the scale, design, affordability and lack of demonstrated community benefit of this particular proposal.
The proposal for approximately 580 apartments, including apartments reportedly starting at close to $1 million for a one-bedroom unit, does not appear to meaningfully address the housing needs of families, essential workers, older residents or people seeking genuinely affordable and long-term housing in the area. Increasing density should also come with appropriate community benefits, infrastructure and housing diversity. In my view, this proposal has not demonstrated that balance.
My concerns are as follows:
1. Important evidence and assessment gaps
I am concerned that the contamination assessment is not yet sufficiently complete to support a development of this scale.
The proposal includes two new basements in areas where vapour risks have been identified, yet important information regarding final floor levels and the full modelling of potential contamination impacts remains outstanding. These matters should be properly resolved before any approval is considered.
I am also concerned about the wind assessment. The modelling appears to rely on the shielding effect of a neighbouring development that has not been approved. A development assessment of this scale should be based on developments that are actually approved and reasonably certain to proceed. A revised wind assessment should therefore be required.
2. Removal of important planning and community protections
The proposed development is substantially larger than the development previously approved, including a significant increase in height and apartment numbers.
Despite this increase, the applicant is seeking to remove or bypass mechanisms intended to provide independent design scrutiny and community benefit, including the competitive design process and relevant planning provisions.
For a development involving a 126-metre tower on a heritage-sensitive site, I believe independent and transparent design assessment is particularly important.
The VPA was negotiated in the context of a considerably smaller development. If the number of apartments has increased by approximately 55%, the community benefits and infrastructure contributions should be reconsidered accordingly. The community should not be expected to accept substantially more development while receiving essentially the same level of infrastructure and public benefit.
3. Affordable housing needs to result in actual homes
I am particularly concerned about the proposed 12% affordable housing contribution.
If this contribution is not secured through a binding obligation, there appears to be a possibility that the contribution could instead be provided as a financial payment, potentially resulting in no affordable housing being delivered on the site.
For a project of this size, this is a significant concern.
The local community needs actual affordable homes — including homes suitable for families, older residents and essential workers — rather than an arrangement where the affordable housing component can ultimately be replaced by a financial contribution.
Any affordable housing commitment should be clearly defined, legally secured and protected for the long term.
4. Lack of a cumulative transport assessment
I am also concerned that the transport impacts of this proposal have not been adequately considered in the context of other major developments occurring or proposed within the surrounding precinct.
The impact of one development cannot always be assessed in isolation when several large projects are adding population, traffic and pressure to the same roads and public transport network.
A proper cumulative transport assessment should be undertaken before this proposal is considered for approval.
My request
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Department to:
• Require complete contamination investigations and vapour modelling before any approval is considered.
• Require a revised wind assessment based only on approved and reasonably committed surrounding developments.
• Retain the relevant design review requirements and require independent design assessment for a development of this scale and height.
• Retain the relevant community infrastructure contribution requirements, or secure an equivalent and legally binding contribution.
• Renegotiate the VPA to properly reflect the substantially increased apartment yield and development scale.
• Require affordable housing to be delivered as actual on-site dwellings, secured through a binding agreement and protected for the long term.
• Require a cumulative transport assessment that considers the combined impact of major developments across the precinct.
• Provide an opportunity for the community to be heard through a public hearing.
I respectfully ask that the Department consider not only the additional number of apartments being proposed, but also what kind of neighbourhood this development will create for the people who already live here and for those who will live here in the future.
Waterloo should continue to be a diverse and inclusive community where people can build long-term lives, not simply a place where increasingly expensive apartments are added without a corresponding increase in community infrastructure, affordability or public benefit.
I therefore strongly object to the proposed development in its current form and ask that the outstanding issues above be properly addressed before any approval is granted.
Yours sincerely,

Subject: Objection to the Amended Development
Dear Sir/Madam,

(I wish to thank the original creator of this objection material set out hereunder, to which I have added my comments. I fully endorse the objection material).
I am writing to firmly oppose the amended development proposal.
I live near the site and have invested in this neighbourhood with the intention of building a stable, long-term home for my partner and myself. I care deeply about the future of this area and the kind of community we leave for both current and future residents.
My objection is not to additional housing. I understand that Waterloo needs more housing as the population grows. My concern is with the type, scale and impact of the housing being proposed, and whether this development provides a fair and meaningful benefit to the existing community.
The proposal is for approximately 580 high-priced apartments, reportedly starting at nearly $1 million for a one-bedroom apartment. This does little to address the housing needs of families, essential workers, older residents or long-term residents who need housing they can realistically afford and remain in as their circumstances change.
In my view, this is increased density without a corresponding level of community benefit.
I am also concerned that this proposal represents another example of a development model where planning mechanisms appear to be used primarily to maximise the development yield and, ultimately, the developer's financial return. There is a fundamental difference between building more housing for a growing community and maximising the number and value of apartments that can be extracted from a site.
The proposed increase in height and apartment numbers, together with attempts to reduce or remove important planning and community obligations, gives the impression that the primary consideration is how much more can be built and sold, rather than what kind of place is being created.
What concerns me most is that the developer will ultimately complete construction, sell the apartments and move on, while the surrounding community will live with the consequences of the development for decades. The developer's financial interest is therefore relatively short-term, whereas the impact on residents, neighbours and the character of Waterloo is permanent.
I do not believe planning decisions should facilitate developments that maximise private gain while leaving the broader community to absorb the long-term costs.
Waterloo deserves development that creates a genuine sense of place — buildings that contribute positively to the neighbourhood, provide meaningful housing diversity and affordability, respond sensitively to their surroundings and deliver infrastructure and public benefits proportionate to their scale.
It should not become a collection of expensive, interchangeable apartments with little connection to the community around them — a soulless development created primarily as a financial product rather than as a lasting part of the neighbourhood.
My concerns fall into four key areas:
1. Critical evidence gaps
The contamination assessment remains incomplete. Two new basements are proposed in areas where vapour risks have been identified, yet final floor levels and full modelling have not been provided.
A development of this scale should not be approved until the potential contamination and vapour risks have been properly assessed and demonstrated to be safe.
I am also concerned that the wind assessment relies on shielding from a neighbouring development that has not been approved. If that development does not proceed, the assumptions underpinning the wind modelling may no longer be valid.
A revised wind assessment should therefore be required, based only on developments that are approved and reasonably certain to proceed.
2. Removal of important community protections
The proposal seeks to remove or bypass both the competitive design process and the community infrastructure levy, despite the reasons these requirements were put in place.
The proposed building is now nearly twice the height of the previously approved development, yet the applicant is seeking to rely on its own assessment of design excellence.
For a 126-metre tower on a heritage-sensitive site, I believe independent design review is essential. A development of this scale should be subject to the highest level of transparency and independent scrutiny.
The VPA was negotiated for a substantially smaller development. The community is now being asked to accept approximately 55% more apartments while receiving essentially the same infrastructure and community benefits.
That does not appear to represent a fair or reasonable exchange.
3. Affordable housing that may deliver nothing
I am particularly concerned about the so-called 12% affordable housing contribution.
As I understand the proposal, this contribution is not currently secured as a binding commitment. The applicant has also stated that it is not subject to the policy from which the 12% figure is derived.
Without a binding VPA or equivalent legal mechanism, there appears to be a possibility that the contribution could instead be paid as a financial contribution, resulting in zero affordable dwellings being delivered on the site.
That is not what this community needs.
We need actual affordable homes for families, older residents and essential workers who contribute to and sustain the local community. Financial offsets should not be treated as an equivalent substitute for delivering affordable housing within the development itself.
Any affordable housing commitment should be legally secured, delivered as actual on-site dwellings and protected in perpetuity.
4. No cumulative transport assessment
The proposal will add significant additional demand to the local transport network, yet there does not appear to be an adequate assessment of the cumulative impact of this development together with other major developments occurring or proposed within the precinct.
The transport impact of a project of this scale should not be assessed in isolation.
A cumulative transport assessment is necessary to understand the combined impact on roads, public transport, pedestrian movement and the broader infrastructure network.
I ask the Department to:
• Require complete contamination assessments and vapour modelling before any approval is considered.
• 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 legally binding community infrastructure contribution.
• Renegotiate the VPA to properly reflect the substantially increased development yield.
• Require affordable housing to be provided as actual on-site dwellings, secured through a binding agreement and protected in perpetuity.
• Require a comprehensive cumulative transport assessment.
• Hold a public hearing and provide the local community with a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
This proposal will have a long-term impact on the character, liveability and future of Waterloo.
As someone who lives near the site and has made a long-term commitment to this neighbourhood, I want to see Waterloo remain a diverse, inclusive and liveable community — one where families, essential workers, older residents and long-term residents can continue to live and belong.
The planning system should not become a mechanism through which development yield and private profit are continually increased while community protections and public benefits are progressively reduced. If the scale of the development is increased, then the obligations to the community must increase with it.
Additional housing should contribute to the strength of the community, not simply increase density and private returns while leaving the neighbourhood to deal with the long-term consequences.
I therefore strongly object to the amended development in its current form and respectfully urge the Department to require the outstanding issues above to be properly addressed before any approval is considered.

