Mixed Use Development - 903-921 Bourke St Waterloo

I write to formally object to the proposed amendments to State Significant Development Application SSD-95997711 relating to the mixed-use development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.

While I acknowledge the importance of increasing housing supply and urban renewal, the scale and nature of the proposed amendments raise significant concerns regarding planning integrity, infrastructure capacity, and local amenity.

1. Excessive Increase in Height and Density
The proposal seeks to nearly double the permissible building height from 65 metres to 126 metres and increase the floor space ratio from 1.5:1 to 3.2:1. This represents a substantial and disproportionate intensification of the originally approved development. Such a dramatic uplift is inconsistent with the established planning controls and undermines the strategic planning framework intended to guide appropriate development in the area.

This scale of overdevelopment risks setting an undesirable precedent for similar site-specific uplifts, eroding confidence in the planning system and its adherence to transparent, consistent controls.

2. Inadequate Infrastructure and Services
An increase from 376 to 580 apartments (an additional 204 dwellings) will place significant pressure on existing local infrastructure, including transport networks, schools, healthcare services, and public open space. There is insufficient evidence that the surrounding infrastructure can absorb this level of population increase without a corresponding and clearly articulated upgrade plan.

The proposal to exclude the applicability of contributions toward community infrastructure is particularly concerning, as it removes an essential mechanism for mitigating development impacts.

3. Reduction in Planning Safeguards
The proposed exclusion of key planning provisions—including the competitive design process and community infrastructure contributions—raises serious concerns about design quality, accountability, and equitable development outcomes. These controls exist to ensure that developments of this scale achieve high-quality urban design and contribute fairly to the broader community.

Removing these safeguards appears to prioritise development yield over long-term liveability and public benefit.

4. Amenity Impacts
The increased height and density are likely to result in adverse impacts on surrounding properties and the public domain, including overshadowing, reduced solar access, wind impacts, loss of privacy, and increased urban bulk. These impacts have not been adequately justified given the extent of the proposed changes.

5. Reduction in Property Values and Loss of Views
The proposed increase in building height is likely to result in significant loss of existing views for surrounding residential properties. In many cases, these views contribute directly to property value and overall residential amenity. Their loss represents a tangible and material impact on nearby residents.

Diminished outlook, increased visual bulk, and a sense of overdevelopment can adversely affect the desirability of neighbouring properties, leading to a reduction in property values. This impact has not been adequately assessed or addressed in the proposal and should be given proper consideration in the determination of the application.

6. Concerns Regarding Target Market and Community Outcomes
It is also concerning that, during community engagement, a representative of the developer indicated that the primary target market for the development is overseas investors. While investment is an accepted part of the property market, developments of this scale—particularly those benefiting from significant planning uplifts—should prioritise contributing to local housing needs and community cohesion.

A strong focus on non-local investment risks outcomes such as reduced owner-occupancy, increased vacancy rates, and limited integration into the local community. This raises questions about whether the proposal genuinely serves the housing needs of the local population, which is a key consideration in assessing developments of this nature.

7. Social Mix and Community Integration
While the provision of social and affordable housing is an important policy objective, any increase in density must be supported by careful planning to ensure balanced and well-integrated communities. A significant uplift in population without corresponding investment in services, community facilities, and integration measures can place strain on local cohesion, public spaces, and support systems.

It is important that developments of this scale demonstrate how a balanced social mix will be achieved and supported, rather than simply increasing dwelling numbers without adequate supporting infrastructure and planning for community wellbeing.

8. Traffic and Parking Implications
While basement amendments are proposed to accommodate additional parking, increased density will inevitably generate additional traffic movements, exacerbating congestion in an already constrained local road network. The cumulative transport impacts require more rigorous assessment.

9. Lack of Justification for Rezoning
The concurrent rezoning proposal appears to be driven primarily by development uplift rather than strategic planning merit. There is insufficient justification for such significant departures from the existing planning framework, particularly in the absence of broader precinct-level planning or community consultation.

Conclusion
In its current form, the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site, inconsistent with established planning controls and unsupported by adequate infrastructure or strategic justification. It undermines key planning principles, reduces important safeguards, and risks significant adverse impacts on the local community.

For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposal and request that it be refused, or at minimum, substantially revised to align with existing planning controls, infrastructure capacity, and community expectations.

I am writing to express my objection to the proposal to increase the gross floor area and floor space ratio for the Waterloo State Significant Development. I understand the importance of providing new housing: The original scope for the DASCO site more than provided for that outcome. But I am convinced that the substantial increase in density that Dasco are now requesting will have a significant personal impact on all residents in the surrounding area, myself included.

I am particularly worried about the substantial increase in housing density, especially since we are also fighting against a similar (very) high density request from the Coronation site next door. Additionally, the anticipated increase in traffic congestion will make everyday activities such as commuting and access to local services more challenging and time-consuming. Bourke Street does not have the capacity for the increase in public transport provision that will be required. The busses are overcrowded during peak hour as it is. If one hasn't left for work by 7.30 well, it could be a long wait to get on a bus. Add hundreds of extra new apartments to the mix - well, let's hope we don't have to find out!

Overall, the reduction in amenity – including noise and open space – will diminish the area’s liveability for all residents. The proposal seeks to increase the number of dwellings without demonstrating any change in supporting infrastructure, including essential services and public transport. I believe this would place additional pressure on local facilities and reduce the quality of life for all existing residents. At the public meeting Dasco sited that green space could easily be added to rooftops! How does that help meet community expectations? Their stated financial contribution to the government was their only response to infrastructure issues. Really? In other words, they will walk away leaving all these unresolved issues behind.

I believe the requested increase in GFA and FSR is not accompanied by any additional measurable community benefit, including any increased affordable housing provision. Or any expansion of public open space and delivery of community facilities. So, the Infrastructure contributions secured through a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) Density uplift should be balanced by tangible public outcome? Where is it? In the absence of additional community benefit, the proposal raises concerns regarding proportionality and planning equity. It's a massive increase in development which shows little regard to the local inhabitants.

