Mixed Use Development - 903-921 Bourke St Waterloo

Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for providing details of this proposal to amend the development consent. I write to submit my objection to the amended DA mixed use development at 903-921 Bourke St and 3 McEvoy Street Waterloo on the following grounds.
1. I object to this proposal that is seeking to increase the height of Bourke Street north building from 12 storeys to 31 storeys and Young St Tower from 21 storeys to 38 storeys as this increase in units will put further strain on the already strained infrastructure in Waterloo. This will significantly increase the amount of vehicle movements on the surrounding roads that are already overloaded with traffic. Whilst living in Waterloo the roads have not seen any improvement with the increase in unit development. This development will add to the traffic congestion.
2. This development will I believe add to the already over loaded public transport in the area. As a user of public transport the buses are now unable to keep up with the number of people in the area. Buses in peak times quite often pass the stop as they are full. Green Square station is I believe already at capacity and this development will increase the numbers of users at the station. The development does not take into account that the current public transport is inadequate for the current residents Waterloo.
3. The increase in apartments also does not address the extra strain that will be placed on the environment and rubbish produced by the increase in units. Waterloo is unfortunately an area that has issues with litter in the streets and ongoing discarding of rubbish items in the street. Eg household furniture. There appears to be no plan in place to deal with the increase in rubbish produced.
4. The increase in units will also place strain on the use of water and sewerage. From reading the development documents I can see no indication of how much extra water will be consumed and sewerage produced from this development.
5. With an increase in height this development is an over development of the site. The increase in height is too large for the area and I believe will increase shading and detract from the area.
6. Waterloo is already a noisy location day and night with traffic. This development will add to the already heavy traffic and noise generated in the area.
7. The development is requesting an additional 233 apartments and 20 extra parking spaces. This increase in apartments will increase the demand for parking in the surrounding streets that are already at capacity due to the increase in unit development in the recent years.
8. I believe the density of this development will increase the demand on NSW Fire to attend such a dense site in the event of a fire.
9. If this development is approved I am concerned that it will open the way for other developments of a similar size to be approved and further detract from our local area.

Thank you for reading my submission.
Kind regards
Stuart McKinlay

I object to the proposed development uplift being requested by the developers as a state significant development.
I've been a City of Sydney resident and ratepayer for nearly 25 years.
In that time the City of Sydney has carefully balanced the existing residential and commercial needs with those to provide more residential supply and uplift housing.
It's a tribute to the City of Sydney how well they've done the Green Square development and indeed the Dank St. East precinct (otherwise known as the Meriton development). There is a scale to those developments that makes them still incredibly livable.
Where I live, on Danks street west off Bourke, the development limit is four to five floors. I live on the 4th floor of a building that's about 10 years old it's on the northern side of the block of dank St. to the north (and bounded on the South by McAvoy St).
Within this envelope the mixed-use development at 903-921 Burke St. as proposed I didn't object to the original height and scale of the development.
The developer seeks the state government and its ability to declare a site “state significant” and to bypass the quite good planning lens of the City of Sydney. Now of course we're in an insidious position where the development we thought we were getting now looks like it's to be tripled in size at the stroke of a pen by a committee of three.
That’s hardly looking out for the community. My objections to this development are the
1: proposed new height,
2: the overall increase in scale of the development and
3: the overall negative impact this will have on livability of the suburbs.
4: there is no mention of transport solutions and the impact of the extra residents
5: the additional noise of a prolonged construction period.
6: the obvious overshadowing of the new height and the overlooking of the new height on existing 4-5 story buildings.
6: there appears to be no new community infrastructure provided by this quadrupling (it's like 3 times to four times the original scale of the development!)
Surely you could see that the City of Sydney has done more than its part of lifting to add in more residential homes. I'm not anti-development. I agree with the original proposal, not this current proposal for additional uplift and scale. The project should be undeclared as state significant and returned to City of Sydney capable hands.
No offense but they are better at it than NSW Dept of Planning.
I always feel somewhat defeated even as I make this submission because of course my guess is no one on the approval panel or the minister lives in this part of town.
My guess is they have a view that it doesn't matter, it's an independently held seat at a local government level, so we don't have to bow and cow and tow to a sitting labour member to appease their constituency, you do forget who we might vote for at a state level.
Please leave the original proposal to stand and reject this amended one on grounds of greed, inappropriate scale and not needed. They were able to make a profit with their original proposal and that’s what should stand.

I strongly object to the proposed modifications for 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SSD-95997711).

My objection is not to housing or renewal in principle. I understand that Waterloo is changing and that more housing is needed. My objection is to the extraordinary scale of this proposal, the lack of any clear planning logic behind it, and the way it appears to override the carefully developed planning framework for this area without offering any credible alternative.

The most alarming aspect of this application is the sheer increase in height. Increasing the development from around 65 metres to 126 metres is not a minor adjustment. It is almost a doubling of the approved height and creates a building far beyond the scale of its surroundings. That kind of jump does not feel like considered urban planning. It feels excessive, out of proportion, and completely at odds with the existing character and planning intent for the area.

My core concern is simple: what is the plan? If the State Government is willing to override the considered planning framework of the City of Sydney for one of the densest urban areas in Australia, then what is the alternative vision? Is there one? The local planning controls exist for a reason. They are meant to balance density with transport capacity, open space, schools, design quality, neighbourhood character and liveability. If those controls are being pushed aside, the community deserves to know what broader strategy is replacing them. Otherwise, this looks like developer-led planning rather than proper planning, and that is a disastrous way to shape a neighbourhood.

This proposal would also set a dangerous precedent. Once a building of this scale is approved, it becomes much harder to resist similar proposals nearby. That matters because Waterloo and the surrounding areas are already under enormous development pressure. Approving something of this height and density sends the message that the limits and safeguards built into the planning system can simply be brushed aside. That undermines confidence in the entire planning process.

There are also obvious amenity impacts that come with a building of this size. A development this tall will create overshadowing and wind tunnel effects, and it will change the feel of the area at street level. It pushes the neighbourhood further toward a CBD-style built form and ambience, which is not what this part of Waterloo has been planned for. There is a major difference between thoughtful urban density and an overbearing tower that dominates everything around it.

I am also very concerned about the housing mix being proposed. If this development is being justified on the basis that more housing is needed, then it is fair to ask what kind of housing is actually being delivered. The overwhelming majority of the apartments appear to be studios, one-bedroom and two-bedroom units, with only 20 three-bedroom apartments in the entire complex (which appear to be the penthouses only). That does very little to support families who want to live in the inner city. A short-term boost in dwelling numbers does not justify a long-term planning outcome that fails to create a balanced and sustainable community.

