Mixed Use Development - 903-921 Bourke St Waterloo

Dear City Council and the Environment Planning Department,

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

I have been a resident and property owner in the One Lachlan community for over 8 years. Since settling here, I have lived in this neighbourhood continuously and have personally witnessed its gradual evolution from a relatively low-density area into a modest residential community. My family, including my young child, calls this area home, and we deeply value the peaceful, low-density character and strong sense of community that has been established over time. This is the first time that I initiated a submission in my life but I feel it is important to do so.

This proposal represents a significant and abrupt departure from the existing planning character of the area.

1. Excessive height and density inconsistent with local context
The proposed increase in height (up to approximately 126m, 38 storeys, another property building for up to 31 storeys) and density (around 580 apartments) is disproportionate to the established urban fabric. Surrounding developments have generally maintained moderate scale and density, contributing to a balanced and liveable environment. This proposal instead reflects a CBD-level intensity, which is not appropriate for this location.

2. Adverse impact on amenity (sunlight, views, privacy)
Given the scale and proximity of the development, it will have a substantial negative impact on neighbouring properties, including reduced solar access, loss of views, and decreased privacy. These impacts will directly affect the quality of life of existing residents.

3. Infrastructure and capacity constraints
The local area is not equipped to accommodate such a significant population increase. Streets in this precinct are relatively narrow, with limited capacity for increased traffic flow. Pedestrian pathways, local roads, and existing transport infrastructure are already constrained.
Adding hundreds of additional dwellings without corresponding infrastructure upgrades will place unsustainable pressure on:

Traffic and road networks
Public transport capacity
Waste and sewage systems
Public open space and community facilities

The proposal to waive or reduce infrastructure contributions is particularly concerning, as it shifts the burden onto the existing community.

4. Cumulative impact and planning precedent
Approving a development of this scale risks setting a precedent for further overdevelopment in the Waterloo precinct. This could fundamentally alter the character of the area, transforming it from a balanced residential community into an over-densified environment without adequate planning support.

5. Established community character and social impact
Over the past decade, this neighbourhood has developed into a cohesive, family-friendly community with a relatively low-density character. This has supported a high level of liveability, safety, and neighbourly interaction.
A sudden and substantial increase in density of this magnitude risks undermining these qualities and diminishing the overall residential experience.

6. Existing local services and community facilities are already at capacity

Beyond physical infrastructure, it is important to highlight that everyday community facilities and services in this area are already experiencing noticeable strain during peak periods.

In daily life, residents are increasingly facing congestion and long wait times for basic needs, including:

• Local medical centres and GP clinics
• Cafés, casual dining venues, and takeaway shops
• Supermarkets and essential retail
• Public open spaces and parks

Nearby parks and recreational areas, including playgrounds for children (such as swings, slides, and climbing structures), are frequently overcrowded, particularly during afternoons and weekends. Families often need to wait to access basic play equipment.

In addition, pet-related activities (such as dog walking areas and open green spaces) are already approaching saturation, reflecting the limited capacity of existing public space relative to current population levels.

These are not theoretical concerns, but observable day-to-day realities experienced by residents.

A substantial increase in population, without a corresponding and meaningful expansion of community infrastructure and public amenities, will further intensify these pressures and significantly reduce overall liveability in the area.

This reinforces the concern that the scale of the proposed development is not aligned with the current or planned capacity of the local community.

In summary, while I support thoughtful and appropriate urban development, this proposal is excessive in scale, inconsistent with the local context, and unsupported by adequate infrastructure planning.

I respectfully request that this proposal be refused, or significantly revised to better align with the established character, capacity, and long-term sustainability of the Waterloo community.

Kind regards,
A small local family that lived here over the past decade

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

Dear Assessment Team,

I am a resident of Danks Street in Waterloo, and I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the current proposal for SSD-80441462.
While I accept the necessity of urban density in this part of Sydney, the scale and form of the new proposal are represents an overdevelopment of the site that will impact public transport, recreational facilities, and road congestion.

1. Disproportionate height and negative visual impact
The plan for a 36-storey tower standing at 125 metres is grossly out of scale with the surrounding precinct. Most contemporary developments in this immediate area range from 4 to 13 storeys, meaning the proposed structure would be more than double the height of its neighbours. A tower of this magnitude is well suited to a primary transport hub, but it is fundamentally inappropriate for a mid-block location on Bourke Street.

2. Significant pressure on public transport
The Waterloo Metro requires a walk up a hill - not great in Summer or the rain, and not adequately lit at night.
Green Square station there is a 20 min walk - hot in summer with little shade on the route.
On Bourke Street, the 304, 320 and 392 bus routes are at capacity during commuter hours. Cyclists - those riding to work or parents cycling their kids to Bourke Street Primary School - are forced onto footpaths, clashing with groups of commuters waiting at bus stops.
On Cleveland Street, bus route 352 to Bondi Junction is also at capacity at peak hour.
And the nearest buses to get to the beaches - bus 374 to Coogee and Bus 333 to Bondi Beach - are at capacity.
The introduction of approximately 850 new dwellings will lead to a surge in demand that the current transport network cannot sustain without confirmed and significant upgrades to service frequency.

4. Worsening traffic and safety concerns
The local road network, particularly key intersections at Lachlan, Danks, and McEvoy Streets, is congested. We are seeing more motorists and motorcyclists using residential side streets as shortcuts. The provided Traffic Impact Assessment appears to overlook the cumulative effect of this project when combined with other major works nearby, such as the Dasco development and the Waterloo Estate renewal, which will collectively overwhelm local road capacity.

5. Deficiency in local social infrastructure
Our local community facilities are struggling to cope with the existing population. There are only two pools in the area, tennis courts and other sporting facilities are at capacity. This proposal adds a significant volume of new residents without offering any tangible contributions toward the social infrastructure required to support a healthy and functional community.

6. Limitations of proposed public space
While the inclusion of a central park is mentioned as a benefit, the actual design is insufficient. Enclosed by buildings ranging from 13 to 36 storeys, this space will be shadowed for much of the winter and offers very little in the way of utility. Without dedicated play areas or versatile green space, it cannot meet the recreational requirements of 850 new households, let alone provide a meaningful amenity for the broader Waterloo community.

7. Increased competition for street parking
The scarcity of on-street parking is a major point of friction in this precinct. A residential project of this density will inevitably lead to increased competition for the few available spots, as visitor and overflow parking will wash into the surrounding streets. This will negatively impact the quality of life for long-term residents and limit accessibility for those wishing to patronize local businesses on Danks and Bourke Streets.

