Mixed Use Development - 903-921 Bourke St Waterloo

I object to the change in height for the development on 903-921 Bourke St Waterloo (SSD-95997711) based on the following:
a. Infrastructure- buses and trains are already over stretched. Loss of bus lines that has occurred over the past years has meant more people trying to use public transport which has less seating room. There is the issue of less local facilities or at the very least local facilities are already at stretching point and with the influx of a ‘small town’ can only get worse. Already, peak time trains from Green Square are at capacity, even with the Waterloo Station open.
b. Amenities- the small park areas to be built around the buildings do not provide enough open space. Whilst they look good for architects, they are not practicable in number and/or to be of use, especially for families. With the visual crowding in by these mega structures this would make the ‘green spaces’ around them feel confined adding to mental health issues and unusability. By increasing the population of the area, the spaces will soon be at capacity.
c. Visual impact- these buildings are out of keeping with the area and its historical importance. Plus, of course is the related issue of overshadowing. The impact of lack of sun will just add to the ‘ghetto’ like feeling which is apparent even in its present design.
d. Wind tunnels- this is again related to well-being of residents. Empty garden areas, people pushed inside due to poor outdoor conditions will only further create isolated communities of people with resultant mental issues and possibly physical injury in high wind areas. The higher the building the more likely here will be more lack of sunshine and light as well as greater wind tunnel effect.
e. Cost factor- the higher the building is, the more expensive it is to build and the higher the prices being paid to live in them. So much for creating a community of people who come from all walks of life. Is the aim to create a ‘gated’ community and thus lead to greater social inequality in an area that already has severe social inequalities?
f. I would also question the environmental impact of the buildings. High rise buildings are not energy efficient with some studies citing that they use almost twice as much energy as a mid-rise structure. So, it stands to reason that the higher these buildings become the less energy efficient they will be. I am also concerned about safety in these buildings. The higher the building the more difficult it is to control fire and evacuate in emergencies.
g. However, my greatest objection is based on community well-being. It is not that long ago that the high-rise buildings in Surrey Hills/Redfern (community housing) were referred to as ‘Suicide Towers’. The ‘Three Sisters’ as they were also known became a mecca for drugs, suicide and crime. So now, the State Government in its wisdom wants to create a new potentially similar area.
This development already will have a significant impact on the mental health and wellbeing of the entire community that will live in it and near it; however, the increase in height will only exacerbate the potential mental health issues. Issues that will be exacerbated range from feelings of isolation, depression and anxiety. By increasing the height controls there will be a larger group of people potentially having their well-being impacted.
With the increased population as a result of the height increase, there is also the issue of providing educational facilities in an area already at breaking point. There is a distinct lack of childminding and schools large enough to take in the anticipated increase in population. This coupled with poor transport infrastructure is a recipe for disaster. Any government or political representative who fails to see the political impact of such an increase in population has not read the local mood well enough.
I am most concerned for children. High rise living is not ideal for them in any situation but having buildings that are above five floors is certainly child abuse. The argument is that people are free to choose to live in the buildings; however, is the aim to create a conclave for certain socio-economic groups? For those who do have children, high rise living is not ideal; however, by increasing the height level there is the potential for more families occupying the buildings and thus more social concerns and child related physical and mental health issues. It is common knowledge that a lack of open spaces often results in inhibiting the social and physical development of children. By increasing the height there will be greater pressure on providing adequate, healthy and appropriate child friendly spaces which will allow for the physical and emotional development of children. The provision of the present ‘green spaces’ around the buildings is not adequate and as they will be wind tunnels and lack sunlight, unusable.
By allowing these buildings to increase their height, we are not creating community but adding a larger number of people to become socially, emotionally and physically isolated. High rises, in any case restrict people’s participation in use of local areas and thus propinquity- creating isolation silos; however, by increasing the height of these buildings will only add a greater number of people into an already crowded area in which its infrastructure and facilities are already overburdened.

To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Attention: Chris Eldred, Contact Planner
Re: Objection to State Significant Development Application SSD-80441462 — Waterloo Mixed Use Development, 881–885 Bourke Street

Dear Assessment Team,

I am a resident of Danks Street, Waterloo, and I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the proposed mixed-use development at 881–885 Bourke Street (SSD-80441462). While I recognise the necessity of increasing housing density in inner-city Sydney, such growth must be managed through sensitive and well-integrated planning. The current proposal represents an extreme departure from the established character of our neighbourhood and fails to address the significant strain it will place on local infrastructure and the amenity of existing residents.

1. Excessive building height and character misalignment
The submission of a 36-storey tower reaching approximately 125 metres is entirely out of scale with the surrounding built environment. Currently, the precinct is defined by buildings ranging from 4 to 13 storeys, making this proposal more than double the height of any nearby structure. Such a massive vertical increase creates a jarring visual transition and lacks the appropriate modulation required for a mid-block site on Bourke Street. Heights of this magnitude should be reserved for major transit hubs rather than nestled within an established medium-density residential corridor.

2. Unreasonable departure from established planning controls
This site is already subject to a development approval based on significantly lower height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) limits. The applicant is now seeking a massive uplift—increasing height from roughly 29 metres to 125 metres and FSR from 2.15:1 to 3.05:1—without offering a proportional public benefit. Local residents purchased property and made long-term life decisions based on the predictability of the existing planning framework. Allowing such a drastic variation undermines the integrity of the planning system and the community’s trust in established controls.

3. Significant reduction in solar access
The substantial massing and height of the proposed towers will result in a daylight deficit for many neighbouring residential properties. I am concerned that the proponent’s Solar Access report fails to provide a comprehensive analysis of the overshadowing impacts on key buildings such as Cameo (6 Lachlan Street) and Aria (4 Lachlan Street), as well as various west-facing homes nearby. This lack of transparency regarding the loss of winter sunlight for existing residents is a major flaw in the Environmental Impact Statement.

4. Establishment of a detrimental planning precedent
If a 36-storey tower is approved on a site that is not adjacent to a major transport interchange, it will set a dangerous precedent for future development throughout Waterloo. Other developers will inevitably cite this approval to justify similar disproportionate uplifts on their own land. This piece-meal approach to high-rise development is inconsistent with the orderly development objectives mandated by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

5. Insufficient public transport capacity
The development at 881–885 Bourke Street is not adequately serviced by high-capacity transit. The Waterloo Metro is a 15-minute walk away—closer to Redfern than this precinct—and the area currently relies on bus services such as the 304, 392, and 348. These routes already operate at or near maximum capacity during peak hours. Introducing roughly 850 new apartments without a confirmed and significant upgrade to transport frequency will cause existing services to fail.