Transport and infrastructure impacts are another major concern. The proposal adds 233 extra dwellings but only 20 additional car spaces. That mismatch is extraordinary. Buses regularly pass by full in peak hour. Local schools are at capacity. Adding this level of density without a serious and visible plan for transport, roads, schools, open space and community infrastructure is irresponsible.

I am also deeply concerned that the State Significant Development pathway appears to bypass many of the safeguards that would normally apply through local planning controls, including environmental, social, design quality and open space protections. The larger the proposal, the greater the scrutiny should be. Instead, this process appears to allow a much more extreme outcome while avoiding many of the normal checks and balances.

This is not a sensible example of long-term city-making. It is a short-term housing numbers gain that risks creating a long-term planning disaster. The proposal is excessive in height and density, poorly justified, inconsistent with the planning framework for the area, and likely to have major impacts on residents and the wider community.

I strongly object to the proposed modifications and ask that this application be refused.

Given the significance of the changes proposed and the precedent this could set for future developments, I also ask that a public hearing be held so the community has a proper opportunity to be heard.

I am a registered architect with over 12 years of experience in practice, and I am strongly in support of increased housing supply and density done well.
However I do not believe the project should be approved in its current form for a number of reasons.

Reviewing the documents, the increase in scale of the new proposal is a major deviation from the previous approval and is not merited on design grounds. It sets a concerning precedent if developments can be accelerated by achieving less design quality, as demonstrated by the City of Sydney Design Excellence Competition.

The number of dwellings in the proposed development has increased drastically, from 347 to 580 dwellings (67% increase). While consultant reports have been prepared to justify this density is well supported by local infrastructure, as a resident in the area I can attest this is not the case. The proposed development is not required to submit a VPA and there is no evidence of infrastructure upgrades to accompany the proposal.

The increased height of the development cannot be substantiated on design grounds or from a quality perspective.
The apartments do not meet the Apartment Design Guide controls for Solar Access, caused by the central tower which is overshadowing the neighbouring sites. i.e.. Bourke Street North where only 60% of units achieve the minimum 2hrs required solar access in mid winter. This could be increased if the central tower did not block its access, which was the subject of previous urban design reports. Many years of urban planning and design reports have been discarded for this proposed outcome which reduces the quality and amenity of the previously approved development. Providing increased housing supply should not be used as a precedent for developers to expect they can build lower quality designs. This is not the intent of the Apartment Design Guide as set out in the SEPP. Furthermore, the increased scale of the towers will have a detrimental effect on the amenity of local parks (Kensington Street Reserve, Morehead Street Reserve) and the communal open space of nearby residential buildings which will now be in shadow for long periods making them unattractive spaces for daily use.

Main Tower: 21 storeys approved / 39 storeys proposed (+18 storeys)
Bourke Street North: 12 storeys approved / 28 storeys proposed (+16 storeys)
Bourke Street South: 7 storeys approved / 11 storeys proposed (+4 storeys)
Young Street North: 7 storeys approved / 8 storeys proposed (+1 storeys)
Young Street South: 7 storeys approved / 8 storeys proposed (+1 storeys)

Furthermore, the proposal will generate significant traffic safety concerns on what is already a very congested corner. The local bus routes are already at capacity; buses frequently are overfull at peak times and do not pick up passengers. The new Metro station alleviates this however it is a 20-minute walk from the site, so it is not expected that all residents will use this as their primary form of transport.
The spaces within development leave a lot to be desired, previously conceived courtyards will now be in complete shadow due to the increase in scale, and the photomontages do not accurately portray the quality of these spaces. Proposed biodiversity benefits of the scheme going upward are ridiculous and not supported by any real evidence. Adding roof terraces next to AC plants exhausting hot air will not attract a community of native bird species and bees.

There is no additional school infrastructure which is a concern for the many young couples living in the area who plan to have families and raise kids in the area.

For the reasons above I strongly believe the development should not proceed as proposed.
Any increase in scale and density should be delivered without the reduction in amenity to residents or surrounding properties.

I am seriously concerned about the increase in height of the project. A significant increase in height and overall numbers of apartments will impact other buildings in the area, overall changing their (our) aspect. This will have ramifications by dominating the current aspect and blocking the afternoon sun, particularly for apartments that current have this aspect. The increase is VERY significant, being more than double the previously approved height.
The increase in numbers will add a huge burden to an already stretched public transport system, being primarily buses, at peak times of the day. Please consider rejecting this and returning to the originally approved project.