Formal Objection to SSD-95997711 - Response to Submissions Package

Dear Assessment Team,

I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the amended State Significant Development Application (SSD-95997711) for 903–921 Bourke Street and 3 McEvoy Street, Waterloo.

Having reviewed the September 2026 Response to Submissions (RtS) and the updated Architectural Design Response, I acknowledge the minor massing reductions made since the original exhibition (e.g., reducing the Young Street Tower from 38 to 34 storeys and Bourke Street North from 31 to 30 storeys). However, I maintain that the proposal’s fundamental flaw—an extraordinary and unmitigated increase in height, bulk, and density compared to the existing approved development—remains completely unresolved.

The core grounds of my objection are detailed below:

1. The Flawed Baseline: Assessment Must Compare Against the Approved Scheme (D/2021/1415), Not the Excessive Original Exhibition
The applicant’s justification relies heavily on incremental reductions from their initial, wildly overdeveloped 38-storey proposal. However, a minor reduction from an already extreme baseline does not demonstrate appropriateness. The true and relevant baseline for assessment is the existing approved scheme (D/2021/1415):

Apartment Yield: Increases from 347 to 580 apartments (+67% / +233 dwellings). 

Gross Floor Area & FSR: GFA increases from 37,268 sqm to 57,460 sqm (+54%), pushing the FSR from 2.0:1 to 3.08:1. 

Building Heights: The Young Street Tower escalates from 21 to 34 storeys, and the Bourke Street North building surges from 12 to 30 storeys. 

This is not a minor refinement; it is a complete transformation of the precinct's built form that severely departs from the competition-winning design approved under D/2021/1415.

2. DPHI’s Own Expressed Concerns Regarding Height, FSR, and Bulk Remain Unaddressed
DPHI previously raised significant concerns that the proposed height (~125m) exceeded key local uplift sites and that the FSR of ~3.2:1 resulted merely from vertically extruding existing approved floorplates rather than a rigorous urban design analysis.

Marginally trimming the FSR to 3.08:1 does nothing to address the fact that the FSR remains vastly overinflated compared to the approved 2.0:1. 

Trimming four storeys from the Young Street Tower fails to explain why a 34-storey tower paired with a 30-storey tower is an urbanistically sound response for this specific site. The building remains excessively wide and tall, creating unacceptable visual bulk. 

3. Rejection of the "Tall-Building Datum" Precedent (881–885 Bourke Street)
The proponent repeatedly cites the recently approved development at 881–885 Bourke Street (SSD-80441462) to justify establishing a 34-storey "tall-building datum". This rationale is fundamentally flawed from an urban design and planning perspective:

Different Planning Baseline: The approved scheme for 903–921 Bourke Street (D/2021/1415) was directly established through a Design Competition to ensure an appropriate scale (21/12 storeys). An approval on an adjacent site does not invalidate the design integrity or statutory weight of the approved baseline on this site. 

Unacceptable Cumulative Environmental Impact: The approval of 826 apartments at 881–885 Bourke Street has already consumed a vast proportion of the precinct's environmental, traffic, and infrastructure capacity. Adding another 34-storey and 30-storey complex directly adjacent will create an overbearing "wall of towers", compounding shadow and wind impacts on neighboring residents and public spaces. 

Failure of Urban Transition: Proper urban design requires height step-downs and transitions towards heritage items (Pump House) and lower-scale streetscapes, rather than domino-effect density matching. Density on an adjoining site should strictly constrain, rather than justify, excessive height on neighboring parcels. 

4. Cumulative Solar Access and Overshadowing Impacts
While individual shadow diagrams attempt to show incremental technical improvements, overshadowing must be evaluated cumulatively across the surrounding residential network (including Hunter St, McEvoy St, Bourke St, Sam Sing St, and Lachlan St) and key public open spaces. The massive vertical profiles of 34- and 30-storey towers continue to cause prolonged solar loss during critical mid-winter hours, diminishing the liveability and thermal efficiency of neighbouring residences.

5. Built-Form Induced Wind Microclimate Issues
The applicant’s reliance on secondary, heavy mitigation measures—such as 1.8-metre high solid glass wind screens across communal terraces (Levels 3, 4, 11, and 26–32)—is direct evidence that the fundamental massing and height generate an unfavourable microclimate. High-rise down-drafts will compromise pedestrian comfort in internal laneways and public plazas. Wind mitigation should be achieved through primary built-form reduction, not perimeter glass walls.

6. Visual Dominance Over Heritage Curtilage
The site directly encloses the heritage-listed Pump House and Valve House. While podium setbacks at Bourke Street South are noted, the overwhelming sheer verticality of the adjacent 30- and 34-storey towers creates a harsh "canyon effect". This visual dominance fundamentally alters and degrades the contextual setting and historic character of these heritage assets.

7. Architectural Expression Cannot Substitute for Urban Scale & Design Excellence
While the proponent’s efforts in landscaping, materials, and "Connecting with Country" are acknowledged, high-quality façade treatment cannot compensate for an excessively large urban form. True Design Excellence requires an appropriate urban structure, balanced skyline, reasonable street transitions, and respect for site capacity—criteria which this over-scaled massing fails to meet.