6. Escalation of traffic congestion and road safety issues
Local intersections at Bourke Street’s junctions with Lachlan, Danks, and McEvoy Streets are already heavily burdened. Residential streets are frequently used by motorists attempting to bypass arterial bottlenecks, which directly impacts the safety and quietude of our neighbourhood. The Traffic Impact Assessment provided does not sufficiently account for the cumulative pressure caused by this project in conjunction with the adjacent Dasco site, the Metro precinct, and the Waterloo Estate renewal.

7. Pressure on overstretched local services
Social infrastructure in Waterloo is struggling to keep pace with recent population growth. Green Square Public School is at capacity, a local public high school is lacking, and primary healthcare providers are under immense strain. This proposal brings an enormous number of new residents to the area but offers no meaningful contribution to the community services required to support them.

8. Shortcomings in public open space provision
The central park included in the plans is inadequate as a public benefit. Being enclosed by towers ranging from 13 to 36 storeys, the space will be overshadowed and lack meaningful recreational utility, such as play equipment or lawn areas for dogs. It is too small to serve the needs of 850 new households while also catering to the existing local population.

9. Privacy and overlooking concerns
The tower has been designed with balconies and habitable rooms that look directly into the private spaces of existing low-rise dwellings. This creates a permanent loss of privacy and a sense of visual intrusion for long-term residents. The application provides insufficient setbacks or architectural screening to properly mitigate these overlooking impacts.

10. Cumulative construction disruptions
Our community is currently enduring prolonged construction activity across various sites, resulting in constant noise, dust, and heavy vehicle movements. The scale of this project will intensify these disruptions for years. Should any approval be granted, it must be conditioned upon a transparent and enforceable Construction Management Plan that strictly regulates haulage routes, operating hours, and noise limits in coordination with other active sites.

11. Worsening of wind tunnel effects
The sheer height and volume of the proposed towers are likely to exacerbate wind tunnel effects at street level. This will make outdoor spaces, balconies, and the proposed public park significantly less comfortable for pedestrians and residents. I do not believe the wind impacts have been modelled with sufficient rigour in the current application.

12. Impact on on-street parking availability
Parking is a scarce resource in Waterloo, and the high-density nature of this proposal will inevitably increase competition for on-street spaces. This overflow demand will negatively affect local businesses and make it increasingly difficult for current residents to park near their homes.

13. Personal loss of amenity and solar access
As a resident of a ground-floor apartment, the proposed scale of this development is particularly distressing. My home would be deprived of almost all natural light, transforming it into a dark and uninviting living space. I believe this project would be a major blow to our community, causing a severe negative impact on our immediate surroundings, transport networks, and local infrastructure. I am strongly opposed to the development in its current form.

Requested outcome
I request that the Department refuse this application or insist on fundamental changes to the scheme. These must include a substantial reduction in building height to align with the surrounding 4–13 storey context, a more transparent and thorough solar access assessment that accounts for all neighbouring residents, and a robust Construction Management Plan. While I do not object to the redevelopment of this site in principle, I cannot support a proposal of this excessive scale and height under the current planning framework.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours sincerely,

Billie browning
Danks st, Waterloo NSW

I strongly object to application SSD-95997711. My detailed objection, including material planning considerations relating to scale, heritage impact, transport, community infrastructure protections, and incomplete technical assessments, is set out in the attached letter. I respectfully request that the Department refuse the amended application and allow D/2021/1415 to proceed as approved.

As a Waterloo resident, I formally object to SSD-95997711 for alterations and additions to the approved mixed-use development at 903–921 Bourke Street and 3 McEvoy Street, Waterloo.

I am concerned that the applicant consistently understates the real-world amenity and transport impacts of the proposal. In particular, the wind, shadow and transport assessments rely on technical framing that does not reflect how the development will actually affect nearby residents and public spaces.

1) Wind impacts

Whilst the Wind Report prepared by MEL Consultants (Appendix 33, February 2026 addendum) concludes that the proposal meets the pedestrian safety criterion at all ground-level test locations, I remain concerned about pedestrian comfort and the practical usability of key outdoor areas.

At test location 23, which corresponds to the Nathan Road Cantonese Restaurant at 832 Bourke Street, the assessment indicates only walking comfort. That suggests the proposal may reduce the amenity of outdoor dining in that location.

At test location 27, which relates to a pedestrian crossing point, the assessment also indicates only walking comfort. Given the busy intersection environment, this may create an uncomfortable waiting space for pedestrians, particularly during peak periods.

The future park achieves only sitting comfort in one test location (location 63). That appears inconsistent with SDRP’s requirement in its letter of 18 December 2025, which called for a generous area for sitting and gathering to support the increased population.

2) Shadow impacts

Section 7.4.6 of the EI&RS, in the 830–840 Bourke Street (Divercity) summary, states that the proposed uplift ensures there is no reduction in the number of apartments achieving at least two hours of sunlight in mid-winter. In my view, this should more accurately be stated as no reduction in the percentage of apartments achieving at least two hours of sunlight in mid-winter.

The summary also states that although some additional overshadowing affects 10 units, those units still receive at least 2 hours of solar access to the living areas. However, the corresponding diagram in Appendix 9E, Design Report Appendix B Solar Access (in Figure 1 attached), indicates that the 10 units will receive less than two hours of sunlight.

Accordingly, the statement that the shadow impact does not alter the overall performance of adjacent buildings with respect to the percentage of apartments receiving at least 2 hours solar access appears inconsistent with the diagram and should be reconsidered.

3) Transport impacts

The proposed SSD adds 233 apartments to the approved yield, which will materially increase resident demand, yet the proposal adds only 30 additional parking spaces. In my view, the Transport Impact Assessment overstates the ease with which the site can be absorbed by the surrounding transport network.

The TIA states that the site is well serviced by public transport, but that does not match the day-to-day experience of many residents who rely on bus services and cannot always walk long distances to rail or metro. In my case, I rely on the 343 bus for home-bound travel from Waterloo Metro to Bourke Street, and cancelled or unreliable services can leave me feeling stranded and unsafe after dark.