I write to formally object to Development Application D/2021/1415 in respect of the proposed development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo. This objection is made pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) and is grounded in substantive planning, environmental, and procedural deficiencies that render the application unsuitable for approval. When assessed against the statutory framework administered by the City of Sydney and within the broader policy context of the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, the proposal fails to meet fundamental requirements and should be refused.
At the outset, the application does not demonstrate compliance with the applicable Local Environmental Plan, Development Control Plan, and relevant State Environmental Planning Policies. While the applicant may assert technical compliance with certain numerical controls, it is well established that compliance in form does not equate to compliance in substance. The proposal undermines the objectives of those controls, particularly in relation to built form, scale, amenity, environmental performance, and the orderly development of land. Any reliance on variations or departures is not supported by a rigorous or lawful justification and would fail to satisfy the established planning principles governing such departures, including the requirement to demonstrate that strict compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention. In this respect, the application reflects not a marginal inconsistency but a fundamental misalignment with the strategic intent of the planning framework.
The proposed development constitutes a clear instance of overdevelopment. The bulk, scale, and massing of the buildings are excessive and produce an outcome that is visually dominant, overbearing, and incompatible with both the existing and desired future character of the Waterloo locality. The design fails to provide appropriate modulation or articulation to mitigate its apparent scale, and the transition to surrounding development is abrupt, unresolved, and discordant. Rather than integrating with the established urban fabric, the proposal imposes itself upon it in a manner that is inconsistent with good urban design and contrary to the objectives of the Development Control Plan. The cumulative effect is a built form that erodes streetscape quality and diminishes the public domain, rather than enhancing it.
The amenity impacts arising from the proposal are significant, material, and unacceptable. The development will result in substantial loss of solar access to neighboring residential properties and to areas of the public domain, contrary to the objectives of preserving reasonable sunlight access and ensuring livable urban environments. The extent of overshadowing appears to be understated in the supporting documentation and has not been satisfactorily mitigated. In addition, the proposal will give rise to overlooking and privacy impacts that are inconsistent with acceptable residential standards, particularly in a high-density context where such impacts must be carefully managed. The cumulative effect of visual intrusion, loss of outlook, increased density, and potential noise impacts will materially diminish the amenity of adjoining properties. These impacts are foreseeable, direct, and consequential, and they weigh heavily against approval.
The traffic and transport assessment accompanying the application is deficient, incomplete, and unreliable. It is predicated on assumptions regarding modal shift and public transport usage that are not adequately substantiated and which appear overly optimistic given prevailing travel patterns. The analysis fails to properly account for cumulative impacts arising from other developments in the locality and does not adequately assess peak period conditions or network resilience. The likely outcome is increased congestion, reduced safety, and a measurable deterioration in the performance of the local transport network. In these circumstances, the Consent Authority cannot be satisfied that the proposal will not have adverse transport impacts, and approval would be inconsistent with the statutory obligation to consider such matters.
Closely related to this is the failure of the application to demonstrate that existing infrastructure and services have the capacity to accommodate the proposed development. There is insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that transport infrastructure, utilities, open space, health services, educational facilities, and broader community infrastructure can absorb the additional demand generated by the project. The absence of a coordinated infrastructure response suggests that the development is being advanced ahead of the capacity required to support it. Approval in such circumstances would be premature and contrary to the principles of orderly and sustainable planning, effectively externalizing infrastructure costs onto the community.
The environmental aspects of the application are similarly inadequate and give rise to serious concern. The documentation does not provide sufficient assurance that issues such as contamination, stormwater management, water quality, and environmental sustainability have been comprehensively addressed. In particular, the absence of a clearly defined, enforceable, and independently verified remediation strategy raises questions as to whether the site is suitable for the proposed use. The proposal also fails to demonstrate alignment with best-practice sustainability benchmarks, including energy efficiency, water reuse, and climate resilience. The lack of meaningful measures to address urban heat island effects further underscores the inadequacy of the environmental response.
The proposal also fails to adequately consider the character and evolving identity of the Waterloo precinct. Even where formal heritage listings do not directly apply, the planning framework requires development to respond sensitively to its context and contribute positively to the urban environment. The application does not achieve this outcome. Instead, it prioritizes density and yield at the expense of coherence and character, resulting in a development that is discordant, visually intrusive, and inconsistent with the broader planning vision for the area. The incremental erosion of local character through developments of this nature is a matter of legitimate planning concern and must be given due weight.
There are also significant procedural deficiencies that further undermine the integrity of the application. The supporting technical reports are, in several instances, incomplete, internally inconsistent, or reliant on assumptions that are not independently verified. Key methodologies are insufficiently disclosed, limiting transparency and preventing meaningful scrutiny. The planning justification is fragmented and fails to reconcile the various impacts identified across disciplines. These deficiencies materially prejudice the assessment process and prevent the Consent Authority from being properly satisfied as to the merits of the proposal.
When considered holistically, the application is contrary to the public interest. It confers substantial private benefit while imposing disproportionate and inadequately mitigated impacts on the surrounding community. It does not deliver a commensurate public benefit in terms of infrastructure, amenity, or environmental performance. The imbalance between private gain and public burden is pronounced and unacceptable within the context of the planning framework.
For these reasons, the Consent Authority cannot be satisfied that the application meets the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The proposal fails to achieve the objectives of the applicable planning controls, results in unacceptable impacts, and is supported by inadequate and unreliable documentation. Approval in its current form would be inconsistent with sound planning practice and would expose the decision to a high risk of successful challenge on both merit and legal grounds.
Accordingly, I respectfully submit that Development Application D/2021/1415 must be refused.

Hello

Please consider my strong objection to this proposal. It is excessive and totally egregious compared to the original plan, and will turn an already over populated area into a less safe and enjoyable place to live. The number of apartments and scale of the plan is too large for the area, and the number of parking spots planned is completely inadequate. Our family lives in Waterloo and this would materially impact us. I look forward to a common sense approach returning to this planning process.

write to formally object to Development Application D/2021/1415 in respect of the proposed development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo. This objection is made pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) and is grounded in substantive planning, environmental, and procedural deficiencies that render the application unsuitable for approval. When assessed against the statutory framework administered by the City of Sydney and overseen within the broader policy context of the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, the proposal fails to meet fundamental requirements and should be refused.
At the outset, the application does not demonstrate compliance with the applicable Local Environmental Plan, Development Control Plan, and relevant State Environmental Planning Policies. While the applicant may assert technical compliance with certain numerical controls, it is well established that compliance in form does not equate to compliance in substance. The proposal undermines the objectives of those controls, particularly in relation to built form, scale, amenity, and environmental performance. Any reliance on variations or departures is not supported by a rigorous or lawful justification and would fail to satisfy the established planning principles governing such departures. In this respect, the application is not merely marginally non-compliant; it reflects a fundamental misalignment with the strategic intent of the planning framework.
The proposed development constitutes a clear instance of overdevelopment. The bulk, scale, and massing of the buildings are excessive and produce an outcome that is visually dominant, overbearing, and incompatible with both the existing and desired future character of the Waterloo locality. The design fails to provide appropriate modulation or articulation to mitigate its apparent scale, and the transition to surrounding development is abrupt and unresolved. Rather than integrating with the urban fabric, the proposal imposes itself upon it. This is contrary to well-established urban design principles and to the objectives of the Development Control Plan, which seek to ensure that development contributes positively to the streetscape and the broader public domain.
The amenity impacts arising from the proposal are significant and unacceptable. The development will result in material loss of solar access to neighboring residential properties and to areas of the public domain, contrary to the objectives of preserving reasonable sunlight access. The extent of overshadowing has not been adequately mitigated and appears to be understated in the supporting documentation. In addition, the proposal will give rise to overlooking and privacy impacts that are inconsistent with acceptable residential standards. The cumulative effect of visual intrusion, loss of outlook, and increased density will materially diminish the amenity of adjoining properties. These impacts are not speculative; they are a direct and foreseeable consequence of the scale and configuration of the proposed development.
The traffic and transport assessment accompanying the application is deficient and cannot be relied upon. It is based on assumptions regarding modal shift and public transport usage that are not adequately substantiated and which appear overly optimistic. The analysis fails to properly account for cumulative impacts arising from other developments in the locality, thereby understating the true burden on the road network. The likely outcome is increased congestion, reduced safety, and a deterioration in the efficiency of local transport infrastructure. In the absence of a robust and credible assessment, the Consent Authority cannot be satisfied that the development will not have adverse impacts on the transport network, as required under section 4.15 of the Act.
Closely related to this is the failure of the application to demonstrate that existing infrastructure and services have the capacity to accommodate the proposed development. There is insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that transport systems, utilities, open space, and community facilities can absorb the additional demand generated by the project. Approval of development in the absence of such evidence is premature and inconsistent with the principles of orderly and sustainable planning. It effectively transfers risk from the applicant to the community, which is neither equitable nor acceptable.
The environmental aspects of the application are similarly inadequate. The documentation does not provide sufficient assurance that issues such as contamination, stormwater management, and environmental sustainability have been comprehensively addressed. In particular, the absence of a clearly defined and enforceable remediation strategy raises serious concerns regarding site suitability. The proposal also fails to demonstrate alignment with contemporary sustainability standards or to adequately address the urban heat island effect, which is of increasing relevance in high-density urban environments. These omissions are material and go directly to the question of whether the site is suitable for the proposed use.
The proposal further fails to adequately consider the character of the Waterloo precinct. Even in circumstances where formal heritage listings may not apply, the planning framework requires development to respond sensitively to its context. The application does not achieve this. Instead, it prioritizes yield and intensity at the expense of character and cohesion, resulting in a development that is discordant with its surroundings. This failure is compounded by the cumulative impact of similar developments in the area, which underscores the need for careful and contextually responsive planning rather than further escalation of scale.
There are also significant procedural deficiencies in the application that undermine its credibility. The supporting technical reports are, in several instances, incomplete, inconsistent, or reliant on assumptions that are not independently verified. Key methodologies are not transparently disclosed, limiting the ability of stakeholders to meaningfully assess the proposal. The planning justification lacks coherence and does not adequately reconcile the various impacts identified. These deficiencies are not merely technical; they go to the heart of the assessment process and render the application incapable of proper evaluation.
When considered in its entirety, the application is contrary to the public interest. It delivers substantial private benefit to the applicant while imposing disproportionate adverse impacts on the surrounding community. It does not provide a commensurate contribution to public amenity, infrastructure, or environmental outcomes. The imbalance between benefit and burden is stark and cannot be justified within the planning framework.
For these reasons, the Consent Authority cannot be satisfied that the application meets the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The proposal fails to achieve the objectives of the applicable planning controls, results in unacceptable impacts, and is supported by inadequate and deficient documentation. Approval in its current form would not only be contrary to sound planning principles but would also expose the decision to significant legal and merit-based challenge.
Accordingly, I respectfully submit that Development Application D/2021/1415 must be refused.