8. Disproportionate Strain on Public Infrastructure & Traffic
A 67% increase in residential density (adding 233 dwellings) without a proportionally expanded public benefit framework or Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) places an unreasonable burden on the community. Local traffic congestion along Bourke, McEvoy, and Lachlan Streets, along with public transport, social infrastructure, and parklands, cannot absorb this population surge alongside other major developments in the immediate area.

Conclusion & Requested Actions
While I support housing delivery within appropriate renewal precincts, additional density must be balanced against residential amenity, heritage, microclimate, and infrastructure capacity. The RTS package fails to resolve the core issue: the uplift requested is excessive and unjustifiable.

I respectfully request that DPHI:

REJECT the proposal in its current form. 

Require the proponent to reassess overall height, FSR, and massing against the approved baseline of D/2021/1415 (FSR 2:1, 21/12 storeys), rather than comparing against the original 38-storey proposal. 

Reject the argument that adjacent high-rise approvals (SSD-80441462) justify matching height on this site. 

Require a genuine reduction in tower floorplates and vertical scale to restore reasonable solar access, mitigate wind impact, protect heritage character, and deliver a human-scale streetscape for Waterloo. 


Thank you for considering my submission.

I am a resident living in close proximity to the proposed development and wish to formally object to SSD-95997711.

Whilst I support the provision of additional housing and urban renewal within the Waterloo precinct, I believe this proposal represents an excessive increase in scale and density that will have unacceptable impacts on existing residents, local infrastructure and neighbourhood amenity.

Overshadowing and Loss of Solar Access

The proposed increase in building height and bulk will result in additional overshadowing of surrounding residential buildings, streets and public open spaces.

Access to natural sunlight is a fundamental component of residential amenity and contributes significantly to residents' health and wellbeing. Existing communities in Waterloo, Zetland and Alexandria have already experienced substantial reductions in solar access due to ongoing urban renewal projects. Further increases in height should not be approved unless it can be clearly demonstrated that impacts have been minimised and are reasonable.

The cumulative overshadowing effects of multiple high-density developments within the precinct appear to have been underestimated.

Traffic Congestion and Road Network Impacts

Local roads throughout Waterloo and nearby suburbs already experience significant congestion, particularly during weekday peak periods.

The proposed increase in residential population will generate additional vehicle movements, rideshare activity, delivery services and service vehicles. This will place further pressure on intersections and road corridors that are already approaching capacity.

Residents are increasingly experiencing delays accessing local roads and arterial routes. The proposal does not appear to adequately address how these additional impacts will be mitigated.

Parking Overflow into Surrounding Streets

Parking availability within the surrounding area is already constrained.

Even where developments provide reduced parking rates on the basis of public transport accessibility, experience across the precinct demonstrates that many residents continue to own vehicles. Insufficient onsite parking can result in increased demand for surrounding public streets, creating inconvenience for existing residents and local businesses.

The Department should carefully assess whether the proposed parking provision is realistic and whether overflow parking impacts have been appropriately considered.

Pressure on Local Infrastructure and Community Services

Waterloo is undergoing one of the largest urban transformation programs in New South Wales.

The cumulative population growth resulting from this and other approved developments will place additional pressure on:

Public transport services.
Local schools.
Healthcare facilities.
Community centres.
Childcare services.
Recreational facilities.
Public open space.

Residents are entitled to confidence that supporting infrastructure will be delivered in step with population growth. It is unclear whether the long-term infrastructure capacity exists to accommodate the additional residents generated by this proposal.

Wind Impacts and Pedestrian Amenity

Increased tower heights can create adverse wind conditions around buildings and public areas.

Given the concentration of high-rise development in the Waterloo precinct, additional height and bulk may worsen pedestrian comfort at street level and reduce the usability of public spaces.

The Department should ensure wind impacts are rigorously assessed and that the proposal achieves acceptable outcomes for pedestrians, cyclists and local residents.

Heritage and Character Impacts

Waterloo contains significant industrial, cultural and community heritage that contributes to the area's identity.

The continued escalation in building scale risks diminishing the visual prominence and setting of heritage items and contributing to a loss of neighbourhood character. Future growth should respect the established urban context rather than creating an increasingly uniform high-rise environment.

Loss of Views and Residential Amenity

Many existing residents have made significant financial commitments based on the amenity of their homes and surrounding environment.

The increased building heights proposed under SSD-95997711 will likely result in further loss of outlook, sky views and visual amenity for neighbouring residents.

While private views are not necessarily protected under planning legislation, the cumulative impact of continual increases in approved building heights should be considered when assessing the broader public interest.

Cumulative Development Impacts

A key concern is that this application appears to assess impacts in isolation.

The Department should consider the cumulative effect of all approved, under-construction and proposed developments in Waterloo and surrounding precincts. The combined effect on traffic, public transport, open space, infrastructure and residential amenity is likely to be substantially greater than that identified by assessment of this proposal alone.

Conclusion

For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that SSD-95997711 be refused in its current form or substantially amended to:

Reduce building heights and overall bulk.
Minimise overshadowing impacts.
Improve setbacks and separation distances.
Limit pressure on local roads and parking.
Demonstrate adequate infrastructure capacity.
Better protect neighbourhood amenity and character.

The Department must ensure that growth within Waterloo is balanced, sustainable and supported by the infrastructure and services required to maintain a high quality of life for both existing and future residents.

Thank you for considering this submission.

I strongly object to this application and request it be referred to the Independent Planning Commission for independent determination rather than decided under departmental delegation.

This is the same scheme with storeys added, not a redesigned proposal. The amendments made since the first exhibition — reducing the Young Street tower from 38 to 34 storeys and adjusting the Bourke Street North tower's height — have not touched the substance of the objections raised. The footprint, site planning, non-residential floor space and communal space provision are essentially unchanged from the scheme that was already found deficient. This is height and yield engineering, not genuine amenity-led design.

The SSD pathway is being used to concentrate an out-of-proportion cluster of super-scale towers on a comparatively small site, with limited corresponding contribution to local infrastructure. This proposal, at up to 34 storeys, sits within a short stretch of Bourke Street that also includes the approved Coronation development at 881-885 Bourke Street (up to 36 storeys/~122m across 9 buildings) and is close to further high-rise approvals in the Waterloo Metro Quarter precinct (including a 26-storey tower). Each of these applications, including this one, has been assessed largely in isolation against its own site. There is no evidence in this application of any cumulative assessment of the combined demand this concentration of towers will place on transport, open space, schools or community infrastructure across the precinct — despite the site itself being relatively modest in area, and its own contribution back to that shared infrastructure remaining limited to the matters addressed below. Approving applications of this magnitude one at a time, each as a standalone "amendment," without ever assessing their combined effect on the precinct, is not a sound basis for development of this scale.

The City of Sydney's own formal submission on this application (27 April 2026) makes this point better than I can, and I endorse and rely on it. The Council — the relevant planning authority for this site — "strongly objects to the application" and finds that the density uplift (347 to 580 units, a 67% increase) "fails to provide a proportional increase in communal spaces and non-residential... floor space," that non-residential floor space is in fact reduced, and warns of cumulative density impacts across multiple sites in the precinct. The Council also finds the proposal "undermines the operation of the executed voluntary planning agreement." None of the amendments made since April 2026 address these findings.