The TIA identifies Green Square station as approximately 1,000 metres from the site and Waterloo Metro as approximately 900 metres away. That may be acceptable in theory, but it is not a convenient walk for everyone, especially at night, in bad weather, or for people with mobility limitations.

I am also concerned that the public transport section relies on route information that should be checked against current TfNSW services before any conclusions are drawn:
• M20 route no longer exists.
• 301 route no longer goes through Waterloo.
• 302 route no longer exists.
• 303 route no longer goes through Waterloo.
• 343 route now only goes from Elizabeth St to Circular Quay

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department give serious weight to the cumulative amenity and transport impacts of the proposal and preserve the original development parameters.

To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Attention: Chris Eldred, Contact Planner
Re: Objection to State Significant Development Application SSD-95997711— Waterloo Mixed Use Development, 903-921 Bourke Street

Dear Assessment Team,

I am a resident of Danks St, Waterloo, and I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the proposed mixed-use development at 903-921 Bourke Street (SSD-95997711). While I recognize the necessity of strategic urban densification to meet Sydney’s housing needs, such growth must be sympathetic to the existing local context. The current proposal represents a significant overdevelopment of the site that is fundamentally inconsistent with the established character and capacity of our neighbourhood.

1. Inappropriate height and scale
The proposed 36-storey skyscraper, reaching an elevation of roughly 125 metres, is entirely out of scale with the surrounding Waterloo precinct. Existing and under-construction buildings in this immediate area typically range from 4 to 13 storeys, making this tower more than double the height of its neighbours. This creates a jarring visual disconnect rather than a considered transition. A tower of this magnitude is typically reserved for major transit hubs and is unsuitable for a mid-block location on Bourke Street.

2. Unjustified planning uplift
A development approval already exists for this site under much more modest height and FSR controls. This new application seeks a radical increase in density, rising from a 29m height limit to 125m, and an FSR increase from 2.15:1 to 3.05:1, without offering a corresponding public benefit of equal value. The local community and property owners have made long-term decisions based on the existing planning framework. Allowing such a massive departure from the approved envelope compromises the transparency and predictability of the NSW planning system.

3. Precedent for future overdevelopment
Permitting a 36-storey structure on a site that lacks direct proximity to a major transport interchange sets an alarming precedent for the broader Waterloo area. If approved, other landholders will undoubtedly cite this development to justify similar out-of-scale rezoning requests. This piece-meal approach to significant upzoning undermines the principles of orderly and sustainable development as outlined in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

4. Strain on public transport infrastructure
Public transport in Waterloo is already stretched to its limits. The new Waterloo Metro is a considerable walk from this site and is better positioned to serve the Redfern end of the suburb. Local bus services, specifically the 304, 392, and 348, are frequently at capacity during rush hour. Introducing roughly 850 new dwellings without a confirmed and proportional increase in bus frequency or transport capacity will leave existing and future residents with a failing transit network. Furthermore, several concerns are as follows:
• Bus corridors are already opening within congested road environment
• There are no dedicated bus priority lanes on Bourke St
• No additional transport upgrades are proposed in connection with the uplift.
In addition to the above, increasing residential density in the absence of improved transport infrastructure risks further congestion, increased private vehicle reliance, and diminished amenity for existing residence.

5. Road safety and traffic congestion
The intersections at Bourke, Danks, Lachlan, and McEvoy Streets are already notorious for heavy congestion. As arterial roads reach a standstill, more drivers are using quiet residential streets as shortcuts, which creates safety risks and ruins local amenity. I am concerned that the Traffic Impact Assessment fails to account for the combined pressure of this project alongside the nearby Waterloo Metro precinct and the massive Waterloo Estate redevelopment. Furthermore, several concerns are as follows:
• Intensify pedestrian movement
• Increase vehicle and delivery activity
• Heighten safety risk for cyclists and pedestrians

6. Deficiencies in public open space
The central park included in the proposal is insufficient as a meaningful public amenity. Enclosed by buildings ranging from 13 to 36 storeys, the space will be overshadowed and lack winter sun. Furthermore, it appears to lack essential recreational features such as play areas or dog-friendly zones. It is unrealistic to expect this small, overshadowed patch of land to meet the needs of 850 new households while also serving the existing community.

7. Loss of privacy and overlooking
The orientation of the tower’s balconies and primary living windows will result in direct lines of sight into the private rooms and outdoor spaces of existing low-rise residences. The proposal lacks the necessary setbacks or sophisticated screening measures required to protect the privacy of current neighbours, leading to an unacceptable level of visual intrusion.

8. Unacceptable cumulative construction burden
Our precinct has been subject to years of continuous construction, leading to persistent noise, dust, and heavy vehicle traffic. Adding a project of this immense scale will further degrade the quality of life for residents. Should this proceed, there must be a strictly enforceable Construction Management Plan that coordinates with nearby active sites to manage cumulative noise and haulage impacts in a transparent manner.

9. Adverse wind conditions
The height and bulk of the proposed structures are likely to create or exacerbate wind tunnel effects at the street level. This can make the public domain, including the proposed park and pedestrian footpaths, uncomfortable and uninviting. I do not believe the wind impacts on the surrounding microclimate have been sufficiently analysed or mitigated in the current application.

10. Escalating parking competition
The scarcity of on-street parking is a major issue for current Waterloo residents and businesses. A development of this magnitude will inevitably lead to an overflow of parking demand into the surrounding residential streets. This competition for limited spaces will significantly disadvantage existing residents who rely on local street parking. Density uplift without corresponding transport infrastructure or parking strategy risks transferring the burden from development site to the surrounding community.

11. Impacts on deliveries and logistics
The current congestion on our streets has reached a point where it is extremely difficult for delivery vehicles to find adequate space to park or unload. This creates significant delays and safety hazards for couriers and service providers. This development will only worsen the existing lack of curb side capacity, making basic logistical access for the neighbourhood almost impossible.
Requested outcome
I request that the Department refuse this application in its current form. Any approval for this site should be contingent on substantial amendments, including a major reduction in the maximum building height to align with the surrounding 4–13 storey context. Furthermore, a transparent solar access study and a robust, enforceable Construction Management Plan are essential. I wish to reiterate that I do not oppose the development of this site in principle, but I strongly object to a proposal of this excessive scale and height under the current planning framework.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours sincerely,

Name Withheld
Danks St, Waterloo NSW

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo, currently under consideration by Council.