I strongly object to the amendments made in regard to this project for the following reasons.
The additional 233 apartments will place an enormous strain on the already aging infrastructure. Power, water and sewer services may need to be upgraded to cater for the additional load.
Limited existing amenities will also struggle to cater for the estimated additional 500 residents.
The extra height of the development will have a significant impact of shadowing in the afternoon meaning that existing developments will be forced to increase their heating/cooling costs.
The amended plan does not compliment the existing building height of surrounding developments.

Submission: Objection to SSD-95997711
Mixed Use Development – 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo
To: Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure

Application Number: SSD-95997711

Location: 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo

Position: Objection

I write as a local resident and property owner in the Green Square / Waterloo area to formally object to the above State Significant Development application and associated rezoning proposal.
While I support the continued renewal and growth of Green Square as a major urban centre, this proposal represents a further intensification of density without adequate consideration of supporting infrastructure, community amenity, and—critically—the quality and diversity of the non-residential offering at ground level.

1. Overdevelopment without commensurate infrastructure
The proposal seeks to:
• Increase building height from 65m to 126m
• Increase FSR from 1.5:1 to 3.2:1
• Increase dwellings from 376 to 580 apartments
This represents a substantial uplift in density. However, infrastructure and services in the Green Square precinct have already failed to keep pace with existing development, let alone future growth.

Local residents are already experiencing:
• Overcrowding in public spaces and transport nodes
• Limited access to community facilities and social infrastructure
• A lack of meaningful retail, hospitality, and cultural destinations

Increasing density at this scale, particularly while seeking to exclude provisions such as community infrastructure, contributes to risks further exacerbating these issues and undermining the long-term liveability of the precinct.

2. Failure to deliver a diverse and high-quality retail environment
A critical concern is the continued proliferation of low-value, homogenous retail offerings across new developments in Green Square, Zetland, and Waterloo.
Recent developments in the area demonstrate a clear pattern:
• Repetition of similar fast-food and retail outlets (e.g. fried chicken, bubble tea, dumplings, vape shops)
• Limited diversity in cuisine, format, and experience
• A lack of independent, destination-quality or community-oriented venues
This has resulted in a retail landscape that is increasingly generic, transactional, and disconnected from the needs of a growing, diverse residential population.
The subject proposal does not provide sufficient confidence that it will deliver anything materially different. More units, even higher density, without any real mitigation for the issues above.

3. Missed opportunity to create a genuine mixed-use destination
Given the scale of this development, it should function as a genuine local centre and ‘community hub’ not simply a high-density residential complex with incidental retail.
Best-practice developments in comparable inner-city areas demonstrate what is possible when retail is curated with intent:
• A balanced mix of dining (casual, mid-range, and premium)
• Independent cafés and specialty operators
• Community-oriented venues (e.g. pubs, small bars, cultural spaces)
• Flexible and experiential formats (e.g. food halls, co-working, pop-ups)
Without clear planning controls or commitments, there is a strong risk that this development will replicate the same pattern seen elsewhere in Green Square, namely, convenience-focused takeaway outlets with limited contribution to place-making.

4. Inconsistency with strategic planning objectives
The City of Sydney’s planning framework for Green Square emphasises:
• A vibrant, diverse, and sustainable community
• A mix of employment, retail, and cultural uses
• High-quality urban design and activation

Allowing significant increases in height and density while weakening planning controls and failing to ensure diversity in non-residential uses is inconsistent with these objectives.

5. Requested actions
I respectfully request that the Department and the Minister:
1. Refuse or significantly amend the proposal to ensure density increases are aligned with infrastructure capacity and community outcomes.
2. Retain and strengthen planning controls, including:
o Community infrastructure contributions
o Competitive design processes
o Requirements for high-quality public domain and activation
3. Introduce stronger requirements for retail diversity, including:
o A mandated mix of retail types and uses
o Measures to prevent over-concentration of similar takeaway outlets
o Incentives or provisions for independent and community-oriented businesses
4. Ensure the development delivers genuine place-making outcomes, including:
o Spaces for social interaction (e.g. pubs, small bars, cultural venues; arts, comedy, independent coffee places etc)
o Flexible and experiential retail formats
o Consideration of the needs of a work-from-home population (e.g. co-working or hybrid spaces)

6. Conclusion
Green Square represents one of the most significant urban renewal projects in Australia. Developments of this scale must do more than maximise yield: they must contribute meaningfully to the creation of a liveable, diverse, and engaging community.
In its current form, this proposal prioritises density over quality and risks further entrenching the shortcomings already evident across the precinct.
Finally, the period for submissions on this proposal are wholly inadequate (15 Apr-28 Apr) and poorly advertised.