Requested outcome
I urge the Department to refuse this application or insist on fundamental changes to the scheme. Specifically, I request a substantial reduction in the maximum building height to align with the surrounding built environment and a transparent, updated solar access review. Furthermore, any approved works must be subject to a strict and enforceable Construction Management Plan. I wish to clarify that I do not oppose the principle of developing this site; however, I strongly oppose the current scale and form of the proposal, which sits outside the reasonable limits of the current planning framework.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours sincerely,

Elizabeth Warner
Danks Street, Waterloo NSW

I’m writing to formally object to the proposed major changes to the development at 903 to 921 Bourke Street in Waterloo.
I have lived in this area for over 10 years and have seen firsthand how much Waterloo has changed over that time. Growth and development are part of that, and I understand that the area will continue to evolve. But the expansion of the original proposal feels like a step too far and not something I can reasonably support. This is a significant expansion of what was originally proposed, and it’s quite concerning to see how much bigger the new proposal is. The height of the new buildings, and the number of additional apartments in particular feels completely out of scale for the area. Waterloo has already been changing rapidly, but this proposal pushes it to a point where it will start to feel overbuilt and crowded. The buildings as proposed will stand out in a way that feels more like an eyesore than something that complements the neighbourhood.
One of my biggest concerns is how this will impact daily life. Traffic in the area is already difficult, especially on weekends. Bourke Street and the surrounding roads regularly get congested, and adding a large number of new residents is only going to make that worse. Some weekends it can take me 20 mins to drive from the corner of Bourke st, down Lachlan St to get to South Dowling St, which is ridiculous considering it's only a 3 minute walk. It is hard to see how the current road infrastructure can handle this increase.
Public transport is another issue. While Waterloo has improved in recent years, it still feels like the system is catching up with the growth that has already happened. Buses are often crowded, and I don’t believe the current capacity can realistically support the additional influx of people from a development of this size.
The overall density also feels excessive. This extension of the original proposal no longer feels like thoughtful urban growth and is beginning to feel like overdevelopment and purely as a profit driver for the developers. It raises real concerns about overcrowding, pressure on local amenities, and a loss of the character of the area.
After living here for over a decade and seeing the gradual changes, this is the first time a proposal has felt this overwhelming. Development should be balanced and considerate of the people who already live here, and in its current form, this new proposal does not strike that balance.
I strongly urge you to reconsider the scale, height, and density of this development and hope you do not approve of the changes.

I write to formally object to the proposed changes to the development plans for 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.

The proposed increase in overall development scale and building heights across the site raises significant concerns, as does the absence of appropriate, independent mechanisms to ensure design excellence for the built form, the inclusion of quality public open space, and the delivery of sufficient community infrastructure to support the increased density.

The revised proposal appears to bypass any requirement to contribute to community infrastructure. Allowing such an uplift without corresponding public benefit sets a deeply concerning precedent where private developments increase density through a State Significant Development process without providing improved public infrastructure or delivering any genuine amenity or benefit for the local community.

Furthermore, developer‑led self‑assessment of design excellence is entirely inadequate for a proposal of this magnitude—particularly given its close proximity to a heritage conservation area. Such an approach risks producing outcomes that are architecturally inconsistent with the existing character of the heritage conservation area.

I understand the need for more homes and the government’s commitment to this; however, the site appears to have no provisions for any social or affordable housing and instead appears to consist of market dwellings—the proceeds from which will go into developers’ pockets without any consideration of community return. In addition, there appears to be little regard for the impacts this proposal will have on the community, neighbouring residences, and future development in the local area.

Requested Matters to Be Addressed

1. Built Form and Design Excellence

The proposal should be subject to an independent design excellence process.

Built form must be sympathetic to the character and scale of adjacent heritage areas. Street‑level activation needs to be incorporated to connect the development with the surrounding area.

Building design must ensure proper solar access to residences across the site and minimise overshadowing of neighbouring development and planned open space. Impacts on solar access should have regard for existing neighbouring development and must not compromise plans for future development on adjacent sites.

Light pollution and impacts on neighbouring areas should also be considered and minimised where feasible.

Open space must demonstrate high‑quality amenity and usability for future residents and the surrounding community.

Pedestrian and vehicle access to and around the site requires careful consideration given local environmental conditions.

2. Complementary Planning

An independent traffic and transport impact assessment needs to be undertaken, as the current developer‑commissioned study appears to underestimate vehicle generation relative to the scale of development. This assessment should confirm that local public transport capacity is sufficient for work and recreational travel and should consider the likely demographic of future occupants, including prospective reliance on ride‑share services such as Uber rather than public transport, given the altering socio‑economic composition of the area.

Pedestrian and road safety provisions must be addressed at key intersections, including:

Bourke and McEvoy Streets

McEvoy and Morehead Streets

Lachlan and McEvoy Streets

This is particularly important given current issues with traffic and pedestrian visibility, which are exacerbated during wet weather and storm events. Increasing the volume of vehicle and pedestrian movements requires additional provisions to maintain safety.

3. Local Context and Environmental Impacts

The wind impact assessment relies on assumptions about neighbouring development that remains undetermined and should instead be modelled on confirmed conditions. The area is already a high‑wind environment, and it is important to mitigate the formation of wind tunnels through the site.

Flood mitigation measures must be strengthened. Flooding is already a recurring issue at:

Young and Danks Streets (southbound)

Morehead and McEvoy Streets (southbound)

These present ongoing risks to both vehicular and pedestrian safety. The proposal needs to specify how stormwater drainage impacts will be addressed as part of planning provisions for the development.

Waste management planning must respond to issues experienced in the broader Waterloo and Zetland areas to prevent kerbside waste accumulation and illegal dumping.

4. Open Space Amenity and Public Safety

Safe and legible connections to adjoining streets and open areas must be detailed, ensuring open spaces are secure, functional, and inclusive for people and pets.

There needs to be a clear strategy for maintaining open space amenity, aligned with the local context and the needs of future residents of Waterloo.

Design of public space and the street level must have regard for local patterns of anti‑social behaviour and crime and be designed to mitigate the impact of such events.

I request that these concerns be carefully considered before any approval for greater density is granted, and that adequate independent review processes are followed, with non‑negotiable community benefits required as conditions of consent.

I also request that this proposal be subject to review by the Independent Planning Commission to allow for technical inputs that are independent of the developer’s own studies, providing assurance to the community that the impacts of this development are appropriately considered and that all potential adverse outcomes are reviewed and addressed prior to granting consent.

I object to this proposed development amendment because the significant increase in height, density and number of apartments will place further pressure on our already stretched local infrastructure, roads, parking and public transport. Our community is already experiencing congestion and increasing demand on public amenities, and this proposal would worsen those issues without adequate supporting services. I urge the decision-makers to reject this proposal and prioritise balanced development that properly considers the needs of existing residents and the wider community.

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

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am an owner-occupier living on Danks Street in Waterloo, where I have resided with my partner for approximately two years. I strongly object to the proposed amendments under SSD-95997711.

This proposal represents a substantial intensification of an already highly constrained area and will materially worsen existing issues that affect my daily life and the broader community.