Our primary concerns relate to the significant and negative impacts this development is likely to have on traffic congestion, population density, and the capacity of existing local infrastructure.

Firstly, the proposal is likely to contribute to increased traffic congestion in the surrounding area. Local roads are already experiencing significant traffic volumes, particularly during peak hours. Public transport is similarly under strain; for example, it is often extremely difficult to board the 304 bus service during peak periods under current population levels. Additional residential and/or commercial activity would place further pressure on both road networks and bus services, potentially resulting in longer travel times, reduced safety for pedestrians and cyclists, and challenges for emergency vehicle access. While the new Waterloo Metro Station is a positive development, it is not centrally located for many residents, and a large proportion of the Waterloo community continues to rely heavily on bus services for travel to the CBD and Central Station.

Secondly, the scale of the development raises serious concerns about increased population density. The proposed density appears disproportionate to the character and capacity of the area. Such a substantial increase in residents will alter the amenity of the neighbourhood, placing pressure on public spaces and reducing overall livability for existing and future residents.

Finally, local infrastructure is already under considerable pressure and does not appear adequately equipped to support further expansion of this magnitude. Essential services such as public transport, schools, healthcare facilities, the local library, and green spaces are operating at or near capacity. While there has been a decision to convert part of the Moore Park Golf Course into public parkland, these green spaces remain relatively distant from Bourke Street Waterloo and are unlikely to meaningfully alleviate the existing shortfall of accessible open space within the immediate area. Without clear, detailed, and credible plans for substantial infrastructure upgrades, the proposed development risks placing additional strain on already constrained services and diminishing the overall quality, accessibility, and amenity available to the community.

In light of these concerns, I respectfully request that Council reconsider or reject the proposed development, or at the very least require substantial modifications to address these critical issues.

Thank you for considering this submission.

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 local resident and a home owner of the Waterloo/Zetland/Green Square area and I strongly object to the proposed amendments to the approved development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.

The proposed amendments represent a substantial and unacceptable intensification of the original approval. Increasing the Bourke Street North building from 12 storeys to 31 storeys (more than double (!!!)), and the Young Street tower from 21 storeys to 38 storeys, is not a minor modification. It is a fundamental change to the scale, density and impact of the development. The proposal would significantly alter the character of the area and place further pressure on infrastructure, transport, parking, open space and local amenities that are already under strain.

The proposed increase from 347 approved apartments to 580 apartments would add 233 additional apartments, yet the proposal appears to provide only 20 additional parking spaces. This is not raising any red flags for you?! This is clearly inadequate and would push more vehicles onto surrounding residential streets, worsening congestion and competition for already limited parking. It would also place further pressure on public transport services, including buses and Green Square Station, which are already heavily used during peak periods.

The area is already experiencing rapid population growth, and the cumulative effect of thousands of new apartments cannot be ignored. Planning decisions should consider the lived reality for residents, not assess each tower in isolation.

My key objections are as follows:

1. The proposed height increases are excessive and out of character with the surrounding area. A jump from 12 storeys to 31 storeys and from 21 storeys to 38 storeys would create a visually dominant and overbearing development. The scale is disproportionate to the site and surrounding streetscape, and would significantly change the character of the neighbourhood.

2. Local roads, public transport, pedestrian routes and community services are already under pressure. Adding hundreds of additional apartments without corresponding infrastructure upgrades is not responsible planning. Residents already experience congestion, crowded buses, pressure on Green Square Station and difficulty accessing local services. This proposal would worsen those issues.

3. Providing only 20 additional parking spaces for 233 additional apartments is plainly insufficient. Even where residents rely on public transport, car ownership, visitor parking, trades, deliveries, ride-share vehicles and service vehicles still create demand. The proposal would likely increase illegal parking, traffic conflicts and pressure on surrounding streets.

4. Towers of this scale are likely to create significant overshadowing impacts on surrounding homes, streets, public spaces and communal areas. Residents should not be expected to accept major reductions in sunlight, privacy and outlook simply because a developer seeks to substantially increase yield beyond the original approval.

5. Tall towers can create uncomfortable wind conditions at street level and reduce the quality of public spaces. The proposed towers would also create overlooking and privacy impacts for nearby residents. The visual bulk of the development would dominate the local area and undermine the human-scale character that should be protected in a residential community.

6. The local area already has limited capacity in libraries, parks, childcare, health services and other community facilities. A significant increase in population must be matched by investment in public infrastructure and amenities. Approving more apartments without adequate supporting services will reduce quality of life for existing and future residents.

7. Approving such a substantial increase after the original approval would set a concerning precedent. It would suggest that developers can obtain approval for one scale of development and later seek major increases in height and density, undermining community trust in the planning process.

For these reasons, I request that Council strongly oppose the proposed amendments and advocate for the protection of local amenity, appropriate building scale, adequate infrastructure and responsible planning outcomes.

I do not object to housing in principle. However, housing growth must be planned properly, supported by infrastructure, and delivered at a scale that respects the existing and future community. This proposal goes too far and would impose unacceptable impacts on residents.

I respectfully request that the proposed amendments be refused or substantially reduced to remain consistent with the original approval and the capacity of the local area.


25 April 2026

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 writing to formally object to the proposed modification of the mixed-use development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.

This proposal represents a substantial and unacceptable increase in scale from what was originally approved. The height increase from approximately 65 metres to around 125 metres effectively doubles the development mid-process. This is not a minor amendment but a fundamental change that significantly alters the impact on the surrounding community.

Residents engaged with and accepted the original proposal on the basis of its approved scale. Doubling the height after approval undermines community trust in the planning process and raises serious concerns about transparency and procedural fairness.

The revised proposal will have several adverse impacts:

1. Increased congestion and infrastructure strain
The local area is already experiencing significant congestion, particularly along Bourke Street and surrounding roads. A development of this increased scale will exacerbate traffic, parking shortages, and pressure on already stretched public transport and local infrastructure.

2. Overshadowing and loss of amenity
The substantial increase in height will result in greater overshadowing of neighbouring residential buildings and public spaces. It will also lead to a loss of views and reduced natural light, negatively affecting residents’ quality of life.

3. Inadequate community consultation
For a change of this magnitude, there appears to have been limited meaningful consultation with local residents. Many in the community are unaware that the development has effectively doubled in size. This lack of engagement is deeply concerning.