Parking has not scaled with the development. The applicant's own Transport Impact Assessment confirms only 376 parking spaces are proposed — 68% of the maximum allowable under the Sydney LEP 2012, and only 30 more spaces than the existing 2021 consent's 346, despite a 67% increase in dwellings. The ~2,800m² of retail floor space is provided with no on-site parking whatsoever, justified only by reference to its "localised, walk-up nature." This shortfall will be absorbed by surrounding residential streets.

The pedestrian and cycle environment on Bourke Street will not cope with this scale of additional footfall. The applicant's own Transport Impact Assessment confirms that along the site frontage, Bourke Street has only an off-road shared path — pedestrians and cyclists combined — while the same document confirms a separated, dedicated cycleway exists immediately to the north (north of Phillip Street) and provides "a high quality cycleway connection through to the Sydney CBD." Adding 580 dwellings' worth of pedestrian and cyclist traffic to a substandard shared facility, without upgrading it to the separated standard already provided elsewhere on the same street, is a genuine safety and amenity deficiency that the application does not address.

The applicant's transport assumptions materially understate walking distance to public transport. The Transport Impact Assessment describes Waterloo Metro Station as "approximately 900m... within viable walking distance" — but this is a straight-line distance. The actual pedestrian route via McEvoy Street is approximately 1.3–1.4km, around 18 minutes' walk. This is not a minor discrepancy: the applicant's traffic and parking justification depends on residents readily substituting walking and metro use for car trips, and that assumption does not hold up against the real walking distance involved. This compounds the parking shortfall above, since more residents than assumed are likely to rely on the 376 on-site spaces or overflow onto local streets. I raised this specific discrepancy in my submission during the first exhibition. It does not appear as a distinct theme in the Response to Submissions' own categorised summary of issues (Table 3), and has not been substantively addressed — it has only been folded into a general "traffic and transport" theme referencing station capacity, not the accuracy of the walking-distance claim itself. This is illustrative of a broader pattern in this process, where specific, checkable concerns raised by the community are being addressed generically rather than substantively.

Transport capacity is a live, contested technical question, not a settled one. The applicant's consultant characterises the additional peak-hour trips as negligible. The City of Sydney directly disputes this, stating that public transport serving the precinct is "already at capacity." Where the applicant's own retained expert and the responsible local planning authority reach opposite conclusions on a core technical question — and where, as shown above, the underlying walking-distance assumption itself does not withstand scrutiny — this is precisely the kind of contested matter the Independent Planning Commission exists to resolve.

Contamination on the site remains unresolved, not merely historical. The applicant's own site investigation identifies soil vapour exceedances of chlorinated solvents — including PCE, TCE, cis-DCE and vinyl chloride — together with elevated hydrocarbons and zinc in groundwater, concentrated in the northern portion of the site, sufficient to require a tanked basement design with a vapour-proof membrane. An unresolved "Hold Point" remains pending further investigation to determine whether the remediation approach itself needs to be revised, and the finished floor level for the southern basement was not even available at the time the assessment was prepared, meaning a complete risk assessment for part of the site has not yet been done. Re-exhibiting a scheme with expanded basement works of this scale before contamination and vapour intrusion risk are fully resolved is premature.

Request: I ask that the application be refused in its current form, or that consent be limited to a built form and yield genuinely proportionate to the parking, transport, pedestrian/cycle safety, cumulative precinct infrastructure demand, communal space and non-residential floor space actually provided, and only once contamination and vapour intrusion risk are fully resolved. Given the City of Sydney's formal objection, the unassessed cumulative impact of concentrated tower development in this precinct, the failure to substantively address specific issues already raised in the first exhibition, and the unresolved technical disagreement between Council and the applicant, I request this matter be referred to the Independent Planning Commission for determination.

Attn: Chris Eldred, Key Sites Assessments Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure GPO Box 39, Sydney NSW 2001

Application: SSD-95997711 Project: 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo Submission: Objection

I live at 5 Sam Sing Street, Waterloo, and I object to the proposed amendments.

I support more housing in Waterloo. I do not support nearly doubling the approved height from 65 metres to 126 metres, lifting the floor space ratio from 1.5:1 to 3.2:1, and increasing the yield to about 580 apartments. That is a different project from the one already approved, and it should not be treated as a modification.

The streets around this site are narrow, mostly one lane and one way, and they already carry steady traffic. Extra apartments will add cars, rideshare, deliveries, and service vehicles to roads that were not built for a precinct of towers. About 20 extra parking spaces will not absorb those trips.

The closest metro and train stations are about a 20-minute walk. Most new residents will use the Bourke Street buses, which already arrive full in the morning and skip stops. A general promise of future services is not a committed upgrade. This increase should not be approved until the buses can actually carry the extra passengers, assessed together with the other large projects nearby.

A tower of this height will stand beside much smaller buildings and will dominate the street. The jump from the approved envelope will block outlook, reduce winter sun, and worsen wind at street level. It is not a reasonable transition to the existing neighbourhood.

Residents relied on the approved height, density, and planning controls. Setting aside the competitive design process and community infrastructure contributions, while offering the same public benefits for a much larger building, is not a fair exchange. Schools, parks, and other local amenities are already under strain. This application adds population without showing how those services will grow with it.

I ask the Department to refuse the application in its current form. If it is considered further, please keep the approved height and density unless the streets, buses, and amenities are shown to cope; require design review and infrastructure contributions scaled to the extra dwellings; and require a cumulative traffic and transport assessment before any increase is approved.

Yours sincerely, Andrzej Gawron 5 Sam Sing Street, Waterloo NSW 2017

I am writing to object to the proposed modification application SSD-95997711 for 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo. As a resident of 1 Danks Street, I have significant concerns regarding the scale of the proposed increase in density, the cumulative impact of development across the Waterloo precinct, and the continued failure to deliver the infrastructure necessary to support the population growth already approved. The application seeks to increase the approved development from 376 apartments to approximately 580 apartments, representing a substantial increase in residential density on the site.

My primary concern is that this proposal comes shortly after approval was granted for the existing scheme and appears to be another attempt to increase the development yield of a project that has already undergone extensive assessment and community consultation. Many residents previously raised concerns regarding height, density, traffic, infrastructure capacity and neighbourhood amenity. It is therefore disappointing that Dasco Property Development Services Pty Ltd is now seeking approval for a further 250 apartments. This approach creates a perception that the approved scheme was not the final outcome intended by the developer, but rather a stepping stone toward securing a significantly larger project. Such an approach undermines community confidence in the planning process and devalues the time and effort residents have invested in previous consultation processes.

Equally concerning is the ongoing lack of investment in supporting infrastructure. Waterloo and Green Square continue to absorb thousands of additional residents, yet there appears to be little accountability from Dasco Property Development Services Pty Ltd, Sydney Water, the City of Sydney or the NSW Government for delivering the infrastructure required to support this growth. Existing residents are repeatedly told that infrastructure issues are being considered, but there is little visible evidence that key concerns such as stormwater drainage, local road capacity, public open space, community facilities and utility infrastructure are keeping pace with the rate of development.