For these reasons, I object to the application.

Regarding the proposed development SSD-95997711 Address: 903-921 Bourke Street And 3 McEvoy Street, Waterloo.
We have no objection to the original DA and have considered purchasing in it. However, we would not purchase in the complex if the new proposed DA is approved.
It is very evident and clear that the additions in the new proposal will cause significant drains on all existing infrastructures and local amenities. The proposed new height is definitely not in keeping with the area and existing properties. One would also expect there to be significant resident overcrowding and building overshadowing.

As a local resident for the past 6 years we have enjoyed all that Waterloo and Zetland has to offer. We use the local transport system regularly.

With the significant increase in new residents via the new proposal, it would cause numerous issues for existing residents, for example:
Busses
Overcrowding of busses. Busses are already at capacity throughout the day. With the current mix of residents and their work schedules, peak hours really do not exist. It is almost impossible to get a seat in the area assigned for elderly persons or prams. Also, please note that often due to current crowded busses they do not stop along Bourke Street and/or Potter Street. We have often had to miss 2 busses.
Sewerage System
The sewerage system is bound to be put under increased pressure. Noting the existing site may have had up to 100 toilets, with the new development the significant increase in toilets and their usage is bound to increase the risk of overflows.
Electricity
There will also be a high chance that the electrical grid will be put under constant pressure. Especially with the likelihood of more developments requiring EV infrastructure.
Mobile Phone Towers
These will be put under pressure. Already, we think they are having issues coping.
Libraries
The local libraries are almost at capacity. At times it is had to find a space.
Footpaths
There will be an increase in the use of e-bikes, e-scooters and Uber type deliveries. Currently one takes their life in their hands when walking the local streets. Any increase in these items will increase the danger, especially for young children and the elderly.
Parking
Street parking is already at capacity.

We would like to know as to why this new proposal was not part of the original DA. If it was, we are sure that all approving authorities concerned would have rejected the DA. It is unlikely to be an after thought!

Dear Assessment Team,

I am a resident of a street immediately adjacent to the proposed development site and write to formally object to SSD-80441462 in its current form. While I support well-planned densification in appropriate locations, this proposal is, in my view, materially out of step with its context, unsupported by the surrounding infrastructure, and a significant departure from the planning framework under which this site was originally approved.

My objections are as follows.

### 1. Excessive height, wholly out of character with the neighbourhood

The proposed built form — including a 36-storey tower reaching approximately 125m — is more than double the height of any surrounding building in the precinct. Recent and current developments in the immediate area sit between 4 and 13 storeys. The proposal creates an abrupt and visually jarring transition with no meaningful modulation, dominating the streetscape and the skyline from multiple public vantage points. A tower of this scale belongs at a major transit intersection (e.g. Green Square, Waterloo Metro, Wolli Creek) — not on a mid-block site on Bourke Street.

### 2. Substantial and unjustified departure from the approved planning controls

The site already has a development approval that was granted under significantly lower height and FSR controls. The current proposal seeks an extraordinary uplift — from approximately 29m to 125m in height, and from an FSR of 2.15:1 to 3.05:1 — without commensurate public benefit. Residents and neighbouring owners made purchasing and investment decisions based on the existing planning framework and the previously approved envelope. Allowing this magnitude of uplift, on a site that already had an approved scheme, undermines the predictability and integrity of the NSW planning process. If a shorter building was acceptable to the proponent at application stage, the onus is on them to demonstrate why that scheme is no longer viable — not simply to request substantially more.

### 3. Loss of sunlight and solar access to surrounding residences

The scale and positioning of the proposed towers will materially reduce sunlight to existing residential buildings in adjacent streets, including my own residence. I note that the proponent's own Solar Access report (E3 Architectural Design Report, A2 Solar Access) does not appear to assess impacts on a number of directly affected residential buildings in the precinct — including Cameo (6 Lachlan Street), Aria (4 Lachlan Street), and other west-facing dwellings along adjoining streets. This is a significant gap in the EIS and should, in my view, require the assessment to be re-exhibited once completed.

### 4. Dangerous precedent for the precinct

Approving a 36-storey tower on this site — which is not adjacent to a major transport interchange and sits among 4–13 storey built form — will establish a precedent for further disproportionate upzoning across Waterloo. Other landowners will reasonably point to this approval as justification for equivalent uplifts on their own sites, progressively eroding the character and amenity of the precinct. This is inconsistent with the orderly development objectives of the *Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979*.

### 5. Inadequate transport infrastructure

Waterloo has no train station. The Waterloo Metro is approximately a 15-minute walk and is closer to Redfern than to this site. Bus services — particularly the 304 along Bourke Street — are already consistently at or near capacity during peak periods. The 392 and 348 are similarly overcrowded. Adding approximately 850 dwellings to this corridor, without any committed upgrade to public transport frequency or capacity, will push existing services beyond their functional limit.

### 6. Traffic congestion and road network impacts

Local streets are already heavily congested, particularly at the Bourke/Lachlan, Bourke/Danks, and Bourke/McEvoy intersections. Residential streets in the precinct are increasingly used as rat-runs to avoid arterial bottlenecks, degrading safety and amenity. The Traffic Impact Assessment accompanying the proposal does not, in my view, adequately model cumulative impacts from this development combined with the adjacent Dasco project, the Waterloo Metro precinct, and the broader Waterloo Estate renewal.

### 7. Local services are at capacity

Existing community services — schools (Green Square Public School is already operating at capacity and there is no nearby public high school), local medical clinics, and healthcare facilities — are stretched. The proposal provides no meaningful commitment to additional social infrastructure to support an influx of residents of this scale.

### 8. Inadequate public open space

The central park proposed as a public benefit is small, heavily enclosed by buildings of 13–36 storeys, receives limited winter sunlight, and lacks meaningful recreational function (no play equipment, limited open lawn, no dog-friendly areas). It cannot reasonably serve the open-space needs of 850 new households in addition to existing residents. Moore Park and existing local open spaces are already operating at capacity.