4. Precedent and planning integrity
Allowing such a significant increase post-approval sets a troubling precedent. It signals that developers can secure approval at a lower scale and later seek major uplifts, bypassing the level of scrutiny that a proposal of this size would ordinarily require.

Given the extent of these impacts, I strongly urge the consent authority to reject this modification application.

At a minimum, any proposal of this revised scale should be subject to a fresh assessment process with comprehensive community consultation, rather than being treated as a modification to an existing approval.

This proposal, in its current form, is inconsistent with the expectations of the local community and fails to adequately consider the cumulative impacts on amenity, infrastructure, and planning integrity.

I respectfully request that this modification be refused.

I wish to formally object to the proposed development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo on the grounds of excessive overshadowing and inadequate solar access, which will negatively impact the amenity of surrounding properties and public spaces.

The proposal appears inconsistent with the solar access and environmental performance objectives outlined in the relevant planning controls administered by the City of Sydney Council. These controls emphasise the importance of maintaining adequate sunlight to habitable rooms, private open spaces, and communal areas—particularly during midwinter conditions when access to sunlight is most limited and most critical to residential amenity.

Based on the scale, height, and massing of the proposed development, it is highly likely that the building will cast significant additional shadows over neighbouring properties and surrounding areas. This is of particular concern during the hours between 9:00am and 3:00pm in midwinter, which are typically used as the benchmark period for assessing solar access. Any substantial reduction in direct sunlight during this period represents a meaningful degradation in living conditions.

The loss of solar access has several tangible impacts, including:

Reduced natural lighting to living rooms and primary living spaces, leading to increased reliance on artificial lighting
Diminished usability and comfort of private open spaces such as balconies and courtyards
Adverse effects on thermal comfort, particularly in winter months where sunlight contributes to passive heating
Broader implications for health and wellbeing, as access to natural light is a key component of residential liveability

In addition to impacts on private dwellings, there is concern that the development may also increase overshadowing of public or communal spaces. If parks, streetscapes, or shared open areas are affected, this would further undermine the quality and usability of the local urban environment and conflict with established urban design principles that prioritise sunlight access to public domain areas.

It is also important to consider cumulative impacts. Waterloo is already experiencing significant urban densification, and the incremental loss of sunlight across multiple developments can result in a substantial overall decline in environmental quality. This proposal contributes to that cumulative burden and should be assessed with that context in mind.

I request that the consent authority:

Require a detailed and transparent overshadowing analysis, including clearly legible shadow diagrams for midwinter conditions at hourly intervals
Demonstrate compliance with applicable solar access standards for neighbouring properties and open spaces
Consider design amendments to reduce the extent of overshadowing, such as lowering building height, reducing bulk, or modifying setbacks and building separation

Until it can be clearly demonstrated that the development will not result in unreasonable loss of solar access or amenity, I do not support the approval of this proposal.

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.

Objection to proposed mixed-use development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo

I strongly object to the proposed amendment to the approved development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo, which seeks to add more apartments to an already substantial mixed-use development.

The proposed increase is excessive for this location and would represent serious overdevelopment of the site.

The development would create an extremely high-rise built form that is out of scale with the surrounding Waterloo streetscape.

The tallest element would stand out as one of the most dominant buildings in the immediate area.

The development would visually overpower nearby lower-rise apartment buildings and older residential streets.

The additional height and bulk would create unacceptable overshadowing of neighbouring buildings, streets, open spaces and apartments.

Existing residents should not lose sunlight, outlook and amenity simply so the developer can add hundreds of extra apartments.

Waterloo and surroundig suburbs are already dense inner-city suburbs, and this proposal would push density beyond what the local infrastructure can reasonably support.

Public transport in the immediate area is limited. For many residents, buses are the main practical option, and they are already full or overcrowded at busy times.

The proposal would add hundreds of new residents without a matching increase in transport capacity.

The site is not directly on a train or metro station, so it is misleading to treat it as though it can absorb unlimited density.

Bourke Street, McEvoy Street and surrounding roads already experience congestion, especially during peak times.

More apartments mean more cars, rideshare vehicles, deliveries, removalist vans, visitors and service vehicles.

The local street network is not designed to absorb this level of additional pressure.

Parking and traffic impacts will spill into surrounding residential streets.

There are not enough shops, supermarkets, medical services, childcare places, community facilities or everyday amenities in the immediate area to support such a large increase in population.

Existing residents already rely heavily on nearby suburbs for many basic services.

The proposal risks creating a high-density enclave without adequate supporting infrastructure.

The building bulk would reduce privacy for neighbouring apartments, especially where windows and balconies face existing homes.

The proposal would increase noise from residents, retail uses, loading docks, waste collection, traffic and construction.

Construction impacts would be severe and prolonged, including dust, noise, vibration, truck movements and disruption to nearby residents.

The development would place additional pressure on already limited public open space in Waterloo.

Any public-domain improvements do not compensate for the loss of sunlight, privacy, outlook, neighbourhood character and liveability.

The proposal appears to prioritise apartment yield over good planning, human scale and the wellbeing of existing residents.

The area needs thoughtful, proportionate development, not a major uplift that overwhelms local infrastructure.

Approval would set a concerning precedent for further excessive height and density in Waterloo.

The proposed additional apartments would worsen the urban heat island effect through increased building mass, hard surfaces and reduced sunlight access.

The scale of the development is inconsistent with the character of the local area and would create a jarring built-form outcome.

The cumulative impact of this proposal, together with other developments in Waterloo, Green Square and Alexandria, must be properly considered.

Existing residents should not be expected to absorb endless increases in density without equivalent improvements to transport, schools, parks, roads, services and community infrastructure.

I request that the consent authority refuse the proposed amendment or require a substantial reduction in height, bulk, density and apartment numbers.

At minimum, the proposal should be redesigned to better protect neighbouring residents from overshadowing, traffic, privacy loss, noise and infrastructure strain.

For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposed development.

