Mixed Use Development - 903-921 Bourke St Waterloo

There are already too many high rise apartments in the area. Anything higher will contrast with what is there. The infrastructure in this area is poor, and in particular the corner between Bourke Street , Lachlan Street and McEvoy Street are an absolute bottleneck. This puts even more stress on South Dowling Street which at peak times is atrocious. It is also deplorable that the Council is giving permission to increase the number of apartments to 580 just in this area, adding only 20 additional parking spaces. Young families and individuals who live in the area will not be able to commute relying on poor public transport. There is not enough enough public infrastructure in the area. Public transport only goes to limited areas not enough cross transport . This will not solve the housing problem as what is required is affordable housing not more “luxury “ apartments at exorbitant rents.

The infrastructure of the suburb is not built for the additional traffic, population, and it will greatly impact our sun in the area.

The development will create significantly negative impacts
1. Infrastructure strain — the extra residents would place unacceptable pressure on local
roads, parking and public transport, all of which are already stretched. Services such as
the 304 bus and peak-hour trains from Green Square are already at or near capacity, and
buses often pass by because they’re full.
2. Shortage of amenities - Public amenities are already under pressure and are unlikely to
keep pace with the additional residents. Even now it can be difficult to find a place to
sit and work at the library. This development would add further strain and make an
already crowded situation worse.
3. Visually overbearing development - The proposed height is far too large for its
surroundings and is out of character with the existing neighbourhood. Its scale would
dominate the local streetscape and create a serious visual impact, undermining the
current character of the area.
4. Overshadowing impacts - The two oversized towers proposed at 903-921 Bourke Street,
together with the tower proposed at 881-885 Bourke Street, would create significant
cumulative overshadowing during the winter solstice, affecting a large area of nearby
homes and public open space.
5. Currently, the area is full of young families with young kids. With that big amount of additional apartments (will be occupied mainly by young professionals or young families), there is concern over safety for kids, also not enough playgrounds and parks for them

i object to the doubling of the number of apartments in an already extremely built up area. Buses are struggling as it is, inadequate bins mean the streets are littered and unclean, this is an unwelcome increase in this area as it is.

Understand we are doubling the project however the zetland waterloo and green square transport infrastructure needs to be looked at especially green square. The train station is horrible and too busy. The Waterloo metro is too far in Redfern to ease the noise. Please make more transport infrastructure green square or Rosebery metro

The extra number of residents proposed to be housed in this development would put extra strain on the bus services in the vicinity, including the 304 and 320 buses (though not 392) that pass nearby, usually full in the weekday morning so that no one from the top of Bourke street and lower Redfern and Surry Hills. This is already a major headache. Street parking will similarly be worse than it is.
The development is very tall and overbearing, and is proposed to be even taller. Aside from the physical issues around wind tunnel effects (which I have experienced in other locations where I have lived and worked) this is inappropriate and overshadowing other buildings. I have no terrible objections to the previously approved plans (we need more residential building in the state), these overly large building as too much and will encourage other local developers to ask for greater heights.

I object to this project due to the large shadow this property will create impacting all those living around this development. The street traffic, parking situation and over use of parks are over crowded enough in zetland without this massive addition.

I object to this project since it was first proposed. There have been major changes noted (originally 376 apartments and now a proposal for 580). This shifts the impact significantly on the local community. The public transport (buses) in this area are already heavily strained (due to a large number of students living in this area within proximity to UNSW). This makes the buses crowded and uncomfortable for residents and Transport NSW has not increased their frequency of services. The area just doesn't have the capacity to accomodate a large number of extra residents. Parking is also extremely limited, and locals struggle to find a park that isn't metered. The further impact of a taller building also impacts sunlight and for those apartment complexes directly across the street that are not as high. This is a small and dense area and already and really doesn't have the capacity for a major development like this. It would be better suited to an area like Green Square (where multiple transport options are in place including a major train line).

I’m against revised plans. The neighbouring area is densely populated as is. What provisions are made to support extra residents as is?