As stated above, it appears opportunistic to have secured approval for the current development to then request a significant increase in overall density. But I'm beginning to understand that such requests aren't that unusual (all this is new to me). Dasco have taken what was a balanced plan and turned it into an overpopulated, solar compromised, wind affected, urban jungle. When combined with the increase in density applied for by the Coronation site next door, well... I like this area, it's high density living done well. We really don't want ultra-high density added to the mix.
For these reasons, I urge that the proposed changes be reconsidered. I respectfully request that the proposed increase in GFA and FSR not proceed.

This submission objects to the proposed modification application SSD-95997711 submitted by DASCO for 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.

The proposal represents a substantial and unjustified departure from the development originally approved by the City of Sydney. The scale of the proposed increases in height and density materially alters the approved scheme to such an extent that it can no longer be reasonably characterised as a modification.

The amendments (increasing the Bourke Street North tower from 12 to 31 storeys and the Young Street tower from 21 to 38 storeys) more than double the height of one building and significantly increase the bulk, scale and intensity of development. This constitutes a fundamental redesign and should be assessed as a new development application rather than a modification.

The increase from 347 to 580 apartments, an additional 233 dwellings, is not supported by a commensurate increase in infrastructure capacity. The provision of only 20 additional parking spaces appears inadequate in the context of existing constraints and does not reflect likely demand generated by the intensified development.

Transport, traffic and parking impacts:

The surrounding road network is already operating under significant pressure, with ongoing congestion and limited parking availability. Public transport services are similarly constrained, with the 304 bus frequently at capacity and peak hour train services from Green Square heavily utilised.

The proposal cannot be considered in isolation. It forms part of a broader pattern of high density redevelopment across Waterloo and Zetland, including multiple approved and proposed high rise residential towers in close proximity. The combined impacts of these developments are already evident in reduced transport reliability, increased congestion and pressure on network capacity.

Without corresponding, committed and funded transport infrastructure upgrades, the proposal will further exceed the servicing capacity of the area. The cumulative transport impacts have not been adequately resolved.

Public amenities and infrastructure:

Existing community infrastructure, including schools, parks, libraries and public open space, is already under strain. Demand for these services continues to increase as surrounding developments are occupied.

The proposal introduces a significant increase in population density without demonstrating how essential infrastructure will be expanded or delivered in step with growth. When considered in the context of surrounding and emerging developments, there is a clear mismatch between population yield and infrastructure provision.

This reflects a failure to ensure orderly, coordinated development consistent with infrastructure servicing capacity across the precinct.

Overshadowing impacts:

The proposed increase in height is likely to result in additional overshadowing of surrounding residential buildings and public open space. While detailed shadow modelling has not been fully provided, the scale of the development indicates likely impacts on adjacent properties, including reduced solar access during winter periods.

The cumulative overshadowing impacts across the precinct are likely to be significant, and these broader impacts have not been adequately assessed or transparently demonstrated.

Wind impacts:

Buildings of this height have the potential to generate adverse wind conditions at street level. Without detailed modelling and demonstrated mitigation measures, there is a risk of reduced pedestrian comfort and safety. These impacts must be assessed in the context of surrounding development, where multiple tall buildings collectively influence wind conditions within the public domain.

Visual impact and neighbourhood character:

The proposed building heights are materially out of scale with the surrounding built environment and represent a clear departure from the approved scheme. The increased height and bulk will dominate the streetscape and significantly alter the character of the area.

In combination with surrounding developments, the proposal contributes to a cumulative transformation of neighbourhood character that has not been adequately planned or managed at a precinct level.

Construction impacts:

The construction of a development of this scale will result in prolonged disruption, including increased heavy vehicle movements, noise, dust and general disturbance.

When considered alongside other recent and concurrent construction activity in the precinct, these impacts contribute to an extended period of cumulative disruption affecting existing residents and local amenity.


The proposal represents a substantial intensification of the approved development without adequate supporting infrastructure or resolution of key environmental and amenity impacts.

Importantly, it must be assessed in the context of cumulative development pressure across Waterloo and Zetland, where multiple large scale residential projects are already approved, under construction or proposed. The combined impacts on transport capacity, community infrastructure, public amenity and environmental conditions have not been adequately addressed and exceed the demonstrated servicing capacity of the locality.

The proposal is inconsistent with orderly and coordinated precinct planning and cannot be supported as a modification. It should be refused on the basis that it represents an unjustified intensification that is not compatible with infrastructure capacity or the public interest.