Stormwater infrastructure is a particular concern. Residents have observed ongoing drainage issues throughout the precinct, yet major residential developments continue to be approved with increasing density. It is difficult to understand how further population growth can be justified when there is no clear commitment to upgrading the infrastructure needed to service existing residents, let alone thousands of additional occupants. The burden of growth cannot continue to fall on the community while responsibility for infrastructure delivery is effectively passed between developers, government agencies and utility providers.

This application must also be assessed in the context of the significant development occurring across Waterloo. The Department should not consider SSD-95997711 in isolation. The cumulative impacts of this proposal, combined with the proposed Coronation Property Build-to-Rent development in Waterloo and the recently lodged application for 923-935 Bourke Street (D/2024/1208), which proposes a building of approximately 35 storeys, will fundamentally change the scale and character of the area. Together, these developments will introduce thousands of additional residents into an already densely populated precinct.

The planning assessment should therefore consider the combined pressure that these projects will place on public transport, roads, drainage infrastructure, parks, community facilities and local services. While individual developments may each claim their impacts are acceptable, residents experience the cumulative effect of all developments combined. It is this cumulative impact that is increasingly being overlooked in planning assessments.

Waterloo has already made a substantial contribution to Sydney's housing supply and will continue to do so. However, housing growth should not come at the expense of liveability. There comes a point where continued increases in density begin to erode the very qualities that make a community desirable to live in. The concentration of high-density developments throughout Waterloo risks creating an overcrowded and under-serviced neighbourhood where infrastructure, public amenity and open space lag well behind population growth.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department refuse the proposed modification application SSD-95997711. At a minimum, the Department should require a comprehensive cumulative impact assessment that considers this proposal alongside the Coronation Property development, D/2024/1208 at 923-935 Bourke Street, and other approved developments in the Waterloo and Green Square precincts. The Department should also require clear and enforceable commitments for upgrades to stormwater infrastructure, drainage systems, public open space and community facilities before any further increase in residential density is approved.

Waterloo residents deserve confidence that growth is being managed responsibly and that the infrastructure required to support existing and future communities will be delivered. In its current form, this proposal fails to provide that confidence and should not be approved.

To Whom It May Concern

I am writing to formally object to the proposed modifications under SSD-95997711 for the development at 903–921 Bourke Street and 3 McEvoy Street, Waterloo.

I live in close proximity to this site and am directly impacted by the proposed increase in scale, height, and density. While I understand the need for additional housing in Sydney, this proposal represents a significant departure from what was originally approved and raises serious concerns about the cumulative impact on the local area.

My key concerns are as follows:

First, the proposed increase in building height (from 12 to 31 storeys and from 21 to 38 storeys) is excessive and out of character with the existing and planned built environment. This scale of development will dominate the streetscape and materially change the character of the neighbourhood in a way that was not originally contemplated.

Second, the increase in density is not matched by adequate infrastructure. Public transport, roads, and local amenities in the Waterloo/Zetland/Green Square area are already operating at or near capacity. Peak-hour trains are overcrowded, buses frequently pass by full, and local roads experience regular congestion. A substantial increase in residents without corresponding infrastructure upgrades will exacerbate these issues.

Third, the proposal will have a significant impact on residential amenity. In particular, overshadowing from towers of this height will reduce natural light to surrounding homes and public spaces, especially during winter months. This has a real and tangible impact on quality of life for existing residents.

Fourth, the proposal appears to prioritise increased yield over thoughtful, integrated planning. The originally approved scheme reflected a balance between density, liveability, and infrastructure. This revised proposal undermines that balance and sets a concerning precedent for further ad hoc increases in scale across the precinct.

Finally, I am concerned about the cumulative impact of multiple large developments in the area. When considered together, these projects represent a substantial population increase over a short period of time, without a clear and coordinated plan for infrastructure, public space, and services.

For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposed modifications and request that the application be refused in its current form.

At a minimum, any revised proposal should:

Remain consistent with the originally approved height and density parameters;
Be supported by clear, funded infrastructure commitments; and
Demonstrate a genuine consideration of impacts on existing residents and community amenity.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback.

Yours sincerely,
Olivia Seet

I am a nearby resident and formally object to amending DA SSD-95997711, which proposes to increase apartments at 903–921 Bourke Street from 376 to approximately 626 and to increase building heights. This amendment represents an unacceptable intensification of an already dense precinct without adequate assessment of impacts on existing residents.

GROUND 1 — TRAFFIC CONGESTION
An additional 250 dwellings will materially worsen traffic on Bourke, McEvoy, and Young Streets, which already experience significant congestion. No adequate assessment has been provided of the cumulative traffic impact alongside the neighbouring Coronation proposal (881–885 Bourke St, 850 homes) and Fabcot/Woolworths development (923–935 Bourke St). A revised Traffic Impact Assessment must address peak hour generation, pedestrian safety, and adequacy of basement parking for the increased resident population.

GROUND 2 — ON-STREET PARKING
Residents in the immediately surrounding streets, including Wellington Street, rely entirely on on-street parking as the existing housing stock has no off-street garages or driveways. There is no alternative parking available to these households. Adding 250 new dwellings will introduce significant additional competition for a finite on-street supply. Visitor parking, tradespeople, and basement overflow from the development will spill directly onto local streets. A Parking Impact Assessment must quantify the net impact on surrounding street parking, accounting for existing stress levels before any additional demand is added.

GROUND 3 — NOISE
Noise impacts arise from two sources. During construction, the enlarged building program will expose nearby residents to sustained heavy machinery, piling, and concrete works over an extended period. Strict construction hours must be enforced with a clear resident complaints mechanism. Long-term, the primary noise impact on neighbouring streets will be from the significant increase in traffic generated by 250 additional dwellings — more vehicles, deliveries, and ride-share activity on local streets. This is a permanent impact borne by existing residents and must be modelled and assessed against NSW EPA residential noise criteria.

GROUND 4 — VIEW LOSS AND OVERSHADOWING
The original approval already relied on Clause 4.6 height variations. Further height increases compound these departures without sufficient justification. Winter solstice shadow diagrams and view impact analyses must be provided specifically for the additional height sought in this amendment, demonstrating impacts on surrounding residential properties.

GROUND 5 — CUMULATIVE DENSITY
Three major developments are proposed simultaneously in this precinct: this site (~626 apartments), Coronation at 881–885 Bourke St (850 apartments), and Fabcot at 923–935 Bourke St. The combined population increase is transformative, yet no cumulative infrastructure assessment has been provided. A Cumulative Impact Assessment addressing traffic, parking, open space, utilities, and community services across all three proposals must be required before this amendment is determined.

CONCLUSION
I request the Department require a comprehensive revised EIS addressing cumulative traffic, parking, noise, and amenity impacts; reject any further height increase beyond what is already consented; and impose enforceable conditions protecting nearby residents during construction and operation. I am a resident in close proximity to the site with a direct interest in its proper assessment.

I am strongly opposed to this development, as any increase in height level to this development will have a adverse impact to the light levels to my neighbouring apartment.On top of this any increase in the neighbouring apartment block levels will cause next to no privacy for my apartment.Also the increase in the number of the residents in the local area will cause great stress on the public transport and general traffic. The buses are already very full during peak hours.The planned increase to 29 levels to the one of the apartment blocks ,which would only be under 100 metres away from us is an example of irresponsible planning. Sydney should follow Bogota Colombia lead, where there is a law regarding the maximum number of levels to residential apartments. It must be noted that Bogota has a population of over 10 million people.