I reside in Potter street. The height of the buildings will impact on birdlife - aware many birds fly across that area on way to nesting at moore park. The new proposed project will negatively impact on traffic - already an issue . Can take 30 minutes at peak time trying to get through traffic lights on Lachlan street. Many nearby units are vacant so not demand, local buses full due to reduced services

I’m a renter. I live within a reasonable distance of this site. More supply like this will help housing affordability for me and continue to live within this area.

Unless there’s been new spots added since the previous DA for this site, the only real suggestion I would make is reducing parking spots not dramatically I’ve seen some people raise objections based on congestion and I think we can have a cake and eat it too if we just continue with the development and reduce the parking spots to resolve that matter without throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Given proximity to the metro site It doesn’t sound unreasonable. I’m personally happy for the economists and analysts experts to figure out what that number is so that feasibility isn’t an issue, if nothing changes whatever, it’s enough people checked. Understand some people just want parking spots And parking spot are needed to get feasibility over the line in some cases. But Every place I’ve lived I’ve never used the parking spot and there were several vacant spots depending on the area (places closer to the CBD had more vacant spots).

Otherwise, I’m looking forward to the site providing more homes

The impacts
The impacts of this development will include:
1. Infrastructure strain — the extra residents would place unacceptable pressure on local roads and public transport, all of which are already stretched. Services such as the 304 bus and peak-hour trains from Green Square are already at or near capacity, and buses often pass by because they’re full.
2. Shortage of amenities - Public amenities are already under pressure and are unlikely to keep pace with the additional residents. Even now it can be difficult to find a place to sit and work at the library. This development would add further strain and make an already crowded situation worse.
3. Visually overbearing development - The proposed height is far too large for its surroundings and is out of character with the existing neighborhood. Its scale would dominate the local streetscape and create a serious visual impact, undermining the current character of the area.
4. Overshadowing impacts - The two oversized towers proposed at 903-921 Bourke Street, together with the tower proposed at 881-885 Bourke Street, would create significant cumulative overshadowing during the winter months, affecting a large area of nearby homes, streets and public open space.
5. Wind tunnel effects at street level - which reduces pedestrian comfort and makes the public domain unpleasant to use.
1. Parking pressure — the additional 233 apartments are being matched with only 20 extra parking spaces, which is clearly inadequate and will push more cars onto already congested local streets. This will worsen parking competition for existing residents, visitors and businesses, especially in an area already under heavy development pressure.

The newly proposed update to the project will block our balcony view, making it hard for my family to travel with the increased population in the area, and will probably reduce our property value. Not to mention the noise and pollution from the construction.

I would like to strongly oppose the modifications to the development plans for 903-921 Bourke Street Waterloo.

The proposed increase in height and the excessive amount of extra units being built is a gross departure from the originally approved concept.

I’ve lived here for over 35 years and have seen quite a few changes.

Firstly we don’t need anymore cars clogging up our local streets and taking away the parking limited parking spots for local residents. An additional 233 apartments with only 20 parking spaces is unacceptable.

Waterloo metro is a long walk and I can see lots of pressure being put on public transport that many residents already depend on.

There’s not enough amenities and services already and this area has a large number of people living on low incomes, using food banks, on drug and alcohol treatment and just out of jail. We need more services not more high rise.

The proposed height of the new buildings is outrageous. It would take away the character from Waterloo. So many homes will lose their sun during winter and many of the older homes are cold already in winter.

We don’t need another supermarket. There’s 2 Cole’s, Aldi and a Woolies’s all within 500 metres.

I’m all for progress but this seems to be a cash grab from a development that was already approved for a large number of units.

I’m not educated person but how is building units for profit even come under a state significant project?

Thank you
Suzanne Robinson

I can already barely ever get on a bus around the area. And beyond the overpopulation it’s just a severe lapse in taste to build excessively large buildings like this. It ruins the entire neighborhood which is very charming now, but won’t be with these buildings extended to up to 38 stories.