Objection to Proposed Development at 881–885 and 903–921 Bourke Street
I wish to formally object to the proposed development based on the following concerns regarding its impact on the local community and environment.
1. Infrastructure Strain
The proposed increase in residents will place significant and unacceptable pressure on already overburdened infrastructure. Local transport services, including the 304 bus and peak-hour train services from Green Square, are currently operating at or near capacity. It is not uncommon for buses to pass stops without picking up passengers due to overcrowding. This development would exacerbate these issues without any clear plan to improve transport capacity.
2. Insufficient Public Amenities
Existing public amenities are already under strain and are not keeping pace with population growth. Facilities such as local libraries are frequently overcrowded, making it difficult for residents to access basic community resources. The addition of hundreds of new residents will further diminish accessibility and reduce overall quality of life.
3. Visually Overbearing Scale
The proposed height and bulk of the development are excessive and out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood. The scale of the buildings would dominate the streetscape, creating a visually intrusive presence that undermines the established character and amenity of the area.
4. Overshadowing Impacts
The cumulative effect of the two large towers at 903–921 Bourke Street and the additional tower at 881–885 Bourke Street will result in significant overshadowing, particularly during winter months. This will negatively impact nearby homes, streets, and public open spaces, reducing access to natural light and overall livability.
5. Wind Tunnel Effects
The scale and configuration of the proposed towers are likely to create wind tunnel effects at street level. This will reduce pedestrian comfort and detract from the usability and enjoyment of public spaces.
6. Inadequate Parking Provision
The proposal includes 233 additional apartments but provides only 20 extra parking spaces. This is clearly insufficient and will inevitably increase on-street parking demand in an already congested area. The resulting competition for parking will negatively impact residents, visitors, and local businesses.
Conclusion
In its current form, this development fails to adequately address its significant impacts on infrastructure, amenity, and the character of the neighbourhood. I strongly urge that the proposal be reconsidered or substantially revised to better align with the capacity and needs of the local area.

The ammenities are not sufficient to support the current population, let alone an increase. The privatisation of the 320 and 304 along with limited 392 services - buses are unable to cope. The Metro is placed in Alexandria not Waterloo and is unsafe to be for older people and women after dark. The 304 needs to run more frequently in peak hour. The 320 needs to resume running at least to Wynyard (it used to go over the bridge but not only stops at Central). The proposed development doesn’t include gyms, pools, or sufficient parking for the area. Regardless of metro area requirements - you should follow ACT and build enough spots underground for everyone to own a car as you wish to put bikes on the roads. Most Australians road trip and have family interstate and prefer to have freedom of cars. This is not going to change. This removes parked cars and enables use of additional lanes without obscene construction costs. Additionally Crown st and Baptist st could use additional development and road redesign to allow flow of traffic and still support business. It is a major thoroughfare for Waterloo. The Bus Stop as you are travelling towards Zetland from the City past the Surry Hills Village but before Phillip St can be removed. Jutting out the bus lanes along crown creates traffic and stops the 8000 people living here being able to drive up it. That was a terrible decision and a waste of money - the flow of traffic is terrible. The height of the propose building is gargantuan and unnecessary. Current height approvals are more than sufficient. Additionally, the wind tunnel that exists along potter st and surrounding areas will be worsened. The density proposed is obscene without genuine thought out common sense logic. You fail to service the current population adequately and have already privatised the bus routes. Density will also be increased in surrounding areas like Zetland and Waterloo near the metro. Without adequate parking mandated for these buildings you will destroy Sydney. It is a wealthy city with wealthy people that want to be able to drive their nice car. We have to have cars for work, to see family, travel to investment properties or simply holiday without wanting to pay a gross amount to rent a car. Bit of a disgusting grab from the developer and would be an absolute blight on the current government administrations overseeing the go ahead that have failed to be able to think at a wholistic level thinking of every important part. Projects like this will kill Sydney if not done sensibly with action on community ammenities and the facilitation of the Australian Sydney lifestyle.

26 April 2026
To Whom It May Concern,
Mixed Use Development - 903-921 Bourke St Waterloo - (EXH-113655238)
I am writing to formally object to the amended development proposal for 903-921 Bourke St Waterloo - (EXH-113655238), which now seeks to significantly increase the height and scale of the originally approved plan. The revised proposal represents a substantial departure from what was initially presented to the community. Doubling the building height is not a minor adjustment—it fundamentally alters the character of the area and has serious consequences for surrounding residents.

First, the increased height will result in the loss of existing city views from my property. These views are a key component of the amenity and value of my home. Their loss represents not only a significant reduction in quality of life, but also a decrease in property value.

Second, the proposal fails to adequately address infrastructure impacts. The increase in density will inevitably lead to greater traffic congestion in an area that is already under strain. There has been no meaningful commitment to improving transport options. Existing bus services are already overcrowded, and no additional services have been proposed to accommodate the increased population.

Third, the development raises serious concerns regarding community impact. The inclusion of additional social housing, without appropriate support infrastructure, risks exacerbating existing issues in the area. Residents already experience disturbances including late-night noise, antisocial behaviour, and public drunkenness. Increasing density without proper planning and safeguards will likely intensify these problems. I understand that a number of the proposed units will be small one bedroom apartments. Developments of this nature can present challenges if not supported by appropriate planning, management and community services. Without these measures in place, there is a risk of further strain on the local environment and community amenity.

In addition, residents have already endured prolonged disruption from ongoing and past construction in the area. This has included years of exposure to construction noise, dust, and general disturbance, both on weekdays and weekends. As someone working from home, these impacts have been particularly challenging, affecting daily life and the ability to work effectively. Extending or intensifying this level of disruption through a significantly larger development is unreasonable and unfair to existing residents.

The development has also already impacted the usability of my property. I have often been unable to use my balcony, which is my only outdoor space, due to excessive dust, noise, and unpleasant odours emanating from the site, including sewer-like smells. This has significantly reduced my ability to enjoy my home and outdoor living space.

Finally, there are existing environmental and health concerns that have not been addressed. Issues such as rodent activity are already present in the area, and higher population density may worsen these conditions if not properly managed.
In summary, the amended proposal prioritises increased scale and density at the expense of existing residents’ amenity, infrastructure capacity, and community wellbeing. I respectfully request that this application be refused.

Thank you for considering my objection.

I am a resident who has been living since 2022 in an apartment complex, which is less than 200 metres from this site.

The “Environmental Impact and Rezoning Statement” states on page 94 that “Letter box drop: 750 notices were distributed to properties within close proximity to the site”. The “Engagement report” on page 13 says the same. Despite living around 200m from this site, I confirm that I never received such a letter. There was no information about this intention to amend or even any notices around the site that I walk around regularly. Therefore, this statement is misleading and inaccurate, which calls into question the credibility of the entire proposal.