1. Traffic congestion and unsafe road conditions
Traffic in this area is already under significant strain. The Lachlan Street / McEvoy Street dog-leg intersection at Bourke Street is a known bottleneck, with congestion frequently extending in multiple directions, including toward Green Square where traffic compresses from two lanes into one.

Local streets such as Danks Street, Broome Street, Crystal Street and Potter Street are narrow, have poor visibility, and are not designed to accommodate current traffic volumes, let alone a significant increase in residents. Large buses already struggle to navigate these streets, creating noise, delays, and safety concerns.

Illegal parking occurs daily on Broome Street and Danks Street, including vehicles blocking access and reducing already limited road capacity. This results in frequent aggressive honking, driver conflict, near misses, and unsafe conditions for both motorists and pedestrians. This occurs consistently during weekday peak hours (7–9am and 4–6pm) as well as on weekends.

I am also concerned that current conditions already constrain access for emergency and service vehicles, and that further congestion will increase this risk.

Adding a substantial number of additional residents with minimal parking provision will clearly exacerbate these existing and well-established problems.

2. Public transport is already inadequate
Despite the density of the area and proximity to the CBD, public transport access is poor. There are no efficient or direct connections to key transport hubs such as Waterloo Metro, Green Square Station, or Central Station.

Bus services are overcrowded, slow, and poorly connected, with too many stops to be a practical alternative to driving. As a result, I often choose to cycle instead of using public transport.

However, cycling infrastructure is also under strain. Both my partner and I have been involved in collisions with vehicles crossing the busy bike lanes on Bourke Street (north of Phillip Street). Bike lanes are increasingly congested and unsafe due to frequent vehicle crossings, inadequate signage and markings, and poor intersection design and visibility on surrounding streets.

Increasing the local population without meaningful transport upgrades will further degrade mobility and safety.

3. Overdevelopment and lack of supporting amenities
The area is already overburdened. Local parks and green spaces are heavily used, and in practice, the park adjacent to our building is already degraded and not functioning as a high-quality recreational space.

The small garden areas proposed within the development will be wholly insufficient to support the significant increase in residents. This will further reduce the quality and usability of already strained public spaces.

The broader area was not designed to support the level of density it currently has, and this proposal would push it well beyond reasonable limits.

4. Overshadowing and loss of amenity
Our apartment currently benefits from valuable north- and west-facing sunlight, which contributes significantly to our quality of life. The proposed tower heights will almost certainly reduce access to this sunlight, particularly in the afternoons and during winter months.

Loss of natural light is a serious and permanent impact on residential amenity.

5. Out-of-scale development and precedent concerns
The proposed building heights (up to 38 storeys) are entirely out of scale with the surrounding area.

For context, the prominent building at Green Square along Bourke Street is approximately 20 storeys and already dominates the streetscape. The proposed towers would be nearly double that height, representing a dramatic and unjustified escalation.

This is not consistent with the originally approved development and sets a concerning precedent for further overdevelopment in the area.

6. Reliance on original approval in purchase decisions
When purchasing our property, we relied on the planning framework and approved developments in place at the time. Had a development of this scale been proposed, we would not have chosen to buy in this location.

This proposal represents a fundamental shift in planning expectations and undermines confidence in the planning process.

Conclusion
This is not a minor amendment—it is a substantial and inappropriate increase in scale and density that will significantly worsen traffic, safety, amenity, and liveability in an already overburdened area.

I respectfully request that this amended proposal be refused.

I am deeply concerned about this proposal - at how it will undoubtedly create conditions significantly lowering quality of life in the area because of congestion, overuse of infrastructure, increased local air and noise pollution, and increased danger for the elderly just walking the streets - it's bad enough as is. The proposed height of the development will be grotesquely out of proportion, an ugly growth casting shadows, blocking light and basically an eye sore. A Trump-like temple to greed, ego, stupidity and tastelessness. For god's sake, grow some spine and stop this careless egoism. Show care for quality of life and sustainability.

I strongly object to the amendment to the development plans for 903-921 Bourke St. Waterloo, which is SSD-95997711. The amendment represents a substantial departure from the approved development, with building height increasing from 65m to 126 m and floor space ratio from 1.5:1 to 3.2:1, significantly altering the scale and intensity of the project. The local roads and public transport cannot support the added population, and the living quality will be significantly reduced. The increased height will cause overshadowing and loss of natural light. Infrastructure should be improved first, addressing existing issues such as narrow roads and parking shortages before any increase in density.

I oppose any modifications to the development application for 903-921 Bourke Street Waterloo (SSD-95997711). My objections are: to the proposed increased size of the development, to its increased height and to the effect that the greater numbers of residents will have on the limited infrastructure of the suburb. I have been a resident of the suburb since 2005 and I am very concerned at the deterioration of the livability of Waterloo these changes would entail.
The major roads in the district, McEvoy, Bourke and Elizabeth Streets are already seriously crowded for increasing hours each day. McEvoy Street has become an extension to the WestConnex system and is often overcrowded. It is a suburban street being compelled to act as a highway. Side roads off McEvoy have become 'rat runs' for motorists trying to avoid traffic and are often made more dangerous by trucks and vehicles double parking to unload goods. The footpaths are another danger because of the number of cyclists and e-bike riders using them, because they have been forced off the streets. This situation will only become worse if the changes to the development application are allowed and if the number of residents and vehicles are allowed to increase.
Regarding the proposed increases in the heights of the building, I would think that the problems that this will create with overshadowing are obvious, but there is also the effect that this will have on wind levels. One need only visit the Green Square development on a mildly windy day to experience the gusting winds around those buildings even though they do not reach the heights of the proposed buildings on Bourke Street. I might also point out that there are very large developments already planned for the area between Elizabeth Street and Botany Road that are currently occupied by public housing.
As for the lack of proper infrastructure to support the increased resident numbers that the development proposal will bring about, may I point out that while there is the Green Square Station and the new Waterloo Metro, both of these, Green Square in particular, are already very heavily used at the beginning and end of the day and the most commonly used form of public transport in the district is the bus and all lines through Waterloo are frequently packed to capacity. Beside transport, other services, shops, schools, libraries, parks and medical services are near their limits.
I have not touched on the aesthetics of the development, nor on the morality of allowing an increase in its size for which I can see no justification other than to increase the profits for the developers. The progress in the development so far has seen the removal of businesses and retailers who provided employment and services. The destruction around the formerly fenced area of the old Water Board site on the corner of Bourke and McEvoy Streets has seen the removal of nesting sites for plovers, ibis, kestrels, magpies, egrets and butcher birds. I feel that for current and long term residents of Waterloo, their homes and the things they value about where they live will be similarly lost if development on the scale proposed is permitted. The original proposal was harsh enough. The modifications sought go too far.