### 9. Cumulative construction impacts

The precinct is already experiencing sustained construction activity from multiple concurrent developments. Residents are living with ongoing noise, dust, vibration, heavy-vehicle movements, and street disruption. Adding a development of this scale — which will involve multi-year construction at significant height — will compound these impacts substantially. I request that any approval, in any form, include an enforceable and publicly available Construction Management Plan addressing noise limits, operating hours, haulage routes, and cumulative coordination with other active sites in the precinct.

### Requested outcome
For the reasons above, I respectfully request that the Department:
- refuse the application in its current form, or alternatively
- require substantial amendments, including a significant reduction in maximum building height (aligned with surrounding built form), a redistribution of massing away from adjoining residential interfaces, a complete and transparent solar access assessment covering all affected residential buildings, and an enforceable Construction Management Plan.

I do not oppose development on this site. I oppose a development of this scale, at this height, on this site, under the current planning framework.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours sincerely,

Hugo Welke
Unit Owner on Danks Street

I am writing to formally object to the proposed amendments to the development at 903–921 Bourke Street, which seek to significantly increase the approved building heights and density. As a local resident living nearby, I am deeply concerned about the very real and immediate impacts this proposal will have on my day-to-day life and the broader Waterloo/Zetland community.

Daily Impact on Infrastructure and Transport:

From my own experience, local infrastructure is already under significant strain. Buses such as the 304 are frequently full during peak hours and often pass stops without picking up passengers. Similarly, trains from Green Square are regularly overcrowded, making commuting stressful and unreliable. The nearest metro station is only accessible by one bus - which is often delayed and is so overcrowded.

Adding hundreds more apartments- and therefore residents will only exacerbate this issue. On a daily basis, this means longer wait times, more crowded services, and reduced quality of life for existing residents like myself who rely on this infrastructure to get to work and carry out everyday activities.

Lack of Supporting Amenities:

The local area is already struggling to support its current population. Public amenities such as libraries, cafes, and shared spaces are consistently busy. Even simple activities like finding a place to sit and work at the local library can be difficult.

With the proposed increase to the number of apartments, this pressure will intensify. There is no clear evidence that the necessary supporting infrastructure and amenities will be delivered in step with this growth. This will directly affect my ability to comfortably use local services that are already stretched.

Cumulative Overdevelopment:

This proposal cannot be considered in isolation. Alongside the adjacent proposal for a 38-storey development at 881–885 Bourke Street and numerous other large-scale developments in Waterloo and Zetland, the cumulative impact is enormous.

An estimated 4,000 new apartments is comparable to introducing an entire small town into the area within a short period. From a resident’s perspective, this scale of growth feels uncontrolled and unsustainable, with no clear plan for how the area will absorb such a rapid increase.

Parking and Local Congestion:

The proposal to add only 20 additional parking spaces for 233 new apartments is clearly inadequate. This imbalance will inevitably push more cars onto already congested local streets.

For residents like myself, this will mean increased difficulty finding parking, more traffic congestion, and greater frustration for both residents and visitors. The current situation is already challenging, and this proposal will make it significantly worse.

Visual Impact and Neighbourhood Character:

The proposed towers are excessively tall and out of character with the surrounding area. Their scale will dominate the streetscape and significantly alter the visual identity of the neighbourhood.

As someone who values the existing character and livability of this area, I am concerned that this proposal prioritises density over thoughtful urban design. The result will be an overbearing and visually intrusive development that diminishes the sense of community and place.

Overshadowing and Loss of Amenity:

The height and positioning of these towers, particularly when considered alongside nearby proposed developments, will result in significant overshadowing - especially during winter months.

This will impact nearby apartments, streets, and public spaces by reducing natural light and making outdoor areas less usable and enjoyable. Access to sunlight is a fundamental aspect of residential amenity, and this proposal risks significantly diminishing that.

Wind and Pedestrian Comfort:

Developments of this scale often create wind tunnel effects at street level. This reduces pedestrian comfort and makes the public domain less inviting and harder to use.

As someone who walks through the area daily, this is not an abstract concern - it directly affects how safe and pleasant it feels to move around the neighbourhood.

Addendum to Submission – SSD-95997711
Mixed Use Development – 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo

I wish to provide the following additional objections, specifically in relation to the proposed increase in building height, bulk and scale. I am a resident of Dunkerley Place Waterloo and believe the additional height may impact not just the views from the pool at my building but others along Bourke Street too.

1. Overshadowing and loss of solar access

The proposed increase in height (to 126m) will result in significant additional overshadowing of surrounding residential buildings and communal open spaces.

This is likely to:
- Reduce solar access to apartments, balconies, and living areas
- Impact the usability and amenity of communal facilities, including rooftop and podium-level open space

Loss of sunlight—particularly during winter—has a direct and material impact on residential amenity and should be carefully assessed and mitigated.

2. Wind impacts and pedestrian amenity

Buildings of this scale in dense urban environments can create adverse wind conditions, including:
- Wind tunnelling along Bourke Street
- Downdraft effects at street level and building entrances

These impacts can significantly reduce pedestrian comfort and safety. A development of this scale must demonstrate that it will not create unacceptable wind conditions in the public domain.

3. Bulk, scale and lack of appropriate transition

The proposed increase in height and floor space ratio represents a substantial departure from the existing built form in the surrounding area.

The development:
- Does not provide an appropriate transition in scale to neighbouring buildings
- Risks creating an overbearing “wall effect” along Bourke Street
- Will visually dominate the surrounding precinct

This is inconsistent with good urban design outcomes and diminishes the character and liveability of the area.

4. Loss of views and outlook

The proposed height increase is likely to materially impact existing view corridors and outlook from surrounding residential developments, including from upper-level apartments and communal open spaces.

While views are not protected, the scale of the proposed uplift introduces a significant and unreasonable impact on visual amenity. Specifically in relation to Dunkerley Place, the pool is located on level 10 building D and this development is likely to obstruct the view of the city from the pool with a corresponding impact on the value of our property.

5. Cumulative impact

This proposal must be considered in the context of the broader Green Square precinct, which is already experiencing rapid and substantial densification. Council have already mismanaged the problem and let developers over densify without requiring sufficient infrastructure or community facilities - the area doesn’t even have a Bank or a free cash machine?! Let alone a new pub or sufficient buses for all these people now living in the area of Green square, Waterloo and Zetland.

The cumulative effect of repeated increases in height and density across developments is resulting in:
- Increased pressure on infrastructure and public space
- Reduced residential amenity
- A growing imbalance between density and liveability

Approving further uplift of this magnitude risks exacerbating these existing issues.

6. Precedent

Approval of this proposal would set a concerning precedent for similar increases in height and density across the precinct.