I am a property owner at 803 19–21 Dunkerley Place, Waterloo, located in close proximity to the proposed development, and I write to formally object to this State Significant Development application.
While I support the ongoing growth and renewal of the Green Square precinct, this proposal represents an excessive increase in scale that will have a direct and unreasonable impact on the amenity of surrounding properties—particularly through the loss of views, increased visual bulk, and diminished residential enjoyment.
________________________________________
1. Significant loss of views and visual amenity
A primary concern is the substantial impact this development will have on outlook from my property.
The proposed increase in building height to 126 metres will introduce a dominant built form that will materially obstruct existing views currently enjoyed by residents, including from key living areas and my outdoor space, including my pool area.
This loss of outlook is not minor or incidental—it represents a permanent and meaningful reduction in amenity. Open views, natural outlook, and a sense of space are integral to the enjoyment of a property and are key considerations in residential planning.
The scale of this proposal will replace that openness with an imposing vertical structure, significantly altering the character of the surrounding environment.
________________________________________
2. Overbearing scale and lack of appropriate transition
The proposal more than doubles the permissible building height and significantly increases density.
Such a dramatic uplift fails to provide an appropriate transition to the existing built environment, particularly for nearby residential properties such as mine. The result will be an overbearing presence that dominates the skyline and diminishes the sense of openness currently experienced in the area.
This level of intensification is inconsistent with reasonable expectations of neighbouring amenity and sets a concerning precedent for further overdevelopment.
________________________________________
3. Impact on property value and enjoyment
The loss of views, increased density, and visual dominance of the proposed development will have a direct impact on the liveability and value of surrounding properties, including my own.
While planning decisions are not solely determined by property value impacts, the erosion of amenity—particularly loss of outlook and increased bulk—is widely recognised as a factor that affects both enjoyment and market perception of residential property.
________________________________________
4. Infrastructure strain and cumulative overdevelopment
The proposed increase in dwellings from 376 to 580 apartments will place additional pressure on an area already experiencing infrastructure constraints.
Residents in the Green Square and Waterloo precinct are already dealing with:
• Congestion in transport and public spaces
• Limited access to community infrastructure
• Insufficient open space relative to population growth
Approving further density without clear infrastructure upgrades will exacerbate these challenges and reduce overall quality of life for existing and future residents.
________________________________________
5. Lack of confidence in ground-level activation
Recent developments in the surrounding area have consistently delivered poor retail outcomes, characterised by:
• Repetitive takeaway food outlets
• Limited diversity in retail and dining experiences
• A lack of community-oriented or destination venues
There is little in this proposal that provides confidence this pattern will change. Without stronger planning requirements, this development risks contributing further to an already uninspiring and homogeneous streetscape.
________________________________________
6. Requested actions
I respectfully request that the Department:
1. Refuse or significantly reduce the scale of the development, particularly building height, to minimise impacts on surrounding properties.
2. Undertake a more rigorous assessment of view loss and visual impact on neighbouring residences, including those at 19–21 Dunkerley Place.
3. Ensure that any approved development includes:
o Appropriate height transitions
o Reduced bulk and improved setbacks
o Measures to protect neighbouring amenity where possible
4. Require stronger commitments around infrastructure contributions and delivery.
5. Introduce clearer planning controls to ensure meaningful and diverse retail and community uses at ground level.
________________________________________
7. Conclusion
This proposal, in its current form, prioritises density and yield over the amenity of existing residents and the long-term quality of the built environment.
For residents such as myself at 19–21 Dunkerley Place, the development will result in a substantial and permanent loss of views, increased visual bulk, and reduced enjoyment of our property.

Hello,
I DO NOT support additional floor space on the referenced development, however DO support the overall project. I believe your online form leads to confusion and is intentionally cumbersome for community members. My comment is obviously cynical due to the frustration of this process and the seemingly purposefully challenging aspect of setting up an account and submitting an objection.
Please find attached my letter outlining my objection to the referenced project uplift.
I would welcome response to my website comments and the core of this objection.

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

I wish to formally object to the proposed amendments to the approved development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo. While I acknowledge the importance of housing supply, this proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site that fails to adequately consider the cumulative impacts on existing residents, infrastructure, and local amenity.

1. Excessive Height and Overdevelopment

The proposed increase in building heights—from 12 to 31 storeys (Bourke Street North) and 21 to 38 storeys (Young Street Tower)—is a substantial departure from the originally approved scheme.

This scale is inconsistent with the established and approved planning controls for the precinct.
It sets a concerning precedent for further overdevelopment in the Waterloo / Zetland / Green Square corridor.
The proposal prioritises density uplift over liveability, without proportional investment in supporting infrastructure.

Impact on residents:
The excessive scale will fundamentally alter the character of the area, creating a dense, high-rise environment that is not aligned with the originally envisaged urban design.

2. Cumulative Density and Infrastructure Strain

The addition of 233 apartments (increasing total to 580), combined with adjacent developments (including 881–885 Bourke Street and others), will result in a significant population surge.

The estimated influx of up to 8,000 new residents across the precinct is not matched by infrastructure upgrades.
Public transport is already operating at or near capacity, particularly:
Bus services such as the 304
Peak-hour congestion at Green Square Station
Road networks and local intersections are already heavily congested.

Impact on lifestyle:
Increased commute times, overcrowding on public transport, and reduced accessibility will directly diminish day-to-day quality of life for existing residents.

3. Inadequate Parking Provision

The proposal includes only 20 additional parking spaces for 233 new apartments.

This is clearly insufficient and will result in increased demand for on-street parking.
Existing residents already face parking constraints.

Impact on residents:
Greater competition for parking will increase frustration, reduce convenience, and potentially impact emergency and service vehicle access.

4. Insufficient Community and Public Amenities

The proposal fails to demonstrate how essential services and amenities will scale with population growth.

Existing facilities such as libraries, parks, childcare centres, and healthcare services are already under pressure.
There is no clear commitment to expanding community infrastructure in line with demand.

Impact on lifestyle:
Reduced access to public amenities, overcrowded facilities, and diminished community experience.

5. Overshadowing and Loss of Natural Light

The increased height and bulk of the proposed towers will result in significant overshadowing.

Impacts will be particularly pronounced during winter months.
Nearby residential apartments and public open spaces will experience reduced sunlight access.

Impact on my apartment:

Loss of natural light reduces amenity, comfort, and energy efficiency.
Overshadowing negatively affects wellbeing and livability.
6. Visual Bulk and Streetscape Impact

The proposed towers are visually dominant and out of character with the surrounding built environment.

The development will create a “wall effect” along key streets.
It undermines the intended urban design balance of the precinct.

Impact on neighbourhood character:
A loss of visual openness and increased sense of overcrowding.

7. Wind Tunnel and Pedestrian Safety Risks

Buildings of this scale can significantly alter wind patterns at street level.

Increased downdrafts and wind tunnelling may occur.
This creates safety risks for pedestrians, cyclists, and outdoor dining areas.

Impact on lifestyle:
Reduced comfort and usability of public spaces, discouraging outdoor activity and community interaction.