Submission: Objection to SSD-95997711
903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo
To whom it may concern,
I am a resident of 810 Elizabeth Street, Waterloo and object to the proposed amendments to the approved development at 903–921 Bourke Street, including the increase in residential yield, height, and floor space ratio.
________________________________________
1. Excessive and unjustified intensification
The proposal seeks to:
• Increase apartments from 347 to 580
• Increase FSR from 1.5:1 to 3.2:1
• Increase height up to 126m
(EI&RS Summary; Section 4.1)
This represents a fundamental intensification requiring rezoning, not a minor amendment.
The justification relies on housing supply objectives (Section 8.1), however this does not demonstrate:
• Site-specific suitability
• Infrastructure capacity
• Acceptable local impacts
The proposal effectively overrides established planning controls on a site-specific basis without sufficient justification.
________________________________________
2. Transport Impact Assessment is inadequate
The TIA acknowledges the uplift:
“increase from 376 to 580 apartments” (Section 1.1)
However, it relies on previous modelling:
impacts were “previously reviewed and deemed acceptable” (Section 2.2)
Key issues:
1) Failure to reassess impacts
• Approved scheme: 34 AM / 41 PM peak trips
• No recalculation provided for 580 units
2) Overreliance on precinct modelling
• Based on earlier Danks Street South modelling
• Does not test site-specific or cumulative impacts
3) No public transport capacity analysis
• Proximity to rail/metro cited (Section 3.1)
• No evidence of available capacity
4) Optimistic mode share assumptions
• High reliance on public transport/walking
• No supporting behavioural data
Overall, the TIA does not demonstrate that the increased density can be accommodated.
________________________________________
3. Visual Impact Assessment understates impacts
The VIA states the development will be:
“a prominent new built form element… due to its vertical scale”
Yet concludes:
“overall visual impacts are generally negligible”
(VIA Executive Summary)
This is internally inconsistent.
Key issues:
• Methodology reduces impacts where views are partially obstructed
• Limited viewpoint selection within a 2km radius (Section 1.4)
• Insufficient consideration of local street-level experience
• Reliance on landscaping to mitigate bulk and height
Tree planting cannot mitigate the visual impact of 100m+ towers.
________________________________________
4. Amenity impacts framed through compliance rather than outcomes
The EI&RS acknowledges impacts including:
• Shadowing (Section 7.4.6)
• Visual privacy (Section 7.4.3)
• Wind (Section 7.4.7)
These are considered acceptable based on compliance.
However:
• Compliance represents minimum standards
• The proposal significantly exceeds baseline controls
• Cumulative impacts across Waterloo are not addressed
This approach understates the real impact on amenity.
________________________________________
5. Infrastructure capacity not demonstrated
The EI&RS states infrastructure is adequate (Section 4.3.4), however:
• No detailed capacity modelling is provided
• No binding infrastructure commitments are identified
• Reliance is placed on existing or future capacity
This creates a risk that infrastructure will not keep pace with development.
________________________________________
6. Precedent and planning integrity
The proposal requires:
• Significant height increases
• Major FSR uplift
• Site-specific LEP amendments
(Section 4.1)
Approval would:
• Set a precedent for similar uplifts
• Undermine LEP and DCP controls
• Shift planning toward ad hoc outcomes
________________________________________
7. Inconsistency with planning framework
The proposal is inconsistent with the intent of key planning controls, including the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 and relevant Development Control Plan provisions.
In particular:
• The proposed FSR and height significantly exceed established controls without sufficient site-specific justification
• The scale of development is inconsistent with the intended character and staging of the Waterloo/Green Square precinct
• The proposal does not demonstrate that it achieves a better planning outcome than a compliant scheme
While variation to controls may be considered, such variation must be supported by a clear planning benefit and design excellence. This has not been demonstrated.
________________________________________
8. Failure to assess cumulative impacts
The proposal is assessed largely in isolation, despite being located within a rapidly densifying precinct.
There is no meaningful analysis of cumulative impacts arising from:
• Other approved and proposed developments in Waterloo and Green Square
• Combined population growth
• Aggregated demand on transport, open space, and community infrastructure
This is a critical omission. Even if individual developments appear acceptable in isolation, their cumulative impact can result in unacceptable outcomes.
________________________________________
9. Lack of demonstrated design excellence
Given the extent of planning uplift sought, a high standard of design excellence should be clearly demonstrated.
However, the proposal:
• Prioritises yield and building envelope over urban integration
• Relies on compliance-based arguments rather than qualitative design outcomes
• Does not convincingly demonstrate a superior architectural or public domain outcome
In the absence of clear design excellence, the justification for significant departures from planning controls is not established.
________________________________________
Conclusion
The proposal represents a substantial intensification that is not supported by:
• Robust transport analysis
• Credible visual impact assessment
• Demonstrated infrastructure capacity
It relies on strategic housing arguments without adequately addressing site-specific and cumulative impacts.
Accordingly, I request that the consent authority:
Reject the proposal in its current form, or
Require significant reductions in height, density, and FSR.
Yours sincerely,
Resident, 810 Elizabeth Street, Waterloo

I object to the proposed development at 903-921 Bourke St Waterloo on planning and public‑interest grounds. As an architect and designer, I wholeheartedly support urban infill and sustainable development, but this dramatic increase is an unsustainable, profit making proposal by the developer. As a local resident to the site, I find the proposed height and bulk are excessive for the neighborhood and will impose unacceptable impacts. Specifically, the additional height is incredibly out of character. I request that this be carefully considered and refuse the application in its current form or require substantial amendments to height and FSR so that development closer aligns with planning controls and more so to maintain the neighbourhood quality and character.
    The proposal presents an over‑scaled building envelope that conflicts with the established character of Waterloo - Danks street and South East Redfern. The additional height increase does not provide a respectful transition in height to surrounding streets and dwellings, resulting in undue visual dominance and over towering and in turn overshadowing. The scale of the proposal is likely to exacerbate overshadowing, privacy loss, and access and daylight effects for adjacent properties and public spaces, eroding amenity and walkability. A reduced height is required to achieve an appropriate human scale and streetscape.
Current public transport capacity and service coverage are insufficient to absorb the trip demand from the proposed increased yield. Without credible, funded improvements and strong travel demand measures, residents and visitors will default to private vehicles, undermining sustainability objectives. This massive proposed increase will also cause an increase in vehicular traffic to the already small, quiet immediately surrounding residential neighborhoods of East Redfern and Waterloo, without sufficient access to public transport in direct proximity.
Substantial reductions to maximum building height and bulk, with clear transitions to the surrounding neighborhood should be carefully reviewed. The solar access diagrams present an enormous change to the previous, and this impacts solar access of hundreds of nearby apartment complexes and residential terrace houses. This impact needs to be seriously considered as it will without a doubt seriously impact the local community for the worse.

I hope you understand and share my concerns with this objection. it is completely out of scale for the area and is a profit-making exercise. Please reach out with any further questions. Thank you.