This would:
- Undermine the integrity of existing planning controls
- Encourage further overdevelopment
- Erode confidence in the planning framework

Conclusion

For the reasons outlined above, the proposed increase in height, bulk and scale is excessive and will result in unacceptable impacts on surrounding properties and the broader precinct.

I request that these matters be carefully considered in the assessment of this application (by rejecting it) and others in the area; the a council and developers should take note of these concerns more generally, and take urgent steps to modify the approach to development in this area.

We are concerned that the proposed increase in height will have adverse impacts on the surrounding area, including but not limited to:
Increased overshadowing and loss of sunlight to neighbouring properties and public spaces;
Visual bulk and scale that is inconsistent with the existing and planned character of the locality;
Increased pressure on local infrastructure, services and traffic networks; and
Potential impacts on amenity, including privacy and outlook for nearby residents.

I strongly object this project!! The proposed increase in height and density is an excessive change from the originally approved design. The changes to the proposal will significantly affect the area. The buses are already full! The 304 bus and 320 bus that goes to central station are completely full so with the increase in apartments, there is no way there will be enough public transport.
The height of the buildings will take away so much natural light to the surrounding buildings. The area is already full of apartments; there will be no natural light left.
The roads are also very busy as a major road to the airport. If this project is approved, there will be a significant increase in traffic to the area.
If the project is approved, the area will be completely unliveable. I strongly object the project and request that it not be approved. An extra 233 apartments (total of 580) is absurd.

To; NSW State Govt- Planning
24th April 2026,

To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed modifications for 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo from DASCO (SSD-95997711), and to request that this application be refused by the NSW State Government. I have lived in Waterloo since 1995 and seen significant positive change but this development application has raised great concerns.
Let me be clear from the outset: this objection is not to housing or urban renewal in principle. Waterloo is changing, and more housing is needed. The objection is to the massive change in scale of this specific proposal, the absence of coherent planning logic behind it, and the way it appears to discard a carefully developed planning framework for the area without offering any credible replacement.
The height increase is extreme and unjustified
Increasing building height from approximately 65 metres to 126 metres is not a refinement — it is nearly a doubling. A jump of this magnitude goes well beyond considered urban planning. It is out of proportion with the surrounding built environment and fundamentally at odds with the planning intent for this area. A building of this size would push the neighbourhood toward a CBD-scale form and character that Waterloo has not been planned for and would bring with it the predictable consequences of overshadowing, wind tunnel effects, and a dramatically altered street-level experience.
There is no coherent alternative planning vision
The most troubling question this application raises is simply: what is the plan? Local planning controls exist for good reason. They are designed to balance density against transport capacity, open space, schools, design quality, and liveability. If those controls are being set aside, the community deserves to understand what broader strategy is replacing them. What is the vision? It looks like developer-led planning rather than genuine city-making — and that is a damaging way to shape a neighbourhood. I understand we need to create housing but let’s not dismantle all the guardrails in the process and let developer greed dominant good planning outcomes.
This sets a dangerous precedent
Approving a development of this height and density sends a clear message: that the limits built into the planning system can simply be overridden. Once a building of this scale is approved, resisting similar proposals nearby becomes significantly harder. Waterloo and the surrounding area are already under substantial development pressure. The integrity of the planning process depends on those safeguards being taken seriously.

The housing mix does not serve the community
If the justification for this proposal rests on housing need, it is reasonable to ask what kind of housing is actually being delivered? With only 20 three-bedroom apartments in the entire complex — apparently limited to the penthouses — the overwhelming majority of dwellings are studios, one- and two-bedroom units. This does little to support families seeking to live in the inner city, and a short-term increase in dwelling numbers does not justify a long-term outcome that fails to deliver a balanced and sustainable community. I also note that there is not enough integration on low income or social housing options built into this plan despite original promises that they would be included. I ask the Department to require affordable housing to be delivered as actual dwellings on this site, managed in perpetuity by a registered community housing provider, secured through a binding VPA that cannot be substituted with a financial contribution.
Infrastructure cannot support this level of density
The proposal adds 233 extra dwellings but only 20 additional car spaces. That mismatch alone is most concerning. Buses on this route regularly run full during peak hours. Local schools are already at capacity. Increasing density at this level without a serious, visible plan for transport, roads, schools, open space and community infrastructure is not responsible planning.
The approval pathway undermines normal safeguards
There is also deep concern that the State Significant Development pathway appears to circumvent many of the protections that would ordinarily apply through local planning controls — including environmental, social, design quality and open space considerations. Greater scrutiny should accompany greater scale, not less. This process appears to permit a more extreme outcome while bypassing the normal checks and balances that exist to protect communities. The original approved plan was well considered and approved 347 apartments which is now being requested by the developer to increase to 580. The height of the Bourke St North block requested to change from an approved 12 storeys to 31 storeys and the Young St Tower from 21 Storeys to 38 storeys. These requested increases are extreme and make a mockery of the previous local planning considerations and supporting infrastructure of the area. This proposed scale change is overbearing. The developer has also requested exemptions on community- negotiated protections under the original proposal with clause 6.14 and 6.5 now being requested to be excluded without addressing any reasonable alternatives that address community concerns.
Conclusion
This proposal is not a sound example of long-term city-creating. It is a short-term gain in housing numbers that risks creating lasting planning harm. It is excessive in both height and density, poorly justified, inconsistent with the established planning framework, and likely to have significant negative impacts on existing and future residents alike.
Given the significance of the changes proposed and the precedent this decision could set for future development in the area, I strongly object to these proposed modifications and ask that this application be refused and request that a public hearing be held so that the community has a proper and meaningful opportunity for their concerns to be heard.

Yours sincerely,
Carolyn .