I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.

While I acknowledge the need for urban growth and renewal, I have serious concerns about the cumulative impact this proposal may have on the surrounding area—particularly in relation to traffic conditions, increased population density, and the ability of existing infrastructure to support further demand.

Traffic and transport in this areas are already under considerable strain. Roads in and around Bourke Street regularly experience congestion, especially during peak periods. Public transport is also heavily relied upon, yet services such as the 304 bus are frequently overcrowded, making it difficult for residents to access reliable transport. An increase in residents and activity from this development is likely to exacerbate these existing issues, placing additional pressure on both road networks and bus services. Although the Waterloo Metro Station is a welcome addition, its location does not adequately serve all parts of Waterloo, particular for those residents on Bourke Street and Lachlan Street sides, and many residents will continue to depend on bus connections for daily commuting.

In addition, the proposed scale of the development raises concerns about over-concentration of population within an already dense area. The intensity of the development appears inconsistent with the existing character and capacity of the neighbourhood. A significant increase in population is likely to place further strain on shared spaces and local amenities, potentially diminishing the overall quality of life for residents.

There are also broader concerns regarding infrastructure capacity. Key services—including public transport, schools, healthcare facilities, the local library, and accessible green spaces—are already operating close to their limits. While the planned conversion of part of Moore Park Golf Course into public parkland is noted, these areas are not within convenient proximity to Bourke Street Waterloo and are unlikely to adequately address the shortage of open space locally. Without firm commitments to meaningful infrastructure investment and upgrades, there is a real risk that the development will outpace the capacity of essential services.

Given these considerations, I respectfully urge Council to carefully review the proposal and consider whether it is appropriate in its current form. At a minimum, substantial revisions should be required to ensure that the impacts on the local community and infrastructure are properly addressed.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this submission.

I am an owner/occupier of an apartment at 5 O’Dea Avenue, Zetland, and my apartment has an established outlook towards the Sydney CBD.
I strongly object to the proposed substantial increase in the scale and height of the development, particularly the proposed 31-storey Bourke Street building and 38-storey tower.
The proposed development represents a significant change from the previously approved built form and would have a substantial adverse impact on the amenity and visual environment of surrounding residents.
1. Significant visual impact
A lot of apartments currently have an open outlook towards the Sydney CBD. The proposed increase in building height would introduce a very large tower into this established outlook and substantially alter the existing skyline.
I am particularly concerned that the proposed Bourke Street tower would become a dominant built element when viewed from my Level.
The visual impact should be assessed from surrounding existing residential apartments, including higher-level apartments in Zetland, and not simply from street level.
2. Excessive increase in height and scale
The increase in building height is substantial and, in my view, represents overdevelopment of the site rather than a minor modification to the previously approved scheme.
The proposed increase from the previously approved built form to buildings of approximately 31 and 38 storeys would fundamentally change the character of the surrounding area.
I am concerned that approving this scale of development would establish a precedent for further substantial increases in building height throughout Waterloo and Zetland.
3. Loss of residential amenity
Existing residents purchased their properties based on the planning environment and surrounding built form that existed or was reasonably foreseeable at the time.
The proposed towers would materially change the outlook and visual amenity currently enjoyed by residents in surrounding buildings.
4. Cumulative impact
This proposal should not be considered in isolation. Waterloo, Zetland and the Green Square area are already undergoing substantial redevelopment and population growth.
The cumulative impact of multiple high-rise developments on visual amenity, traffic, public transport, open space, infrastructure and residential amenity needs to be properly assessed.
5. Overshadowing and solar access
I request that the Department carefully assess the additional shadow generated by the proposed increased building heights on surrounding residential properties and public spaces.
The assessment should consider the cumulative effect of this proposal together with other approved and proposed developments in the Waterloo/Zetland area.
6. Wind impacts
The substantial increase in tower height has the potential to increase wind impacts around the site and surrounding pedestrian areas. I request that the wind assessment adequately considers the cumulative effect of surrounding existing, approved and proposed towers.
7. Traffic, parking and infrastructure
The substantial increase in residential density will place additional pressure on already heavily used roads, public transport, parking, pedestrian infrastructure and community facilities.
I request that the Department satisfy itself that the existing infrastructure can adequately support the additional population before approving the proposed uplift.
8. Request
For the reasons above, I respectfully request that SSD-95997711 be refused in its current form.
If the Department is not prepared to refuse the application, I request that the proposed building heights and density be substantially reduced to a scale more consistent with the surrounding area and the previously approved development.
I also request that the Department give particular consideration to the significant visual impact that the proposed Bourke Street tower would have on existing residential apartments in Zetland.

Formal Objection to Proposed Rezoning
903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo
SSD‑95997711 | Proposed Amendment to Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012
To whom it may concern,
I write to formally object to the proposed rezoning of land at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo, as outlined in State Significant Development application SSD‑95997711.
The proposal seeks to amend the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 to:
Increase the maximum building height from 65 metres to 126 metres
Increase the floor space ratio (FSR) from 1.5:1 to 3.2:1
Introduce a site‑specific clause to exclude the application of:
Clause 6.14 – Community Infrastructure Floor Space at Green Square
Clause 6.21D – Competitive Design Process
These amendments would result in an extraordinary uplift in height, density and population, while simultaneously removing key planning controls specifically designed to manage growth, infrastructure demand, and design quality in the Green Square and Waterloo precincts.
1. Inappropriate and Excessive Uplift in Height and Density
The proposed rezoning seeks to more than double the allowable building height and floor space previously approved for this site.
Under the proposal:
Bourke Street North increases from 12 storeys to 31 storeys
Young Street Tower increases from 21 storeys to 38 storeys
Apartment yield increases from 347 to approximately 580 dwellings
This represents a fundamental departure from the planning framework, built form controls, and strategic intent that underpinned the original approval by the City of Sydney.
Such an increase cannot reasonably be characterised as a minor planning adjustment. It is a radical intensification that undermines certainty in the planning system and disregards the reasonable expectations of existing residents and landowners who relied on approved controls.
2. Removal of Critical Community Infrastructure Contributions (Clause 6.14)
The proposal explicitly seeks to exclude the application of Clause 6.14, which exists to ensure that significant uplift in residential density is accompanied by appropriate contributions to community infrastructure.
This is particularly concerning given:
The addition of 233 apartments on this site alone
The cumulative impact of multiple nearby State Significant Developments
Existing pressure on libraries, community facilities, open space and local services
Allowing a substantial population increase without commensurate infrastructure provision directly contradicts both the intent of the LEP and principles of orderly and sustainable development under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
3. Infrastructure, Transport and Parking Impacts
The proposal would generate a significant increase in daily trips, service vehicles, deliveries and ride‑share activity, yet provides only 20 additional car parking spaces.
Local infrastructure is already operating at or near capacity:
Bus services (including the 304 route) are regularly overcrowded, with services bypassing stops
Green Square Station experiences severe peak‑hour congestion
Local roads and on‑street parking are heavily constrained
The proposal relies on existing infrastructure that is already inadequate and provides no credible or enforceable mechanism to address the increased demand created by this rezoning.
4. Failure to Address Cumulative Impacts
The proposed rezoning must be assessed in conjunction with:
The approved and proposed development at 881–885 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SSD‑80441462), including a 38‑storey residential tower
Multiple other high‑density developments across Waterloo and Zetland
The cumulative outcome is an estimated 4,000 additional dwellings and up to 8,000 new residents within a highly concentrated area over a short period of time.
This scale of growth is equivalent to inserting a small regional town into an inner‑city precinct without the infrastructure, transport or open space capacity to support it.
5. Overshadowing, Amenity and Built Form Impacts
The proposed towers, when combined with adjacent developments, would result in substantial cumulative overshadowing, particularly at the winter solstice, affecting:
Nearby residential properties
Public open spaces
Street‑level amenity
The proposed height and bulk are visually dominating and out of scale with the surrounding context and undermine planned height transitions within the precinct.
6. Wind Impacts and Public Safety
Buildings of the proposed height and bulk present a high risk of adverse wind conditions at street level, including wind tunnelling and downdrafts.
These conditions can:
Reduce pedestrian comfort
Pose safety risks
Diminish the livability and usability of streets and public areas
It is therefore wholly inappropriate that the proposal seeks to remove the requirement for a Competitive Design Process under Clause 6.21D, which is a critical mechanism for ensuring design excellence and mitigating high‑rise impacts.
7. Strategic and Precedent Concerns
Approval of this rezoning would establish a dangerous precedent, signalling that approved height and density controls can be significantly exceeded through post‑approval rezoning, rather than through strategic, precinct‑wide planning.
This undermines:
Confidence in the planning system
Strategic planning for Green Square and Waterloo
The principle that growth should be aligned with infrastructure delivery
Conclusion
This proposal represents overdevelopment of the site, removal of essential planning safeguards, and a clear failure to balance private development yield with public interest outcomes.
For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposed rezoning of 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo, and urge the NSW Government to refuse the LEP amendments in their current form.