8. Noise, Construction and Ongoing Disruption

Given the scale of the proposal:

Extended construction timelines will result in prolonged noise, dust, and disruption.
Increased population density will lead to higher ongoing ambient noise levels.

Impact on residents:
Diminished residential amenity both during construction and long term.

9. Impact on Property Value and Future Saleability

The proposal may negatively impact property values and future resale prospects.

Oversupply of high-density apartments in the immediate area could suppress property prices.
Reduced amenity (light, space, congestion) makes existing apartments less attractive to buyers.
Perceived overdevelopment may deter future purchasers.

Personal impact:
This represents a direct financial risk to existing property owners who invested based on the originally approved planning framework.

10. Precedent and Planning Integrity

Approving such a significant uplift:

Undermines confidence in the planning system.
Signals that approved developments can be substantially altered without adequate regard for existing residents.
Conclusion

This proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site that prioritises density over liveability, infrastructure capacity, and community wellbeing.

I respectfully request that the NSW Government:

Reject the proposed amendments; or
Require substantial revisions to reduce height, density, and impacts; and
Ensure infrastructure and community services are upgraded in line with any future development.

I strongly object to the proposed changes to the to the development plans for 903-921 Bourke Street Waterloo.
As a resident of 98 Morehead Street Waterloo for the last 19 years feel that the proposed changes will be a significant impact to my family, myself and all residents and public using the Waterloo precinct.
I feel that the proposed changes are a major departure from the original approved development.
The development is now significantly larger (higher) than the initial proposed development.
There are issues with overshadowing, wind tunnelling, increased strain on Public transport, lack of truly affordable housing.
All of the proposed changes should be rejected whilst a proper assessment is carried out to ensure a development that is the right development for the future of Waterloo.
I do hope there can be a public hearing to address issues.

Sincerely

David McGuinness

I oppose to the proposed major changes to the development plans for 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SSD-9599771)

The Waterloo-Zetland-Rosebery suburbs are deemed to form the most densely populated area in Australia, yet the proposed development will increase density beyond what it was originally planned with no commensurate measures to alleviate the impacts on residents.

• Infrastructure strain: no mass transport services are planned or even being considered (proposal for a Parramatta Rd - Green Square tram line have been repeatedly overlooked by the State Government). The new metro station in Waterloo West is 15 min walk from the proposed development, providing little relief to the already busy 304 bus line which is already operating at capacity. The proposed development will hence increase the road traffic in an area already surrounded by major roads and heaving congested streets. This has a particular impact on my family as we are trying to promote active ways of transport (bicycle, walking) with my daughters.

• Shortage of amenities: It was very disappoint to note the proposed development will not increase public amenities from what it was originally envisaged. Even acknowledging the conversion into public park of a portion of the Moore Park golf, it is disappointing to see the developers will not have increased obligations to expand the public green spaces within the development or contribute with connecting bicycle paths. Also, the amount of commercial spaces seems to have been kept to a minimum, which will not attract enough pedestrian traffic and will contribute to a 'ghost town' appeal where most residents choose to move by private car. This new development is a great opportunity to amend the mistakes done in the past in what relates to retail availability, where the solution (one big mall with no shop/street frontage) was mainly dictated by the developer with collusion of big retail operator.

• Visually overbearing development: there are at least 5 developments above 20 storey height and many more within the 15 to 20 storey range in the Gadigal Avenue/Eastern side of Waterloo, where the proposed development would seat. A diverse landscape is critical for the appearance and visual amenity of the suburb but the proposed development will delve into the same high rise solution previously imposed, probably because residents are more tolerant to this kind of developments. This is not a fair and equitable allocation of new developments / increase of density where neighbouring suburbs will preserve their appearance and lifestyle at the expense of Waterloo.

I am not against brining more residents to Waterloo. The empty lots are a great opportunity to complete the transformation of the neighbour from a industrial estate to a thriving an liveable suburb and contribute to solve the housing crisis but the State Government needs to come with comprehensive plans to accommodate these and listen to the local community on their claims to improve connectivity/public transport, local amenities and street appeal.

Attn: Chris Eldred, Key Sites Assessments
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39, Sydney NSW 2001
Application Number: SSD-95997711
Project Name: 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo
Submission Type: Objection
Subject: Technical Objection Regarding Non-Compliance with ADG Solar Access Requirements
To the Planning Secretary,
I am writing to lodge a formal objection to the amended proposal for 903-921 Bourke Street. As the owner-occupier of Apartment 432 at 4 Lachlan Street, I am submitting this objection based on a technical analysis of the Appendix 9E Shadow Report, which indicates an unacceptable and non-compliant impact on the solar access of my residence.
My objection is centered on three technical points:
1. Failure to Meet Apartment Design Guide (ADG) Objective 4A-1
The ADG requires that living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 2 hours of direct sunlight between 9:00 am and 3:00 pm at the winter solstice.
As a north-facing apartment directly south of the site, my unit currently relies on the midday sun clearing the established 65m height limit. The Shadow Analysis in Appendix 9E shows that the proposed 126m height creates a substantial "additional shadow" plume between 11:30 am and 1:30 pm. By doubling the height, the developer is effectively eliminating my only window of direct solar access. This proposal moves my apartment from a compliant state to a non-compliant state, which is a significant adverse impact.
2. Disproportionate Impact Due to Topography
The Department must account for the specific topography of the Lachlan-Potter Street precinct. Although my apartment is designated as Level 4, it sits at a lower elevation relative to the development site due to the northward upward slope.
From my perspective, the development starts from a higher base, meaning the 126m tower creates a steeper angle of incidence. The shadow diagrams provided in the EIS appear to underestimate the "ground-level" impact on 4 Lachlan Street, where the shadow duration will be longest. I request that the Department require a unit-by-unit solar access study for the northern face of 4 Lachlan Street to verify the exact loss of hours.
3. Inappropriate Scale and Visual Bulk
The jump from 65m to 126m represents a 94% increase in height. This scale is inconsistent with the "stepped" transition typical of sound urban planning for this precinct. The resulting "canyon effect" will not only block direct sun but will significantly reduce ambient sky-light (daylight) for my unit, leading to an increased reliance on artificial lighting and heating, which contradicts the state's sustainability and BASIX objectives.
Closing Request
I urge the Department to reject the proposed 126m height and maintain the previously approved 65m envelope. At a minimum, I request that the tower heights be redistributed or "stepped" away from the southern boundary to ensure that existing residents at 4 Lachlan Street retain their mandatory 2 hours of winter solar access.