I only came to know about this amendment proposal for the first time, less than a week ago, from the building manager of our apartment complex. I was already aware of the original proposal, which was put forward several years ago; however, this amendment appears to have been introduced in a manner that allows it to slip past the surrounding community.

Having said that, going through the “Engagement report”, it shows that even if more community feedback was sought, concerns wouldn’t be addressed adequately anyway. The community has strongly opposed this amendment as per the raw comments in “Engagement report”; however, none of the submitted documents by the developer seems to genuinely address these concerns. Rather, they try to brush off or provide some convincing-looking argument.

The area around this building is already congested with so many residential apartment complexes. The number of community parks, public spaces, green spaces, playgrounds, and recreational areas is very low compared to the density of the number of people living around. The narrow roads are already full of traffic, no parking spaces are available, and buses are full during the peak hours. The original proposal itself was a further burden on this, but adding 200 more apartments on top of the already proposed 300 is insane. To add more, this NSW scheme that bypasses the council seem to have an application for another massive tower with hundreds of apartments less than 50 meters from this site. These sites are >500m away from the green square station (which is already crowded) and the new metro station, so without having proper transport options provided for that 500m, this will create massive congestion. See the traffic in the attachment near the green square – on 26th Sunday, April 2026, even during non-peak hours. At least if these buildings were next to the Waterloo metro (where there are areas that are not yet this densely packed), it would have made at least a bit more sense. The NSW state government’s ad hoc approvals like this will make the Waterloo/Zetland/Greensquare area unlivable like Hong Kong.

While there is a housing crisis and affordability issues, putting an unsustainable level of apartment units in an already crowded and densely populated area is totally unacceptable. There are many suburbs towards the east of Sydney that are significantly less dense and can be utilised for these. Eastlakes and Kensington are very good examples. I do not understand why more and more apartments are being put into this already crowded area. The same developer has done a maximum 8-story apartment complex with only 142 units in Kensington – why aren’t towers of 30 floors not being built in these suburbs that have very little housing density? Furthermore, apartments from this developer are extremely expensive, and there is no way they will create affordability. Consequently, this amendment to the proposal will not adequately address the issues, despite claims to the contrary.

Furthermore, the documents state “The subject proposal does not include affordable housing, but makes a significant (~$40M) contribution to the City of Sydney’s Affordable Housing fund to fund future affordable housing projects.”. This demonstrates that the application does NOT intend to help affordability, but instead procrastinate it to the future. By the time this building is finished, it could be way later than 2029. So, unless this proposal itself has ways to provide affordable houses as soon as possible, it does not fall under the HDA’s priority “The Government's priority is delivering completed homes, not just approvals.” Rather looks like the developer is gaming this system to increase their profit margins. I hope those who review these documents pay careful attention to these. In fact, there is an already approved application for 300 apartments, and this amendment will delay the delivery of those by a few more years.

Furthermore, it’s important to note that the City of Sydney council has already failed to adequately control excessive housing density under its relaxed limits for this area; attempting to bypass even those by doubling the allowable density is unreasonable.

In summary, I strongly object to this proposal. Many residents in the area likely feel the same; however, I suspect that a number of them may not even be aware that it has been proposed.

As a local resident of 18 years who lives one block away from the proposed development, I strongly object to the DASCO development proposal. I understand the need for more housing closer to the city. However the current proposal will have a massive impact on the local community as there will be insufficient amenity and infrastructure with the proposed density.

There is currently a shortage of parking in the area and there are insufficient parking spaces for the additional apartments. In the proposal Dasco argues that by providing less car parking spaces there will be less cars . However you cannot stop new residents owning cars so they will inevitably park on the surrounding streets. The streets surrounding the new development are already at maximum capacity for traffic and the new apartments will further increase this. Getting onto and crossing South Dowling street is particularly difficult and Lachlan Ave is often backed up almost to Bourke Street. Most of the surrounding streets allow for only one lane of traffic either direction. There is also the issue of safety of pedestrians, particularly children walking to school, and cyclists with the increased traffic. The local buses are already overcrowded at peak hour.

The increased height proposed will cast long shadows onto surrounding streets and a wind tunnel. As someone who walks and cycles around the area to get around this will impact me. My privacy will also be impacted as people will be able to see into my bedroom. There will be less green space available as the proposal seeks to override the City of Sydney’s development stipulation to provide a certain amount of green space. The scale of the buildings is out of character with the immediately surrounding streets.

I regularly use local public pools in the area which are very busy outside standard working hours. Increased density would put a greater demand on them. Also the the cycleways are very busy at peak hour and will be strained with the proposed increased density.

On a broader note the proposal does not clearly address affordable housing which is much needed close to the city. The 12% affordable housing contribution is not binding. The starting price of the already approved apartments is beyond the reach of average Australians and there there are relatively few apartments planned with sufficient number of rooms for families compared to those for one person or a couple. There are already a plethora of studio and one-bedroom apartments in nearby Zetland. This type of high cost housing does not help to alleviate the housing crisis.

I have very happily raised a family and built a community here. I very much would like to continue living here and sharing the area with other residents but only in so much that we have enough public facilities like adequate roads, public transport, green spaces, parking, libraries, public pools and recreation centres, schools, daycare centres and playgrounds.
Therefore, I request a public hearing regarding the current plans.

I write to formally oppose the proposed modification to the approved development at 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo, which seeks to significantly increase the number of dwellings beyond what was originally assessed and approved.
While the initial approval reflected a scale of development that aligned with the character and capacity of the area, this amendment represents a substantial intensification that fails to adequately consider the existing limitations of local infrastructure and the resulting impact on living standards.

1. Infrastructure Capacity Already Under Strain.

The surrounding area is currently experiencing clear pressure on essential infrastructure. Roads are frequently congested, particularly during peak hours, and operate at or near capacity. Increasing the number of dwellings to the extent proposed will inevitably exacerbate traffic volumes, leading to longer travel times, reduced road safety, and increased environmental impacts such as noise and air pollution.

Public transport services are similarly strained. Buses servicing the area are often overcrowded, it is already near impossible to get to the city on a weekday morning, with limited ability to absorb additional demand without significant upgrades. There is no clear evidence that the necessary transport infrastructure improvements will be delivered in tandem with this increased density.