Subject: Objection to Proposed Height Amendments – 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo
To Whom It May Concern,
I write to formally object to the proposed amendments to the development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo, specifically regarding the significant increase in building heights from 21 to 38 storeys for one tower and 12 to 31 storeys for another.
While I acknowledge the need for residential development and urban renewal, the scale of the proposed height increases raises serious concerns regarding the visual character of the neighbourhood, urban amenity, and the capacity of local infrastructure to accommodate such a substantial increase in residential density.
Visual Impact and Neighbourhood Character
The proposed heights are markedly inconsistent with the existing built form of the surrounding area. An increase of this magnitude will result in excessive visual dominance, fundamentally altering the skyline and character of Waterloo. The bulk and scale of the buildings will overshadow neighbouring properties, reduce sky views, and diminish the overall sense of openness that currently exists. Such a dramatic departure from the established height profile risks setting an undesirable precedent for overdevelopment in the area.
Residential Density and Population Impact
The proposed height amendments will substantially increase the number of residents within the site. This increase will place additional pressure on an already dense urban environment, affecting local roads, pedestrian movement, public transport, community facilities, and open spaces. The cumulative impact of this intensified population has not been adequately addressed, particularly in relation to liveability, safety, and access to essential services.
Waste Management and Local Amenity
A significantly higher number of dwellings will result in increased waste generation. Concerns remain regarding the adequacy of waste storage, collection, and disposal arrangements for a development of this scale. Without robust and clearly defined waste management strategies, there is a high risk of overflow, increased collection frequency, noise impacts, and negative effects on surrounding streets and public spaces. This would directly impact local amenity and environmental cleanliness.
Conclusion
In its current form, the proposed height increases are excessive and incompatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. I respectfully request that the consent authority reconsider the amendments and ensure that any development remains proportionate, sensitive to its context, and supported by appropriate infrastructure planning.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on this proposal.

Dear Ms Pemberton,
I am submitting my objection to the proposed amendment to the above Development Application that seeks an increase in gross floor area (GFA) and floor space ratio (FSR).
My concerns and objections are set out below.
1. Infrastructure Capacity and Impact
The proposal will massively increase dwelling numbers with no corresponding upgrade or capacity for supporting infrastructure. The surrounding streets, particularly Bourke and Danks Street are already subject to significant construction related strain. There is no plan with regards to:
. local road congestion
. stormwater and sewage infrastructure
. electrical and utilities capacity
. waste collection and servicing
2. Public Transport Limitations
No additional public transport upgrades are proposed in the submission. The site is a kilometre or more distance to the nearest Metro (Waterloo) or Railway Stations ( Green Square and Redfern). Not within easy walking distance. So bus services remain the primary public transport mode for residents. Increasing residential density will put even further strain on an already overwhelmed service.
. buses are already operating at capacity on congested roads in particular Crown and Bourke Street.
. there are no dedicated bus priority lanes.
. increased residents means increased cars putting even more pressure on already congested roads, and street parking.
On a personal note I get the 304 bus to the city for work. In peak times the bus comes approximately every 10 minutes. Often the bus goes past without stopping as it is full. Sometimes several buses. Causing frustrations and delays for commuters. The proposed amendment would mean diminished amenity for existing residents who are already experiencing inadequate public transport options.
3. Pedestrian and Cycling Safety
There are no designated cycling lanes on Burke Street. The surrounding walkways are “shared spaces” for both pedestrians and bicycles. The current resident bicycle use and always increasing food delivery bicycle use has made walkways congested, unsafe and at times dangerous for me to walk on. I almost get hit by a bicycle every day. An increased demand would be an additional burden on already overcrowded streets and walkways.
4. Insufficient On-Site Parking Provisions
The proposed increase in floor space and dwellings is not accompanied by an increase in on-site car parking spaces. On street parking is already scarce and difficult. This will result in:
. increased competition for already limited on street parking between residents, visitors, service vehicles and commercial vehicles.
. more “circulation” traffic as people search for spaces
. additional congestion on Bourke Street and surrounding local roads
5. Lack of Additional Communal Open Space and Green Infrastructure.
The proposed amendment does not include additional open or “green” space which is a critical component of sustainable urban density.
The Danks Street precinct has already had significant development over the recent years. Further increase without addressing the need for community open spaces will result in:
. reduced access to open spaces
. increased pressure on existing public parks
. diminished urban canopy and tree cover.
6. Local Services
. the local public school Green Square Public is already at full capacity
. local medical clinics and GP’s are overstretched and not taking any more patients. It is already extremely difficult to get a medical appointment.
7. Departure from Approved Development Application
Approving a 36 floor tower will be cited to justify similar inappropriate uplifts elsewhere in Waterloo. The proposed 36 story tower at 125 metres (from 29 metres) is more than double the height of any of the surrounding buildings and the height and bulk and would have significant adverse impact on existing residents including:
. overshadowing resulting in loss of sunlight and solar access,
. privacy concerns
. unsustainable overcrowding
I am asking that DASKO and its consultants reconsider the proposed amendments to the existing development consent.

Yours Sincerely,
Diana Thomas

Submission – Objection to SSD-95997711903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo

I am a nearby resident of O’Dea Avenue, Waterloo. I object to the proposed amendment to increase building height, density, and reduce key planning controls for the above development.

My concerns are outlined below.

1. Excessive Increase in Building Height (65m → 126m)The proposed increase in height is substantial and fundamentally alters the scale of the approved development.

This level of intensification is inconsistent with the existing built form and will result in:

Increased visual bulk and urban overdevelopment

Potential overshadowing impacts on surrounding residential areas

Reduced residential amenity for the local community

Such a significant departure from the current planning controls requires strong justification, which has not been adequately demonstrated.

2. Overdevelopment Through Increased Density (FSR 1.5:1 → 3.2:1)The proposed floor space ratio more than doubles the originally permitted density.

This raises serious concerns regarding:

Capacity of existing infrastructure (roads, parking, local services)

Increased traffic congestion in an already constrained road network

Pressure on local community facilities and open space

The proposal prioritises yield over liveability and does not align with sustainable urban planning principles.

3. Unjustified Removal of Key Planning ControlsThe proposal seeks to exclude:

Clause 6.21D (Competitive Design Process)

Clause 6.14 (Community Infrastructure Contributions)

These controls exist to ensure:

High-quality architectural outcomes

Adequate contributions to public infrastructure

Removing them while simultaneously increasing height and density is not appropriate and undermines the planning framework intended to protect community interests.

4. Inadequate Balance Between Public Benefit and Private GainWhile the proposal references increases in communal open space and non-residential floor area, these benefits are not proportionate to the scale of intensification proposed.

The development appears to deliver:

Significant additional private yield (over 200 additional apartments)

Limited and unclear public benefit in return

This imbalance is inconsistent with the principles of State Significant Development, which should demonstrate clear net public benefit.

5. Impact on Local Amenity and Residential CharacterThe cumulative effect of increased height, density, and reduced controls will result in:

Greater noise and activity levels

Reduced sense of space and privacy

Increased urban congestion

For existing residents, this represents a measurable decline in living conditions.

ConclusionThe proposed amendment represents a substantial intensification beyond the originally approved development, without sufficient justification or corresponding public benefit.

I respectfully request that the Department:

Reject the proposed increases in height and density; or

Require a significant redesign that aligns with existing planning controls and ensures appropriate community benefit.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Kind regards