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

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Waterloo Mixed Use Development at 903-921 Bourke Street, SSD-95997711. I acknowledge the need for thoughtful urban growth, but this proposal, in its current form, raises significant concerns regarding height, density, and the cumulative strain it will impose on an already congested local infrastructure. Details of my concerns are as follows:
1. The proposal creates a Vertical Obstruction Angle that results in extreme visual bulk and overwhelming looming presence. The development would be a dominant wall-like mass with negative visual impacts, detriment of solar access on public areas and adjacent lower level dwellings, and general damage to liveability and environmental performance, contrary to the intent of the NSW Government Apartment Design Guide (ADG, July 2015) and SEPP 65 principles.
2. The increased height and additional dwellings would intensify the development impacts, amplifying issues relating to traffic, congestion, and infrastructure strain. It should be noted that the population density in the area is already one of the highest in Australia. Local infrastructure is already under considerable pressure, such as the road network on Bourke Street, McEvoy Street and surrounding intersections, which gets heavily congested, particularly during peak hours.
3. Public transport is a sensitive issue, with bus services and the nearby Green Square train station already at or near capacity, especially during commuting periods. The proposal does not address how increased demand will be accommodated. With the Waterloo metro station about 18 minutes walk from the site, this is hardly an argument for a transport solution catering for the additional dwellings proposed.
4. Recent studies show that educational facilities in the Waterloo-Zetland area are currently overstretched, with a significant increase in student enrolment, which has not been matched by adequate school infrastructure planning. The proposal does not describe how this issue would be addressed.
5. The proposal seeks to significantly increase the number of dwellings without demonstrating that supporting infrastructure, including essential services, stormwater and sewer capacity, electrical capacity, and waste collection, can accommodate this growth. Community centres, recreational facilities, and open spaces are already struggling to meet current demand. The development does not provide adequate additional community infrastructure to offset its impact.
6. This proposal places a cumulative impact on residents already dealing with pressure from a similar proposal immediately north of this development (SSD-80441462 by Coronation Property - refer to attachment*), who is also seeking approval for increased building heights and additional bulk, with no serious regard for the rules (their proposed changes, for example, are well above and beyond the FSR bonuses offered for design and affordable housing) and no demonstrated benefit to the current and future residents. Approval of either of these two proposals will likely set a precedent for approval of the other, doubling the impact of the issues noted above (with new apartment numbers increasing to around 500) and causing long term damage to existing residents - reflected in loss of amenity, congestion, cumulative deterioration of the mixed-use character that makes Danks Street functional and attractive. This would also adversely affect the market value of established properties.

In conclusion, the proposal to change the maximum building height from 65m to a maximum of 126m and increase the Floor Space Ratio from 1.5:1 to 3.2:1 (more than double!) is completely out of balance, opportunistic and excessive, only translating in revenue potential for the developer. There is little verifiable evidence of active initiatives to address the issues inherent to the proposal and create overall benefits contributing to the Vision conceived by the City of Sydney Council for the Danks Street South Precinct**. The proposal to create a clause to exclude applicability of Clauses 6.14 and 6.21D of the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 (as noted in the exhibition letter) clearly suggests the Proponent's desire to be exempt from the rules that were precisely put in place to create a careful and consistent approach to developments in the area.

For all the reasons above I respectfully request that the terms of this proposal be rejected and the development under this application (SSD-95997711) only be allowed to proceed under the currently approved terms.
_______
Notes:
*The attachment is an edited version of a schematic shown by the proponent during a webinar presentation on 25/02/2026.
**Link: https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/research-reports/danks-street-south-precinct-concept-design-summary.

To whom it may concern:

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

What is being proposed is no longer the same project:

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

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

My concerns as a local resident:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What I am asking the Department to do:

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

Ed Sholl
32 Wellington Street Waterloo

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

As a resident of Waterloo 2017 for 13+ years I write to formally object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed amendments to the development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SSD-95997711).

This proposal represents a substantial and unjustified intensification of the originally approved scheme. The increase in building heights—from 12 to 31 storeys and from 21 to 38 storeys—alongside a significant uplift in dwelling numbers, is excessive and constitutes a clear overdevelopment of the site. It is a fundamental departure from the scale, intent, and planning rationale of the original approval.

My objection is based on the following key planning concerns:

1. Unacceptable strain on existing infrastructure
The surrounding area is already experiencing significant pressure on transport and road networks. Public transport services, including buses and trains servicing Green Square, are frequently operating at or beyond capacity. Road congestion and limited parking availability are ongoing issues. The addition of hundreds of new dwellings with minimal corresponding infrastructure upgrades is neither responsible nor sustainable.

2. Inadequate provision of social and community infrastructure
Local amenities—including libraries, open spaces, and community facilities—are already stretched. This proposal fails to demonstrate how these essential services will be expanded or enhanced to meet the needs of a significantly increased population. Planning decisions must ensure that infrastructure keeps pace with growth, which is clearly not the case here.

3. Excessive height, bulk, and visual impact
The proposed towers are grossly out of scale with the existing and approved built form in the area. Such an increase in height will dominate the local streetscape, erode the established character of Waterloo, and set a concerning precedent for future overdevelopment.