2. Diminished Livability and Amenity.
The scale of the proposed amendment risks significantly diminishing the livability of the area. Increased density at a high-rise scale is inconsistent with the established and planned character of the locality, which is more appropriately suited to mid-rise development.
Excessive building height and bulk can lead to reduced access to sunlight, increased overshadowing, loss of privacy, and a sense of overcrowding.
These factors directly affect residents’ quality of life and undermine the balanced urban environment that the original approval sought to achieve.

The area is already subject to significant residential dwellings, adding this density will further add to residents lack of space and overcrowding, The politicians and developers pushing for this density won’t be the ones living here, we have borne the brunt of density for years, enough is enough.

3. Impact on Local Services and Amenities.

Beyond transport, essential services—including healthcare, schools, childcare, and community facilities—are already operating under pressure. A dramatic increase in population density without corresponding investment in these services risks overwhelming them, reducing accessibility and quality for existing and future residents alike.

The proposal does not appear to adequately address how these cumulative impacts will be managed, nor does it demonstrate that sufficient infrastructure planning has been undertaken to support the intensified development.

4. Inconsistency with Appropriate Planning Outcomes

Mid-rise development (as originally approved) represents a more appropriate and sustainable form of density for this location. It allows for population growth while maintaining a balance with infrastructure capacity, urban character, and amenity.

The proposed high-rise intensification appears to prioritise yield over considered planning outcomes and does not align with the principles of orderly and sustainable development.

Conclusion.

In summary, the proposed modification represents an overdevelopment of the site that fails to adequately account for existing infrastructure constraints and would result in a tangible decline in living standards for current and future residents.
The original approval struck a more appropriate balance between growth and livability, and this balance should be maintained.

I respectfully request that this application be refused, due to unacceptable impacts on infrastructure capacity, service provision, and the long-term livability of the area.

Yours sincerely,
Concerned local residend.

Graham Snell Waterloo - U67 830 Bourke Street NSW 2017

SSD-95997711 903–921 Bourke Street and 3 McEvoy Street, Waterloo

I strongly object to the proposed development.

I further express my disappointment and outrage at the scale and nature of the proposal for the redevelopment of the former Water Board site at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.

Building Heights
The original LEP for the area had a height restriction of six storeys. This continues to change with no proper consultation with any stakeholder in the DSS precinct. Increasing the heights of all building exceeds this limitation. This objective was to retain a corridor of six storey high buildings up to almost Oxford Street and retain the existing aesthetics.
The proposed building heights are markedly disproportionate to the established and emerging character of the overall Waterloo precinct. The scale of these buildings will dominate the surrounding streetscape and materially alter the neighbourhood context.
The view from residences in Divercity will be affected. The northern view is already blocked by the buildings on the east side of Bourke Street. The planned taller building will block most of the view back towards the city. Increasing the lower levelled buildings from six storeys to eight storeys will eliminate all of the green district view and neighbourhood amenity north toward Kings Cross.
Significantly increasing the buildings’ heights is a material change to the current development. It spectacularly amplifies and substantially affects the development already in progress, changing the whole character of the existing development.

Structural Stability
Increasing the tallest building by 85% (20 storeys to 37 storeys) will impact its physical stability. Laying of foundations has already commenced on the site. There is no engineering impact assessment increasing the height of any of the buildings. The risk is that another disastrous event like that similar to the Opal Tower at Homebush occurs. There are too many examples around Sydney of such experiences of this eventuating.

Parking
An 67% (234) increase in units to 581 would require an equivalent increase in off-street parking. The SSD-95997711 suggest there will be no material increase in off-street parking. Based on the current ratio of car spaces to units (234 to 347) an additional 218 on-street parking spaces is required. The local streets around the development site are already at capacity. Further we already
experience out of area people parking in the surround area to access public transport to and from the CBD.

Traffic and transport
The public transport is already overloaded in peak hours and at times on weekends. The Dank street bus stop is already very crowded on weekday mornings. People cannot get on the buses. The increase in population will greatly exasperate this situation.

Wind and Pollution
It’s well documented that increased building heights causes wind issues and increases noise levels. This would impact the wellbeing of residents and make living nearby quite uncomfortable.

Solar Access
Increasing the building heights to 30–37 storeys will result in substantial overshadowing of residences, public areas and open, reducing the amount of and exposure time of natural light. This would affect the wellbeing of residents. It is well documented that exposure to direct sunlight is important to people’s health and wellbeing.

Public Areas and Open Spaces
The developments’ buildings footprints are already maximised and there is no capacity to expand this in anyway.

Precedence for Future SSD Applications
Approving SSD-95997711 will enable all other residential developments in the vicinity will leverage this to apply similarly increase (+67%) the number of units in their developments. This would further amplify the impact on the community, infrastructure and existing residents.

Extended Development Time
The current development is to be completed by the end of 2028. If the SSD-95997711 application is permitted then the end date will extended by more than two to three years. The development would not be completed until well after 2030. This would further affect traffic, parking noise and pollution, etc. that residents are already enduring. We already endure Bourke Street being regularly blocked in morning peak hours to allow trucks better access to the site. Currently the noise and dust is significant. It’s affecting the health of many nearby residents. These problems will continue well beyond the current planned end date.

Flight Path
Previously Meriton made an application to extend the height of the twenty, storey residential property above the Dank Street Coles supermarket. Part of the reasoning for the application to be declined was that there was a maxim height restriction of twenty storeys for structures on the flight paths from Sydney airport. This was for aviation safety reasons. The development site is on the flight path and is closer to the airport than the Dank Street property.

Development of Toyota property
Previously there was an application to the SCC for the Toyota site in Bourke Street (adjacent to the development site) to construct a ten storey property that included residential apartments. This was knocked back by SCC as there was concern about the increased number of ten and twenty storey structures and would increase in the vicinity.

Special Development Dispensation Already
The developer DASCO has already received special dispensation to exceed the LEP height limit of six storeys to allow additional units to be built. This was to offset the parts of the site could not be developed such as the heritage structures and the services easement through the site. The DSS has already been greatly impacted by this one-off allowance. To further increase the building heights is scope creep and doing so continues to amplify the impacts on the residents, the DSS and surrounding areas.

I strongly object to the proposed SSD-95997711. It will have a significant and material impact on the community and environment.