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

Dear Assessment Team,

I am a resident of Danks Street in Waterloo, NSW, and I am writing to formally voice my objection to SSD-95997711 in its current iteration. While I recognise and support the necessity of strategic densification in Sydney, it is my view that the current proposal is entirely incompatible with its physical environment and the existing social fabric of the neighbourhood.

1. Excessive building height and local character The inclusion of a 36-storey skyscraper, reaching an approximate height of 125 metres, represents a disproportionate increase compared to the established built form of this precinct. Most contemporary developments in the immediate vicinity range from 4 to 13 storeys, making this proposal more than double the height of its neighbours. Such an immense tower creates a discordant visual impact and lacks any meaningful transition to the surrounding scale. High-intensity towers of this magnitude are better suited to major metropolitan transport hubs rather than a mid-block location on Bourke Street.

2. Unjustified deviation from established planning controls This site is already subject to a development approval based on significantly more modest height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) limits. The applicant is now pursuing a dramatic uplift from the approved 29-metre limit to 125 metres, and an FSR increase from 2.15:1 to 3.05:1, without providing a proportional public benefit. Local residents purchased property and made long-term life decisions based on the predictability of the previous planning envelopes. Permitting an uplift of this scale on a site with an existing scheme undermines the transparency and reliability of the state planning system.

3. Significant loss of solar access
The substantial massing and height of the proposed towers will result in a measurable loss of sunlight for established residential buildings in the surrounding streets. There appears to be a major oversight in the proponent’s Environmental Impact Statement, as the solar access reports fail to properly evaluate the shadowing impacts on several adjacent residential blocks, such as Cameo at 6 Lachlan Street and Aria at 4 Lachlan Street. Many west-facing apartments in the area risk losing essential natural light due to this oversight.

4. Establishment of a poor planning precedent Granting approval for a 36-storey tower in a location that is not adjacent to a major transit interchange and is surrounded by low-to-mid-rise buildings would set a troubling precedent for Waterloo. Such a decision would likely encourage other landowners to seek similar, disproportionate upzoning for their own sites. This fragmented approach to planning is at odds with the objectives for orderly and sustainable development as outlined in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

5. Overburdened public transport infrastructure The Waterloo area currently suffers from a lack of immediate high-capacity transit, with the Metro station being a significant walk away and arguably more accessible to Redfern. The existing bus network, including the 304, 392, and 348 services, is already operating at or beyond capacity during peak hours. Introducing roughly 850 new dwellings to this corridor without a guaranteed and significant increase in transport frequency will lead to a failure of local transit services for both new and existing residents.

6. Rising traffic congestion and road safety concerns Local intersections, notably at Bourke Street’s junctions with Lachlan, Danks, and McEvoy Streets, are already heavily congested. Increasing traffic volumes lead to "rat-running" through quiet residential streets, which compromises pedestrian safety and local amenity. The submitted Traffic Impact Assessment is insufficient as it fails to account for the cumulative pressure of this project alongside other major nearby developments, including the Dasco site and the broader Waterloo Estate redevelopment.

7. Strain on overstretched local services The current social infrastructure in the precinct is nearing a breaking point. Green Square Public School is at capacity, there is an absence of local public high school options, and primary healthcare providers are under immense pressure. This proposal seeks to introduce a massive influx of residents without offering any meaningful contribution or commitment to the social infrastructure required to support them.

8. Deficiencies in public open space
The central park included in the plans is inadequate as a public benefit. It is a small space enclosed by 13-to-36-storey buildings, ensuring it will receive very little sunlight during winter. Furthermore, the design lacks practical recreational utility, offering no play equipment, minimal lawn space, and no facilities for pets, meaning it cannot satisfy the needs of 850 new households and the broader community.

9. Privacy and overlooking issues
The orientation of the proposed tower’s habitable rooms and balconies creates direct lines of sight into existing low-rise residences nearby. This causes a significant loss of privacy and a sense of visual intrusion for current residents in their private homes and outdoor spaces. The application does not include sufficient setbacks or physical screening measures to mitigate these privacy impacts.

10. Cumulative impacts of construction
Our community is currently enduring prolonged disruption from multiple concurrent construction sites, leading to constant noise, dust, and heavy vehicle traffic. Adding a project of this magnitude will exacerbate these issues for years to come. If any approval is granted, it must be conditioned upon a transparent and enforceable Construction Management Plan that strictly coordinates haulage routes and noise limits with other active sites in the area.

11. Environmental impacts and wind tunnel effects The height and bulk of the proposed structures are likely to intensify wind tunnel effects throughout the precinct. This would detrimental to the comfort of pedestrians and the usability of balconies and the proposed public park. I believe the application has not sufficiently modelled the potential degradation of the local microclimate caused by these wind patterns.

12. Shortage of street parking
On-street parking is a scarce resource in Waterloo. The scale of this development will inevitably increase the competition for limited spots, leading to an overflow of parking demand into surrounding residential streets, which will negatively impact both local residents and small businesses.

13. Incompatibility with the local area
The proposed development is fundamentally out of character with the Waterloo neighbourhood. It fails to integrate with the surrounding built environment and will place unmanageable pressure on local services that are already failing to meet demand. The transport situation in particular has been poorly managed by authorities, and this project will only turn a difficult situation into a crisis.

14. Lack of community benefit
It is my view that this proposal represents an attempt to maximise developer profit at the expense of the community’s wellbeing. By taking advantage of current planning pressures, the applicant is proposing a project that offers no genuine benefit to the precinct while ignoring the legitimate planning constraints of the site.

Requested outcome
I urge the Department to refuse this application in its current form. Any approval for development on this site should be contingent on a significant reduction in maximum building height to align with the surrounding 4-to-13-storey context. I also request a requirement for a fully transparent solar access study and a strictly enforceable Construction Management Plan. I do not object to the appropriate development of this site, but I strongly oppose a proposal of this excessive scale and height under the current planning framework.

Thank you for considering my submission.

We ask you to please redact our name and personal details in any publication of this submission.

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Fitzgibbon & Wayne Houguet
17 Danks Street, Waterloo NSW 2017

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the amended proposal. I live approximately 450 metres from the former Sydney Water site on Bourke Street, and I chose this neighbourhood deliberately to have a home for our family, to live in a community with safe footpaths and parks, and to build a long‑term home. This development, in its current form, threatens the very qualities that make this area liveable, particularly for families, older residents, and those who are already vulnerable.
My concern is not about adding more housing. It is about ensuring that the housing delivered here is genuinely accessible, supports people to age in place, and keeps essential workers, families, and long‑term residents connected to their community. The proposal for 580 apartments starting at nearly $1 million for a one‑bedroom unit does not meet those needs. It delivers density without delivering affordability.
My objections fall into three key areas:
(1) critical gaps in the evidence base,
(2) the removal of community protections without any binding replacement, and
(3) an “affordable housing” offer that may result in no affordable homes being delivered at all.