To whom it may concern:

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed modifications for 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SSD-95997711). I live within walking distance of the site at 32 Wellington Street Waterloo, with my wife, 3 young children and an au pair. What is being proposed here will directly shape the streets my family walks every day, the school my children will go to, the buses my wife and I rely on for the daily commute, and the neighbourhood we chose to put down roots in. Like many of my neighbours, I am not opposed to housing, and I am not opposed to renewal in this part of Waterloo. I am opposed to the way this proposal has expanded so far beyond what was originally approved, the absence of any matching plan for the schools, transport and community infrastructure that 580 apartments will demand, and the fact that the most meaningful community protections - including the affordable housing offer - appear to be optional rather than binding.

What is being proposed is no longer the same project:

The original consent for this site was for 347 dwellings at around 65 metres in height, with a floor space ratio of 1.5:1. The application now before the Department proposes 580 dwellings (a 67% increase) at 126 metres (almost double the height), with a floor space ratio of 3.2:1. That is not a modification. It is a substantially different project. A change of this magnitude should require a fresh assessment process, a new design competition, and a new Voluntary Planning Agreement scaled to what is actually being asked for.

Instead, the State Significant Development pathway is being used to push the project through while excluding the very clauses - 6.14 and 6.21D - that would normally require independent design review and proper infrastructure contributions to the City of Sydney. The community is being asked to accept a building 55% larger than what was approved, while the public benefits offered in return are essentially unchanged. The same plaza, the same footpath widening, the same heritage square, for 233 additional apartments. That is not a fair exchange. It has the appearance of a community benefit without the substance of one.

My concerns as a local resident:

I have three direct, day-to-day concerns.

1. Schools - Alexandria Park Community School is already at capacity for kindergarten next year. Our eldest child will start primary school in 2028, and will surely be affected by this development. There is no plan in this application for additional school infrastructure to accommodate the families that 580 new apartments will bring. Parents in this neighbourhood are already being told their children may not get a place at their nearest school. Adding this many homes without any matching investment in school capacity is an obvious and avoidable failure of planning.

2. Transport - Buses on the routes that serve this site regularly pass already full at peak hour. My wife and I take the 343 every morning and evening. The McEvoy/Burke Street corner has well-documented blind spots. The Young/Danks Street intersection floods. Yet this proposal adds 233 dwellings while providing only 20 additional car spaces, on the assumption that those residents will rely on a public transport network the application has not assessed in any meaningful cumulative way. When the Coronation development, the Barings development on O'Dea Avenue, and the Waterloo Metro Quarter are layered on top of this proposal, the impact is not negligible. It has simply not been assessed together.

3. Neighbourhood character - The site sits beside streets of one and two-storey terraces. A 40-storey tower next to that built form is not a transition - it is a wall. The proposal makes no serious attempt to explain how a building of this height belongs in this part of Waterloo. Compounding that, the wind assessment relies on a neighbouring development (Coronation) that has not yet been approved or built. Pedestrian safety at street level is, in effect, being modelled against a building that may never exist.

The affordable housing offer is not what it appears to be:

The part of this application that concerns me most is the headline 12% affordable housing contribution presented in the planning statement. On a careful reading of the applicant's own documents, that figure is drawn from a City of Sydney policy the application explicitly states it is not bound by. Both the mandatory baseline and the 12% uplift contribution can be discharged through "an equivalent financial contribution" rather than as actual dwellings. There is no binding Voluntary Planning Agreement securing the affordable component.

In plain terms: it is entirely possible for this development to be approved, built, and sold without a single affordable dwelling existing on the site. That is not an affordable housing offer. It is a marketing line. If the Department is being asked to approve a 67% increase in yield on the strength of community benefits, those benefits must be enforceable - secured through a binding VPA, delivered as actual on-site dwellings, and managed in perpetuity by a registered community housing provider. Anything less is a transfer of value from the public to the developer dressed up as a community return.

What I am asking the Department to do:

I ask the Department to refuse the application as proposed. If the Department is minded to consider it further, I ask that it:

1. Refuse the exclusion of clauses 6.14 and 6.21D, or alternatively require an independent design review and a renegotiated Voluntary Planning Agreement scaled to the 55% increase in apartment yield.
2. Require the affordable housing component to be delivered as actual on-site dwellings, secured through a binding VPA that cannot be substituted with a financial contribution, and managed by a registered community housing provider.
3. Require a cumulative transport assessment covering all concurrent developments in the precinct before consent is granted.
4. Require a revised wind assessment that does not rely on the unapproved Coronation development.
5. Require a binding plan for additional school capacity to match the increase in dwellings.

Given the scale of the changes proposed and the precedent this would set for development across Waterloo and the wider inner south, I also ask that a public hearing be held so that residents have a proper opportunity to be heard.

This is not a submission against change in Waterloo. It is a submission against this particular change - one that is too tall, too dense, too thin on infrastructure, and too easy on the developer. Waterloo can absorb more housing. It cannot absorb this version of it.

Yours sincerely,

Ed Sholl
32 Wellington Street Waterloo

Subject: Formal Objection to SSD-95997711 – 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo

To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,

I am writing to formally object to the amended State Significant Development application SSD-95997711 for the mixed-use development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.