4. Significant overshadowing and loss of amenity
The increased height and density will result in substantial overshadowing of nearby residences and public spaces, particularly during the winter months. This will negatively impact sunlight access, comfort, and overall liveability for existing residents.

5. Cumulative impact and planning integrity
This proposal cannot be assessed in isolation. When considered alongside other major developments in Waterloo and Zetland, the cumulative effect is the introduction of thousands of additional dwellings and residents within a short timeframe. This level of densification, without coordinated infrastructure delivery, undermines confidence in the strategic planning framework and raises serious concerns about planning integrity.

In its current form, this proposal prioritises development yield over community wellbeing, infrastructure capacity, and good urban planning principles. It fails to achieve an appropriate balance between growth and liveability.

I respectfully urge the NSW Government to reject SSD-95997711 in its current form. At a minimum, the proposal should be required to revert to a scale and density consistent with the originally approved scheme, or be significantly redesigned to address the serious concerns outlined above. This ultimately all will result in a material reduction in the quality of life for the thousands of existing residents of Waterloo, 2017, already one of Sydney's most populous postcodes - an area that has been under urban intensification strain for years. Ghettoisation and a real erosion of the sense of community and belonging for Waterloo, 2017 is the inevitable next step, if this proposal proceeds in its current form.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission.
Yours faithfully,
Paul Dobson.

I am an owner-occupier living on the 6th floor at 4 Lachlan Street, which is south-east of the development site. I’ve lived in the Waterloo area with my spouse for the last 8 years. This area has seen a lot of change over this time and I was pleased to see the initially approved DA for the development at 903-921 Bourke Street. However, after seeing the proposed updates, I strongly object to this proposal for the following reasons:

Building Heights
The increase in buildings heights is substantial (57-150% increase compared with the approved DA) and not in keeping with the local neighbourhood character. For context, the tallest apartment building in this neighbourhood is 17 storeys high. The 31 and 38 storey towers would look significantly out of place within the area and set a poor precedent for future developments.

The Community Engagement Report notes that the 'proposal is a departure from the existing heights in the area, however is in line with the emerging character of taller buildings'. This doesn't offer a reasonable justification for the significant height uplift from the approved DA. The proposed towers are taller than the approved development directly above the Waterloo Metro station, whereas the development site sits within a predominantly residential area which is 1km away from any nearby stations.

Visual Impact
The addition of 4 storeys (or 57% additional height) to the Bourke Street South building will result in a significant loss of sky views from our balcony towards the west, and would be taller than all apartment buildings directly next to the southeast corner of the site.

The Visual Impact Assessment doesn’t provide clarity on the loss of views for the majority of the residents living in the Crown Square precinct. Many of the viewpoints are taken far away from the development site. Diagrams VP01, VP02 and VP05 are the closest viewpoints and these don't show the full impact of the development. This implies that the view loss will be significant for residents living near the development site.

Overshadowing & Solar Access
The Shadow Plans in Appendix 9A of the Design Report only show additional overshadowing impacts during the winter solstice. Our apartment is south-facing and located on the 6th floor. We currently receive around 2 hours of direct sunlight to our balcony and living area during the late afternoon in the summer months. It is unclear whether we would lose access to direct sunlight with the proposed building height increases as there are no shadow diagrams available for the summer solstice period. If we did, our apartment wouldn’t comply with the ADG requirements for solar access.

Public Transport
The statements in the Transport Impact Assessment about the area having 'excellent access to nearby public transport network' and that the 'additional [87 trips by bus during the AM and PM peak hours] can be accommodated through the high frequency bus routes along Bourke Street' and that 'the opening of the Waterloo Metro station in 2024 has...relieved capacity on existing bus services in the Waterloo area' are misleading.

Waterloo is one of the most densely populated suburbs in Sydney. My spouse and I currently rely on the existing bus networks to transport us to nearby stations, as these aren’t within a convenient walking distance. These bus networks are already overcrowded and unreliable and the frequency of buses and number of available destinations have decreased over the years. The proposed 67% increase in apartment numbers will further add to an overstretched bus network without any provision for additional public transport links.

The current construction works at the Bourke Street site have already resulted in the loss of a bus stop for 2 major bus routes that connect local residents to the nearby stations of Central, Redfern and Waterloo Metro. This has led to more queuing at neighbouring bus stops. A larger development will mean longer construction times and more disruptions to existing bus routes.

Traffic Generation
There is already a high volume of traffic in the area due to the proximity to the Eastern Distributor and Lachlan Street being a major connector between the eastern and western suburbs. The proposed development increases apartment numbers by 67% but only allows for 10% additional parking spaces and 10% total cars. This suggests that most new residents will use public transport, which is unrealistic based on the limits of the current public transport networks in the area.

If the local public bus services become strained, this will lead to increased car usage, adding to the congestion of local road networks. This would make pedestrian and cyclist activity more dangerous, increase noise and air pollution in the area and increase demand for the few local on-street parking spaces.

The proposed construction vehicle route shown in the Traffic Impact Assessment will create significant additional traffic on Potter Street and Gadigal Street, which have residential carpark access for our building and other neighbouring buildings, as well as being part of the 304 bus route.

Public Amenities
The development proposal increases apartment numbers by 67% whilst reducing retail space by 4% and creating no additional areas of public domain. The proposal solely benefits private residences at the expense of the local community. The increased density will create further strains to local amenities such as the Green Square Library and Gunyama Park public pool, which we use regularly and already find to be busy the majority of the time.

Submission of Strong Objection

Project: 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SSD-95997711)
Objector Role: Resident of NO.1 Lachlan (Directly Affected Party)

To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,

I am a resident of NO.1 Lachlan, located in close proximity to the proposed development at 903-921 Bourke Street. I am writing to formally lodge my strong objection to the SSDA modification submitted by DASCO. This proposal is not a minor adjustment; it is a radical departure from the approved planning framework that will cause immediate harm to the residential amenity of existing neighbours and the planning integrity of the Green Square precinct.