1. The evidence base is incomplete
Contamination risks have not been properly assessed.
Two new basements are proposed in areas where previous assessments identified potential soil vapour contamination. The applicant’s own documentation acknowledges that key information — including final floor levels and full vapour intrusion modelling — is missing. Approving a development of this scale without complete contamination data is unsafe and unacceptable.
The wind assessment relies on an unapproved neighbouring development.
The modelling assumes the construction of another project that has not been approved. If that development does not proceed or is altered, the wind assessment becomes invalid. A revised assessment based solely on approved developments is essential.
2. Community protections are being removed with nothing binding in return
The original planning controls required both a competitive design process and contributions to community infrastructure. These safeguards recognised the scale of the site and the pressure additional residents would place on local services.
The amended proposal seeks exemption from both obligations while nearly doubling the approved height. A 126‑metre tower on a heritage‑sensitive site cannot be left to self‑assessment by the developer’s own consultants. Independent design review is essential.
At the same time, the proposal removes the requirement to contribute to community infrastructure — despite the applicant’s own Social Impact Assessment acknowledging that Waterloo is already under strain in childcare, schools, recreation, and aged care. The public is being asked to accept a 55% increase in apartments with no additional community benefit.
The existing VPA was negotiated for a much smaller development. The same public infrastructure cannot be presented as adequate compensation for a significantly larger project.
3. The affordable housing offer is not guaranteed to deliver any affordable homes
The proposal references a 12% affordable housing contribution, yet the applicant also states they are not bound by the City of Sydney’s Affordable Housing Program — the very policy from which the 12% figure is drawn. Without a binding VPA, this commitment has no enforceability.
Both the mandatory 3% and the proposed 12% contributions can be satisfied through cash payments rather than actual dwellings. This means the development could proceed with zero affordable homes delivered on site.
This neighbourhood needs real, long‑term affordable housing — homes that allow families to stay near schools, older residents to remain connected to their community, and essential workers to live within reach of their jobs. Financial contributions alone do not achieve that.
The proposal also reduces car parking but shifts the transport burden onto public transport, which has not been assessed in a cumulative way. Multiple major developments in the precinct are being evaluated in isolation, despite their combined impact being significant. A comprehensive, precinct‑wide transport assessment is required.
I respectfully ask the Department to:
Require complete contamination assessments, including final floor levels and vapour intrusion modelling
Require a revised wind assessment based only on approved developments
Refuse the exclusion of Clause 6.21D or require an independent design review
Refuse the exclusion of Clause 6.14 or secure an equivalent contribution through a binding VPA
Renegotiate the VPA to reflect the 55% increase in apartment yield
Require affordable housing to be delivered as actual on‑site dwellings, managed in perpetuity by a community housing provider
Require a cumulative transport assessment across all concurrent developments
Hold a public hearing
What happens on this site will shape the future of Waterloo — whether it remains a diverse, connected community where people of all ages and incomes can stay, or becomes a place accessible only to those who can afford premium apartments. I urge the Department to consider these impacts carefully and require a development that genuinely serves the community.
Yours sincerely,
Gundula Brown

Mixed Use Development – 903 to 921 Bourke Street, Waterloo
I write to formally object to the proposed mixed use development at 903 to 921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.
The proposed increase in height and scale from approximately 12 storeys to buildings of up to 31 and 38 storeys is excessive and fundamentally inconsistent with the existing and emerging character of the surrounding area. The scale of the proposal represents a dramatic departure from the prevailing built form and is not compatible with the established low to mid-rise mix that currently defines the suburb.
Incompatibility with Local Character
Waterloo is characterised by a varied but generally moderate built form, with a strong residential street scale and nearby heritage items that reflect the area’s historical and social significance. The proposed building heights and density are out of proportion with surrounding development and will overwhelm the local streetscape. This level of intensification is not supported by the existing character of the suburb and risks permanently altering its identity.
Impacts on Heritage and Overshadowing
There are heritage-listed properties located only one street away from the proposed site. The scale of this development raises serious concerns regarding overshadowing, loss of amenity and visual dominance over these heritage buildings. Such impacts are inconsistent with sound planning principles, which require the protection of heritage values and appropriate transitions in scale and height.
Infrastructure and Transport Constraints
While proximity to public transport is often cited to justify increased density, the Metro station remains a significant distance from the site. The development therefore cannot reasonably be characterised as transit-oriented. In addition, there is currently insufficient supporting infrastructure to accommodate the level of population increase proposed, including public transport capacity, local roads, community facilities and essential services.
Overdevelopment and Parking Impacts
The proposal forms part of a broader wave of development that is expected to deliver approximately 4,000 new apartments in the area. This level of development, combined with limited parking provision, is likely to result in significant pressure on already constrained street parking, increased congestion and reduced residential amenity for existing residents.
Conclusion
The proposed development represents an excessive and unjustified increase in height and density that is not aligned with the character of Waterloo, fails to adequately protect nearby heritage properties, and is not supported by the necessary infrastructure or transport accessibility. For these reasons, the application should not be supported in its current form.
I respectfully request that the consent authority give serious consideration to these concerns and refuse the application, or require substantial reductions in height, scale and density to better align with the surrounding area and community expectations.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,

I am a resident of the Waterloo community and I write with regards to the proposed major amendments to the development at 903-921 Bourke Street Waterloo. I strongly oppose the proposed changes, and ask that the proposed amendments not be approved, leaving the project at the scope that was originally approved.

It is unclear how the proposed amendments provide additional benefits to the development, community and local area. The previous approved development (DA/2012/1415) provides an acceptable, considered and balanced response to development of the site, which increases density in the area in meeting housing and affordability needs while being sensitive to the local environment and character of the area.

The current proposed amendments add height to six buildings on the site with an increase of 203 apartments (54% increase) and 57% increase in Gross Floor Area from the approved development. Considering these numbers, it becomes immediately evident how significant a deviation this is from the original approved proposal. It is concerning that these proposed changes are not supported by commensurate increases in the amount of communal spaces, amenities and parking spaces. While the proposal pushes to increase density, I would suggest that this ill-considered and inadequately supported by mitigations in the development proposal.

Beyond the development itself, such an increase in the scale of the development, will place more pressure on local infrastructure including roads, access to community resources, public transport. As a local resident, my experience is that these are already stretched.

To achieve these increases, the proposed amendments focus on two buildings - Bourke Street North and Young Street Tower - and increases their height 31 and 38 floors respectively (a 158% and 81% increase, respectively). In absolute terms, these are far too tall for this area, and not in keeping with the character of the locality. These proposed towers will be visually overbearing and taller than any other buildings in the area. They will also contribute to overshadowing of nearby homes and public spaces. They have the potential to significantly detract from the visual character of the Waterloo area and surrounds and to continue to do so into the distant future.

The local community has seen in developments such as Surry Hills Village that sensitively designed architecture and development can enhance and revitalise areas. Conversely, as in parts of Green Square, we see how excessive building height and a focus on maximising density can detract from the character and lived experience of an area.