I am a resident and owner of a ground-floor apartment in the immediate surrounding area, and I am particularly concerned about the impact of the proposed development on my existing residential amenity.

My concerns are primarily related to overshadowing, loss of natural light and sunlight, visual outlook, privacy, and the cumulative impact of the increased building mass on existing lower-level residences.

1. Existing loss of sunlight and natural light

My apartment is located on the ground floor and is already affected by surrounding buildings and existing site conditions that limit access to natural sunlight and daylight.

Because my apartment is at a lower level, any additional building height, bulk or mass on the adjoining site has the potential to have a particularly significant impact on the amount of sunlight and natural light reaching my home.

I am concerned that the amended proposal may further reduce the existing level of solar access and daylight available to my apartment.

This is not simply a concern about future development in general. It is a concern about the additional impact on an existing ground-floor residence that is already experiencing limited access to sunlight and natural light.

2. Overshadowing and solar access

I respectfully request that the Department carefully assess the existing and proposed shadow impacts on my property.

In particular, I request that the assessment clearly demonstrate:

* the existing solar access to my apartment;
* the proposed solar access after completion of the development;
* the additional hours of overshadowing created by the amended proposal;
* the impact during the winter months, including around the winter solstice; and
* the cumulative overshadowing impact when the surrounding existing and approved developments are taken into account.

I believe it is important that the impact on lower-level neighbouring apartments, including ground-floor residences, is specifically considered rather than relying only on a general assessment of the surrounding area.

3. Impact on residential amenity

The proposed development has the potential to materially change the existing environment around my apartment.

A further reduction in sunlight and natural daylight would affect the everyday amenity and liveability of my home.

I am also concerned that the increased building mass may make the surrounding environment feel more enclosed and may reduce the existing sense of openness and outlook from my apartment.

I therefore ask that the Department consider the impact on existing residents from the perspective of actual residential amenity, rather than considering the development only in terms of its compliance with the broader development objectives for the precinct.

4. Visual outlook and privacy

I am also concerned about the potential impact of the proposed development on the outlook and privacy of my apartment.

The introduction of additional building mass, elevated windows, balconies or other overlooking opportunities may increase the potential for overlooking towards neighbouring residential properties.

I request that appropriate setbacks, screening, building orientation and other privacy measures be carefully considered to minimise these impacts.

5. Cumulative impact of development in the area

I am concerned that the impact of this proposal should not be assessed in isolation.

Waterloo and the surrounding Green Square precinct are undergoing significant development and intensification. The combined effect of multiple large developments may result in greater impacts on sunlight, natural light, visual outlook, wind, traffic and overall residential amenity than would be apparent when assessing this proposal alone.

I therefore respectfully request that the Department consider the cumulative impact of this development together with other existing, approved and proposed developments in the surrounding area.

6. Request for detailed assessment and mitigation

I respectfully request that the Department carefully review the amended proposal and its specific impact on existing neighbouring residences, particularly ground-floor and lower-level apartments.

If the assessment identifies a material adverse impact on existing residential amenity, I request that appropriate amendments or mitigation measures be required, including where necessary reductions or modifications to building height, bulk, massing, setbacks or other aspects of the design.

I also request that the final assessment clearly explain how the proposed development will protect reasonable solar access, natural light, privacy and residential amenity for existing neighbouring residents.

7. Conclusion

For the reasons outlined above, I formally object to the amended proposal in its current form.

I respectfully request that my submission be given full consideration as part of the assessment of SSD-95997711, and that the impacts on existing ground-floor neighbouring residences be carefully assessed before any determination is made.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours sincerely,

Meihui li
107/3 Sam sing st Waterloo
25 September 2026

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing as a concerned neighbouring resident to formally object to the proposed amendment to increase both the number of apartments and the height of the development within our suburb.

Our neighbourhood is already experiencing significant overdevelopment, with increasing residential density placing considerable pressure on local infrastructure, traffic, parking, schools, childcare services, and public open spaces. Adding more apartments and additional storeys will further intensify these existing issues without a proportionate improvement in community amenities.

My primary concerns are:

* Excessive density: The proposal represents a substantial increase in population within an area that is already heavily populated, changing the established character and scale of the neighbourhood.
* Traffic and parking: Local streets are already congested during peak hours, and on-street parking is consistently limited. Additional dwellings will inevitably increase vehicle movements and parking demand.
* Loss of privacy and overshadowing: Increasing the building height will result in greater overlooking of neighbouring homes, reduced privacy, and increased overshadowing of adjoining properties and outdoor living spaces.
* Strain on infrastructure: Existing roads, drainage, public transport, parks, childcare centres, and other community facilities are already under pressure. Higher density should not be approved without clear evidence that infrastructure can adequately support it.
* Neighbourhood character: The proposed additional floors are inconsistent with the existing streetscape and will set an undesirable precedent for further high-rise development in an already congested suburb.

Responsible urban planning should balance housing growth with liveability. Increasing the scale of this development prioritises developer yield over the wellbeing of existing residents and risks permanently diminishing the amenity of our community.

I respectfully request that the planning authority reject the proposed increase in apartment numbers and additional floors, or require the development to remain within the originally approved scale. I also ask that the cumulative impact of ongoing high-density developments in this suburb be given significant weight in the assessment.

Thank you for considering my submission.

I'm the owner of unit 201/806 Bourke Street, and I strongly object this project due to reasons below:
- Impacting current residents around the streets through blocking natural light & sight
- Pressure already limited resources in the area such as public transport, facilities and road traffic.
- Permanent impact on foot traffic and noise, this will undoubtably happen which will further impact our daily lives.
- There are TOO many apartments in Waterloo/Zetland area already, with a supply & demand issue and the increased scope of this DASCO project will only do harm to an already fragile economy in Sydney / Australia.

This project has been active for many years at the original plan, the fact DASCO has now applied to increase scope can only mean their initial project planning was very poor or they have stakeholder pressure to increase margins - this is at the cost of people's livelihoods and should not be approved by NSW Government.
I have read the reports on this proposal thoroughly and I thoroughly object

I object to the proposed amendment to SSD-95997711 at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.

The proposal would increase the development to approximately 580 apartments and a maximum height of approximately 126 metres. This represents a substantial increase in density, height and visual bulk and would significantly change the character and scale of the surrounding area. The resulting building would be visually dominant and potentially overbearing when viewed from surrounding streets and properties.

The additional population would place further pressure on existing transport and infrastructure. Bourke Street and McEvoy Street would need to accommodate increased private vehicles, deliveries, service vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. The capacity of surrounding roads and intersections should be assessed, including the cumulative impact of other developments in Waterloo.

The proposal would also increase demand for bus, rail and Metro services, pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, parking, water, sewerage, electricity, waste services, parks, schools, childcare, healthcare and community facilities. Waterloo Metro and Green Square Station should not alone be considered sufficient evidence that transport capacity is adequate.

The increased height and density also require careful assessment of overshadowing, solar access, visual bulk, privacy, overlooking, wind conditions and residential amenity.

Given these significant impacts, the proposed amendment should be rejected in its current form unless it can demonstrate that adequate infrastructure and appropriate residential amenity can be maintained.