My objection is based on the following grounds:
1. Severe and Unacceptable Impact on Solar Access and Outlook The proposed height increase from 65m to a maximum of 126m represents an unprecedented 94% increase in scale. Specifically, the modification seeks to raise the Young St North (YSN) tower to 38 storeys and the Young St South (YSS) tower to 31 storeys.

Direct Overshadowing: The applicant’s own shadow diagrams (specifically for 21 June, 12pm–3pm) confirm that the proposed scheme results in significant additional overshadowing to NO.1 Lachlan compared to the approved envelope.
Loss of Winter Solar Access: During the critical midday period, when many apartments in our building currently receive vital direct sunlight, the shadows will now extend across our building. The drawings indicate that many apartments would receive less than 2 hours of solar access under this scenario.

Loss of Sky View: The scale of the proposed massing will result in a tangible loss of sky view and open outlook, which are essential components of our daily liveability and wellbeing.

2. Gross Overdevelopment and Excessive Density The request to more than double the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 1.5:1 to 3.2:1 (to accommodate approximately 580 apartments) represents an unjustified intensification. This level of density prioritises developer yield over the residential amenity of the surrounding community and significantly exceeds what the surrounding urban context can reasonably accommodate.

3. Avoidance of Critical Infrastructure Obligations (Clause 6.14) I strongly object to the proposed exclusion of Clause 6.14 (Community Infrastructure floor space at Green Square). The additional population generated by this development will place massive demand on local roads, public transport, and wastewater systems. It is inequitable to allow a developer to double their yield while seeking to bypass the infrastructure contributions required to mitigate these impacts on the existing community.

4. Undermining Design Quality and Planning Controls (Clause 6.21D) The proposal seeks to bypass the Competitive Design Process, which is a key mechanism in the City of Sydney for ensuring architectural excellence. For towers of this height (126m), avoiding this process undermines public confidence in the final built form and weakens the planning governance intended to protect the visual amenity of our neighbourhood.

5. Negative Planning Precedent Approving such a fundamental redesign and departure from established controls would set a dangerous precedent for the Waterloo / Green Square precinct, effectively signalling that strategic planning controls and solar rights can be bypassed for commercial gain.

Conclusion
This proposal represents an excessive intensification that will have clear and lasting negative impacts on the residents of NO.1 Lachlan, specifically through the loss of solar access and increased pressure on local infrastructure.

I respectfully request that the Department refuse this application. At a minimum, the project should be restricted to the originally approved scale and required to fully comply with all infrastructure contributions and design review processes.

Sincerely,

Resident of NO.1 Lachlan - 2 Thread Lane, Waterloo

Formal Submission of Strong Objection to SSD-95997711 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.

I am a resident of Waterloo and I strongly object to the proposed major amendments to the approved development at 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SSD-95997711).

This proposal seeks to dramatically increase the height and density of the development: from 12 to 31 storeys on Bourke Street North, and from 21 to 38 storeys on the Young Street Tower, adding 233 apartments beyond what was originally approved by the City of Sydney. This represents a radical and unacceptable departure from the approved concept.

My objections are based on direct impact this will have on my daily life as a resident:

Our suburb is already overpopulated and under-resourced. The Waterloo/Zetland area is already struggling to accommodate its existing population. According to official ABS-derived estimates, the Waterloo–Zetland area already has a population density of approximately 16,308 persons per square kilometre, compared to just 8,892 per square kilometre across the broader City of Sydney LGA. Adding hundreds more apartments, on top of the many other approved developments already in the pipeline, into one of most crowded neighbourhoods, with no meaningful uplift in infrastructure or services, is reckless planning.

Public transport is already overwhelmed. The newly opened Waterloo Metro station is already overcrowded under its current, partial line operation. It is deeply irresponsible to approve a massive increase in residential density.

The area is already experiencing a clear shortage of basic services and amenities. We do not even have a local post office! I need to go to Strawberry Hills to collect parcels.Libraries and community spaces are already overcrowded. This development will add hundreds more residents to an area that already cannot provide for the people who live here. High-density development must be accompanied by meaningful investment in open space and public amenities, which this proposal fails to provide.

Traffic in this area is already a serious problem. The intersection of McEvoy Street, Bourke Street and South Dowling Street is heavily congested throughout the day — dangerous and frustrating for drivers and pedestrians alike. A significant increase in the local population will make an already difficult situation far worse. A trip to the supermarket currently means either waiting through two traffic lights for 15 minutes each way to travel three blocks, or hauling heavy bags on foot a few times a week. This is the reality of living here now, before any further development.

Green space is virtually non-existent for local residents. The area has only very small local parks that is entirely inadequate not only for the current population but even for the walking dogs. Proponents of high-density development in this area often point to Moore Park as nearby open space, but this is not entirely correct as the overwhelming majority of Moore Park's land is occupied by a golf course.

Good planning requires alignment between density, infrastructure, transport capacity, and amenity. This proposal prioritises density uplift without delivering the necessary supporting infrastructure, resulting in an unbalanced and unsustainable outcome.

For these reasons I urge the NSW Government to reject this application in its entirety. The proposed scale increase is excessive, out of character with the neighbourhood, and will cause real harm to the quality of life of existing residents.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed amendment to the above building project.

Based on the submitted plans and supporting documents, including the architectural drawings provided, it is evident that the amendment seeks to introduce an additional 204 units, primarily concentrated within a high-rise structure. This represents a significant increase in density and is further reflected in the substantial change to the floor space ratio.

My concerns are as follows:
1. Departure from established planning principles
I do not support amendments that effectively grant exceptions or special treatment that appear to benefit a single developer, particularly where this diverges from the intent of existing planning controls. Developments should remain consistent with the framework under which the land was acquired and assessed.