I was dismayed to read some of the assessments accompanying this proposal. The Social Impact Assessment for SSD Housing prepared by Sarah George Consulting appears to over-report potential benefits, minimise impacts and suggests inadequate mitigations. This assessment relies heavily on existing parts of the approved development and utilises these as if they were novel justifications and mitigations for the significant proposed changes. It does not adequately describe how the proposed changes will cause social impact, and highlights that meaningful additional mitigations are lacking.

Likewise, the Visual Impact Assessment concludes a multitude of negligible and low impacts but utilises viewpoint locations with elevations, existing vegetation and built environment that minimise the proposed towers' rendered appearance. Furthermore, in location photos, wide landscape images are used, which crop out the vertical aspect, where the bulk of the proposed height changes would be apparent. Whether by methodological or selection limitations, I believe this report significantly under-represents how these 31- and 38-story towers would impact the local landscape and be affect the lived experience of Waterloo residents.

For all of the above reasons, I express my significant concern for the proposed major amendments to the development at 903-921 Bourke Street and ask that these are not approved. The development, community and residents will be better served by allowing the development to be completed as already approved.

I strongly oppose the proposal requesting major modifications and changes the existing development plans for 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SDD-95997711) for the following reasons:
1. Public transport: routes 343, 320, 304 all seem to be currently reaching passenger capacity during peak hours.
Has the government, the council, DASCO or neighbouring developer Coronation, conducted any reporting to identify how the additional number of apartment residents would impact our public transport services? Or identified what an increase to future resident numbers would mean/cost for the need to schedule bus services during peak hours.
2. Pedestrian safety: Bourke Street is a shared path (bicycles and foot traffic) - all along this section of footpath is already dangerous as bikes speed past pedestrians. What, if any, safety measures for pedestrians have been proposed by DASCO? EG road widening, bridges, zebra crossings?
3. Council: increase in residents, increase in amount of garbage, increasing strain on garbage collection trucks.
4. Emergency Services strain: increase in situations that may require police, fire and ambo.
5. Health: increased strain on local medical centre services.
6. Green spaces: any green spaces within this site will need sunshine to grow and establish, the extra height will substantially minimise the amount of sunlight any plantings receive each day.
7. Shadowing: the added height will detract from the whole site, creating wind tunnels and shade throughout. This will potentially affect the mental health for residents living in the lower levels as natural light and sunlight will be obstructed.
8. Character: buildings as high as 31 and 38 storeys are severely out of character for this immediate area. Considering the terraces to the north, the terraces to the west. Even the apartment buildings to the east and south are not as high as this modification proposal.
The City of Sydney has approved the original plans. It is the original plans that should be kept.
Who pays for more:
Bus services
Council garbage collections
Policing and fire brigade call outs
Local residents and the future residents who will choose to move into the new buildings (at 12 and 21 storeys) have a right to enjoy peaceful living, community safety and clean surroundings.
I can accept the need for housing, am happy to see the site being developed, happy to welcome new residents into the area and understand the growth that is occurring in most Sydney suburbs however, DASCO and Coronation have both submitted major modifications and scaled-up changes and neither should be approved.
Both the site and the surrounding local area should be respected, by blending these new buildings into the area, at an appropriate height.
Thank you

I wish to raise a strong objection against the development proposed for 903-921 Bourke St, Waterloo, arguing that it constitutes an overdevelopment that should be refused as it is not in the public interest. The site already has an approved development, with construction commenced, which was based on carefully developed, democratic controls and provided a reasonable balance between increased housing supply and protecting liveability and amenity.

The proposed development is fundamentally different, imposing unreasonably on current and future residents through a massive increase in bulk and scale. The proposal increases the height from 21 to 38 storeys and raises the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 2:1 to 3.2:1, yet it improperly relies on the site structure designed for the much smaller, approved development.Unreasonable Impacts and Inadequate Assessment

The significant likely impacts of the proposal have not been fully assessed, with the existing assessment indicating the site is not suitable. The excessive bulk and scale will create negative solar, wind, privacy, visual, and social impacts on neighboring properties and the public domain.
Social Impacts and Infrastructure: The proposal will unreasonably strain already-at-capacity local infrastructure. Statements in the Environmental Impact and Rezoning Statement claiming the site is well-served by public transport are misleading; walks to Green Square or Waterloo metro stations take 20 minutes or more, and local buses are already full, making morning boarding impossible. Local schools are also under significant pressure, leading to frequent adjustments and reductions in catchment sizes. The Social Impact Assessment recognizes this increased demand but acknowledges the proposal will not address many of these needs.


Failure to Assess: The applicant's failure to properly assess and mitigate impacts from the massive scale increase is evident, particularly when the Environmental Impact and Rezoning Statement asserts that the proposal will not result in any significant adverse impacts. This failure means the requirements of s 4.15(b), (c), and (e) concerning impact assessment, site suitability, and public interest are not satisfied.


Visual Impact: The Visual Impact assessment is inadequate because it primarily assesses public views from points deemed to be of "negligible significance," while sites of "moderate significance," such as parks and lookouts, have not been assessed, further violating s 4.15(b).
Inconsistencies with Planning and Feedback
The development fails to align with key planning objectives and feedback:
Better Placed Objectives: Despite being far larger than the current approval, the proposal only "maintains the previously approved deep soil provision, street setbacks and building footprints, and public domain," provisions that are inadequate for the increased scale. Furthermore, the ESD features are standard, and describing BASIX—a minimum requirement—as "best practice sustainability" is inaccurate. The development contributes little to sustainability or community support beyond mandated open spaces.


SDRP Recommendations: The applicant did not adequately respond to feedback from the State Design Review Panel (SDRP). Recommendations ignored include increasing separation between the Young Street Tower and the Plaza Building, demonstrating ADG compliance (as non-compliances like solar access remain), and ensuring natural light to corridors. Instead of avoiding negative impacts on residential amenity, impacts were merely described as "not unreasonable".


EPA Act Objects: The proposal is inconsistent with the objects of the EPA Act because it does not promote social and economic welfare or a better environment (a), nor good design and amenity (g). The rezoning and scale increase of a project already under construction is not considered the orderly and economic use of land (k).
Community Engagement
Community engagement has been "woefully inadequate". The new proposal is being rushed through without the support of the community or elected representatives in the City of Sydney. The consultation (one webinar, some calls/emails) and the distribution of leaflets to a "tiny" catchment are insufficient compared to the extensive consultation that produced the site's original controls, failing the EPA Act object (h).

As the owner of a unit in Crescent Street Redfern, and a unit in Hunter Street Waterloo, I strongly object to the proposed additional building height, additional residential units and increase in gross floor area for 903-921 Bourke Street Waterloo.

Reasons for objection
1. This site is the subject of an approved master plan and development consent that is already increasing the supply of well-located housing.