Infrastructure in our area is already very stretched

The proposed develop would have the following impacts to residents like myself who are already dealing with congestion and crowdedness:
1. Infrastructure strain: Additional residents would place unsustainable pressure on already stretched roads, parking, and public transport. Services like the 304 bus during peak hour are already at capacity, with buses frequently unable to stop due to overcrowding.
2. Insufficient amenities: Local amenities are already crowded. Public bins are already often seen spilling out onto the streets. There is no clear commitment or plan I'm aware of that delivers the necessary upgrades to transport, green space, healthcare, and community facilities to support the drastic increase in population.
3. Overbearing scale: The proposed height is excessive and out of character with the surrounding area. Its scale would dominate the streetscape and erode the existing neighbourhood.
4. Overshadowing and noise - The combined impact of the proposed towers would result in significant cumulative overshadowing, particularly during the winter solstice, affecting nearby homes and public spaces. The increase in residents and activity would also add to existing noise levels which is already often filled with sirens from fire trucks attending the neighbouring towers.
5. Traffic and safety risks: Increased vehicle movements in an already congested area would worsen traffic conditions and raise safety concerns, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists.
6. Reduced liveability: The cumulative effect of overcrowding, overshadowing, and infrastructure strain would materially reduce the quality of life for existing residents.
7. Precedent for overdevelopment: Approval of a development of this scale risks setting a precedent for further overdevelopment in the area, compounding existing issues and undermining long-term planning controls.
8. Environmental concerns: Increased density without adequate green space and tree canopy would worsen the urban heat island effect and reduce environmental quality in the precinct.

Nearly doubling the number of apartments mid project seems a bit on the dodgy side and feels like it hasn't had sufficient discussion given the sudden extra impact it is likely to have. I object to the additional dwellings and additional size of the building(s) required to accommodate the dwellings. Both an eyesore and introduces new infrastructure strain into an already densely populated area. Going from 40/65m heights to both over 100m is a massive jump that warrants more due diligence than sweeping it under the rug as "we already did due diligence last time". Taking it from mid rise to two massive towers would be out of place in that area. We have enough towers in and around Waterloo / Zetland already.

It is unacceptable that such significant amendments are being considered to the planning consent for this site. The proposed development would create a monstrosity for the local area and would be disastrous for homeowners such as myself who purchased in the local area in good faith in a low rise apartment building.
The impacts would include but are not limited to:
Overwhelm the infrastructure — the extra residents would place unacceptable pressure on local roads, parking and public transport, all of which are already stretched.
Shortage of amenities - Public amenities are already under pressure and are unlikely to keep pace with the additional residents. Even now it can be difficult to find a place to sit and work at the library. This development would add further strain and make an already crowded situation worse.
Visually overbearing development - The proposed height is far too large for its surroundings and is out of character with the existing neighbourhood. Its scale would dominate the local streetscape and create a serious visual impact, undermining the current character of the area.
Overshadowing impacts - The two oversized towers proposed at 903-921 Bourke Street, together with the tower proposed at 881-885 Bourke Street, would create significant cumulative overshadowing during the winter solstice, affecting a large area of nearby homes and public open space.
Risk of severe wind tunnel effects at street level, that could impact pedestrian safety

This proposal should be rejected in the interests of all residents, homeowners and visitors to the area.

I strongly object to the proposed changes to the development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SSD-95997711).

The increase in height and number of apartments is a major change from what was originally approved.

My main concern is that the area is already too densely populated for the infrastructure we currently have. Public transport is a daily issue. Buses and trains are unreliable and often overcrowded. Dealing with this on a regular basis is already frustrating now, and adding more residents to the area without improving transport will only make this worse.

Traffic is also already a problem. With more people and more cars, this will only increase congestion and make the area harder and less pleasant to live in.

The area already feels crowded, and adding even more people and concrete high rise buildings will reduce the quality of life for existing residents and negatively impact the look and feel and liveability of the neighbourhood. Developments of this scale will change the character of the area and make it feel more overcrowded and less welcoming. That has a real impact on how people experience where they live and will make the area less desirable.

The area is already very densely populated today. Pushing density even further before addressing existing issues doesn't make sense.

For these reasons, I don't believe these proposed changes should go ahead and the development should stick to the originally approved plan.