2. Increased population density and community impact
The proposed increase in density raises concerns about cumulative pressure on local infrastructure and services. This includes schools, childcare, recreational facilities, and general community amenities. There is no clear indication within the proposal of corresponding upgrades or expansions to support the additional population.

3. Transport and accessibility
The documentation does not demonstrate sufficient improvements to public transport or traffic management to accommodate the expected increase in residents. Without meaningful enhancements—such as expanded public transport options or traffic mitigation measures—the surrounding area is likely to experience increased congestion.

4. Local traffic and neighbourhood character
An increase in residents will inevitably lead to higher vehicle usage, particularly during peak hours. This is likely to impact the safety, accessibility, and overall character of currently quieter residential streets.

5. Environmental and amenity impacts
The scale and proximity of the proposed high-rise raise legitimate concerns regarding potential impacts such as overshadowing, wind effects, waste management, and pressure on existing infrastructure systems. These factors may negatively affect the amenity of nearby residences.

While I acknowledge the potential benefits associated with additional commercial activity in the area, I do not consider that these outweigh the broader impacts of the proposed increase in residential density under the current amendment.

In summary, I do not support the introduction of significantly taller buildings or increased density in this neighbourhood without comprehensive and clearly demonstrated infrastructure, transport, and community planning to support it.

Thank you for considering my submission.

I object to increase the number of levels in this (and the developement next to it) in this project. The near doubling of levels is going to create a massive burden on the local infrastructure. The council had previously approved the developments whilst taking into account a variety of aspects (including infrastructure) and this should be honoured. The application provides for no further green space and public amenities dispite the near doubling of levels and inferring residents. It is also out of character for the area. 31-38 levels is rediculus. Most buildings around us a under 20, with only a few just above.

For clarity - I am a supporter of higher density housing and have enjoyed engaging with the concept development for this location previously with the City of Sydney. The development as planned was well considered and commendable.

The concerns raised at the community consultation online meeting over the proposed modifications in my view were largely reasonable and real. The revised plans are not minor modifications, they comprise a just under 70% increase in density. That is massive! I understand and support the urgency for more housing but object to this 70% increase as I believe it is excessive for this site on the following grounds:

1. Public transport.
This block (together with the increased numbers approved for the adjoining development) will all pour out into Bourke St to utilise the bus network as it is at its doorstep. They will not use the Waterloo Metro as it’s a 20 minute walk away. No other options are close enough to consider. The Bourke Street stop is already at capacity at peak hour even before buses arrive at this stop. The likely demographic of the proposed additional cohort will be added to this queue. It’s unworkable.
The report states a breezy “ the state government plans additional services to deal with this”. And that’s that? We kick the can down the road with one Hail Mary line, washing of hands and let’s move on? It’s poor planning to jam 70% more occupants on a block without the demonstrable ability for the infrastructure to deal with it. The developer won’t care - but our State Govt planners should. The impact is not “moderate” as stated - it’s severe.

2. Additional vehicles on the roads.
The social impact report stated a view that few of the demographic will likely be car owners. That is not what I’ve perceived to be the reality so far in the Green Square area. Even if 50% are car users this is not insignificant. The existing roadways are at capacity, and this reality cannot be massaged away with a breezy comment.

3. Open space
The revised proposal suggests additional outdoor amenity has been provided for this 70% increase. The addition of an ad hoc patchwork of outdoor areas, many positioned on small wind blown areas at high level, or landlocked with no solar access at ground do not credibly supply the amenity promised. Poor amenity does not a happy community make. My concern is the lack of adequate external areas for this number of planned residents will degrade its attractiveness and usage in the mid to long term. Impacting on the block and the neighbourhood.

Closing, I understand and support the urgency for more housing but we want good outcomes now and into the future. The addition of 70% more housing to this location is excessive. It will add to the overwhelming the local transport network. It does not provide additional quality outdoor recreational space which will impact on this community and its surrounds.

The % increase needs to be reduced & open space rethought.

Sincerely,
Lynette Preston

I strongly object to the proposed modifications for 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SSD-95997711).
I live on Archibald Avenue, about 280 metres from the site. I chose this area to raise my child and remain long-term in a connected, walkable community. This proposal undermines that.
I support additional housing. I do not support this scale or process.
The height increase from ~65m to 126m is excessive—nearly double—and wholly out of scale with Waterloo. It overrides established planning controls without any clear alternative vision. This is not strategic planning; it is ad hoc intensification and is in stark contradiction to the City of Sydney’s careful and considered approach about densification and its impacts.
This proposal sets a serious precedent. Approving a tower of this magnitude will weaken planning controls across the precinct. Impacts are obvious: overshadowing, wind, and a shift toward an overbearing CBD-style built form.
The housing offer does not justify this. The mix is dominated by small units, with only 20 three-bedroom units, and prices reportedly starting near $985,000. This does not support families, key workers, or a balanced community.
The affordable housing claim is not credible. It is not binding and can be paid out as cash. This development may deliver no affordable housing at all.
Key safeguards are being removed. The proposal seeks to bypass independent design review and infrastructure contributions despite a 55% increase in yield. Public benefit does not match private gain.
There are unresolved issues:
• Incomplete contamination assessment for new basements
• Wind modelling reliant on an unapproved development
Infrastructure impacts are understated. 233 extra dwellings are added with only 20 extra car spaces, shifting pressure to already strained public transport, as we experience in our daily commute to work. No cumulative assessment has been provided.
The State Significant Development pathway here appears to reduce scrutiny while enabling a more extreme outcome, undermining confidence in the planning system.
I request the following:
• Full contamination and wind revised assessments
• Independent design review
• Infrastructure contribution requirements review
• Cumulative transport assessment across all developments in the precinct
• Renegotiation of the VPA to reflect scale
• Secure binding, on-site affordable housing
This is an excessive, poorly justified proposal that prioritises short-term yield over long-term liveability and planning integrity.
Put simply, it should be refused.
Sincerely,
A very concerned local resident.