This site is making a substantial contribution of 347 units to assist in meeting housing targets in the City of Sydney LGA which will work to address the housing crisis in NSW. The City of Sydney's track record in urban renewal at Green Square is exemplary and their responsibility for this development should not be upended by the HDA pathway. The existing approval made a considered assessment of neighbourhood amenity and transport impacts. This HDA application will undermine the quality of the built environment for everyone in Waterloo, and most directly for all new residents in the combined Bourke Street sites.

2. This site is not a transport oriented development (TOD): "sky-rise" and "high-rise" towers belong over a train station, not in Bourke Street where everyone catches a bus to get to a train station.

The site falls outside the 10 minute walking zones for both Waterloo Metro and Green Square Station as shown in UNSW City Futures TOD atlas:
https://www.unsw.edu.au/research/city-futures/cityviz/transport-oriented-development-atlas-sydney
This location is not "exceptional access". Current residents rely on the Bourke Street bus routes for station access. The reports attached to this application contain numerous errors regarding the provision of bus services - there are no buses in McEvoy street and list bus routes that no longer operate.

3. The proposed towers are too high for Redfern/Waterloo/Green Square and will destroy the inner city character: the successful precedent in this neighbourhood is densification through 10 storey street walls with "episodic" towers of 20 storeys - not 40 storeys.

This uplift proposal is compromised by timing; the application is made while the previous masterplan is under construction. Simply extruding the approved footprints will not "retain the core architectural strategy", it is a mockery of the design excellence process. The additional 36 levels across the two towers more than double the original number of storeys. The public realm around the heritage buildings on the site will be shaded and dwarfed by towers that belong in a central business district.

4. The grass won't cope with the increased population: additional residents in the uplift design will destroy the viability of the one public green space provided to the combined Danks Street masterplan. This lawn will not be able to cope with increased daily dog traffic and will be constantly fenced off to pets and people for turf recovery.

The combined Danks Street masterplan sites are already providing social, affordable, rental and market housing. This application is an overblown opportunistic claim for development yield which sacrifices amenity for future residents and their neighbours. It should be rejected.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed major amendments (SSD-95997711) for the residential development at 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo. While I support the strategic goal of increasing housing density near transit hubs, this specific proposal represents an unsustainable and unreasonable departure from the previously approved plans for this site.

My objection is based on the following grounds:

1. Infrastructure Strain and the "Transit Gap"
- Proponents often compare the density of this proposal to the Waterloo Metro precinct or Green Square. However, this comparison is fundamentally flawed as this site lacks immediate walking access to both the high-capacity Heavy Rail and Metro networks.

- The 1.3km Gap: The Waterloo Metro is 1.3km on foot from this site, which Google Maps validates as a 19-minute walk. This is well beyond a standard walking catchment (typically 400m-800m) for a high-frequency Metro service. Similarly, Green Square Station (Heavy Rail) is not within an effortless walking distance for many residents.

- Transit Stranded: Because the site sits in a "gap" between these two distinct rail networks, the majority of the residents from the 580 apartments will rely on the 304 bus to reach the Metro or the CBD.

- Existing Strain: Local bus services are already operating at capacity, often passing waiting residents because they are full. To increase density so drastically after the government rejected the City of Sydney’s proposed tram for this area creates a "density without infrastructure" vacuum.

2. Drastic Scale and Visual Massing
- The proposed height increases are not "modifications"—they are a total transformation of the site’s scale into Sydney CBD-sized buildings.

- The Scale of the Uplift: The Bourke Street North tower increase from 12 to 31 storeys is 2.58 times the height of the original approval. The Young Street Tower's jump to 38 storeys is 1.8 times the height of the previous 21-storey approval.

- "Window Dressing": Community feedback from recent webinars suggests a consensus that the developer’s "architectural refinements" are merely aesthetic window-dressing. No amount of facade treatment can mitigate the sheer visual massing and the "wall effect" created by buildings that are nearly triple the height of what was originally deemed appropriate for this streetscape.

3. Undermining the Planning Process
- Construction on this site has already commenced under the existing approval. Seeking such a massive amendment after breaking ground is highly irregular and undermines public confidence in the planning system.

- The original plans were the result of extensive collaboration with the City of Sydney. To bypass that established context with an SSD amendment of this scale feels disingenuous and disrespectful to the local community and the Council, who have successfully shaped the amenity of the broader Green Square precinct.

4. Cumulative Impact vs. Isolated Assessment
This project must not be assessed in a vacuum. Between this site and the adjacent proposals (such as 881-885 Bourke Street), the cumulative impact is estimated at 4,000 new apartments and 8,000 new residents. This population influx is being forced into an area where schools, parks, and roads are already stretched to their limit, without the benefit of being "on top of" a rail or metro station.

Conclusion
This proposal is a "bait-and-switch" that seeks to capitalise on infrastructure located elsewhere while ignoring the immediate constraints of the Waterloo East area. I urge the Department to reject this amendment and require the developer to adhere to the previously approved scale which was deemed appropriate for this location.

Sincerely,

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed redevelopment of the project, particularly due to the excessive height of the proposed buildings and the long-term impacts this development would have on the surrounding community.
I have been a renter at this property for nearly ten years and have seen firsthand the increasing strain on local infrastructure. The existing infrastructure is not suitable to support a development of this scale. Parking is already extremely limited for current residents and property owners, and any increase in density will significantly worsen access issues for those who already live in the area.
Traffic congestion is a major concern. Young street, Bourke Street, McEvoy Street, and Dacey Avenue are consistently busy, especially on weekends when families are travelling to sports and community activities. Public transport and road networks are already under pressure, and further development without upgrades will increase congestion and reduce safety.
Flooding remains an unresolved issue. During heavy rainfall, the intersection of Morehead and McEvoy Streets regularly floods, particularly during the rainy season. Increasing development without addressing stormwater capacity and drainage places residents at further risk.
Additionally, the area is currently experiencing a reduction in social housing, particularly with the redevelopment of public housing in Waterloo into high-rise buildings. Just down the road, this proposal seeks to increase housing numbers again; however, it appears unlikely that this development would meaningfully contribute to affordable or social housing. There is a clear need for more genuinely affordable housing in this area—especially for key workers, families, and long-term residents—to ensure communities can remain connected and supported.
High-rise developments continue to change the character of the neighbourhood. With Zetland already surrounded by tall apartment buildings, further height will lead to a loss of sunlight, reduced privacy, and diminished liveability for existing residents and owners. Any development should prioritise appropriate building height, increased green spaces, and design that allows for adequate sunlight so current residents are not negatively impacted.
Greenery, open spaces, and access to natural light are essential for healthy communities. Increasing building height without sufficient consideration of these factors will negatively affect both residents and the broader neighbourhood environment.
For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposed redevelopment and urge the relevant authorities to reconsider the scale, height, and purpose of the project in favour of infrastructure-ready, community-focused, and genuinely affordable housing outcomes.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my submission.
Yours sincerely,