Mixed Use Development - 903-921 Bourke St Waterloo

I'm currently the owner of unit 33 at 830 Bourke Street, living here for more than 8 years. I strongly object this project due to reasons below:
- Impacting current residents around the streets through blocking natural light & sight
- Pressure already limited resources in the area such as public transport, facilities and road traffic.
- Permanent impact on foot traffic and noise, this will undoubtably happen which will further impact our daily lives.
- There are TOO many apartments in Waterloo/Zetland area already, with a supply & demand issue and the increased scope of this DASCO project will only do harm to an already fragile economy in Sydney / Australia.

This project has been active for many years at the original plan, the fact DASCO has now applied to increase scope can only mean their initial project planning was very poor or they have stakeholder pressure to increase margins - this is at the cost of people's livelihoods and should not be approved by NSW Government.

I support the project, I believe it will significantly improve housing affordability and availability in the area.

I would like to see the number of storeys and units significantly increased as well as units set aside for essential workers.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed modification to the development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SSD-95997711).

While development on this site has already commenced, this application appears to seek a substantial increase in building height and scale—effectively doubling the originally approved development. I strongly object to this escalation.

As a nearby resident located to the west of the site, with an east-facing apartment, I am particularly concerned about the impact this increased height (up to approximately 125m) will have on sunlight access and residential amenity. My apartment relies on morning sunlight, and a development of this scale is likely to significantly reduce or delay direct sunlight, particularly during winter months.

In addition, the proposed height and bulk will significantly reduce sky outlook and visual amenity. The development would become one of the tallest buildings in the immediate area and would dominate the outlook from surrounding residences, creating an overbearing built form and diminishing the sense of openness currently enjoyed.

The proposed increase in height and scale is excessive and does not appropriately respond to the surrounding built environment or the amenity of existing residents. It represents a material departure from what was originally approved and what the community would reasonably have expected.

I respectfully request that this proposed increase in height and scale be refused, or significantly reduced to mitigate impacts on neighbouring properties.

Thank you for considering my submission.

I am writing to object to the proposed development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo. As a resident of 806 Bourke Street directly opposite, I have significant concerns.

While increased housing is important, this area is already experiencing substantial density growth, placing strain on infrastructure, transport, and local amenity. The proposed added building heights and additional apartments are a step too far.

The proposal underestimates impacts. The heights far exceed existing towers in Green Square and are inconsistent with the current neighbourhood character. Increased traffic, noise, and pedestrian congestion along Bourke and Potter Streets will worsen already high levels, including when adding an extra street. Public transport, particularly bus routes, already at capacity, and claims of minimal impact are unrealistic. Overshadowing, reduced light, and a street-level design that creates a dense, uninviting corridor are also key concerns. It was interesting to see CGI imagery from this angle was not provided. Note, McEvoy and Bourke streets will not be family & stroller friendly places to hang out as per the unrealistic CGI imagery offered. Parking provision, incl the added spaces squeezed within the same flooring for 200+ more units is inadequate and will further strain availability and traffic congestion. The findings in the applications from experts are clearly bias in favour of Dasco who have paid for the service. So, should all be taken with a grain of salt. Sarah George's watering down of the community engagement findings is a prime example.

Finally, claims regarding affordability and community benefit appear overstated and not reflective of local conditions. I.e. local citisens will not be able to afford these units.

This updated proposal represents overdevelopment and a cash grab from the builder without sufficient consideration of its impact on existing residents and infrastructure. Please do not allow this to proceed for the sake of the people who actually live here.

I object to this proposal on the basis of infrastructure capacity, transport limitations, and insufficient green space.
While I acknowledge that Sydney requires additional housing, this particular location is not suitable due to existing road constraints. The surrounding road network is already under significant pressure, with key intersections such as McEvoy Street turning onto Bourke Street and Lachlan Street turning onto Bourke Street being notably narrow and difficult to navigate. In practice, two standard-sized vehicles are often unable to turn simultaneously, and buses or trucks frequently require multiple lanes to complete these turns.
An increase in residents will inevitably lead to increased traffic volumes, and it is unclear how the current road infrastructure will accommodate this demand. There does not appear to be sufficient capacity to support higher density development without significant congestion and safety concerns.
In addition, the site is not conveniently located near high-capacity public transport. It is unclear whether there are plans to increase bus services connecting the development to nearby stations such as Redfern, or to improve access to the metro. However, given the already constrained road network, further reliance on buses may not be a viable solution. Clarification is needed on whether there are any plans to upgrade road infrastructure or provide alternative transport solutions beyond existing bus services.
A further concern is the lack of adequate green space to support an increased population. The proposal to reduce the size of Moore Park Golf Course is not supported, as the course contributes significant revenue to Greater Sydney Parklands, which helps fund important public spaces such as Parramatta Park and Centennial Park. Reducing this revenue stream may negatively impact the maintenance and quality of these broader parklands.
Given current economic conditions, it would be more prudent to prioritise investment in infrastructure and services before pursuing higher-density development in areas that are not well-equipped to support it.

I object to the proposed development on the basis of unacceptable impacts on residential amenity and inconsistency with established planning controls.

The proposed increase in building height (from 65m to 126m) and significant uplift in density will result in substantial overshadowing of surrounding properties, likely reducing solar access below the minimum standards outlined in the Apartment Design Guide. This will materially impact natural light, energy efficiency, and overall liveability.

The scale and height of the development will also introduce direct overlooking into neighbouring apartments, including my own, resulting in a loss of visual privacy that is inconsistent with NSW design principles for residential development.

Further, the proposed floor space ratio increase (from 1.5:1 to 3.2:1) represents an excessive departure from the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 and is not in keeping with the existing built form of the area. The cumulative impacts of overshadowing, privacy loss, increased density, and associated traffic and noise will result in an unreasonable reduction in quality of living for existing residents.

Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, these impacts must be appropriately considered. In its current form, the proposal fails to achieve a balanced and acceptable planning outcome.

I request that the application be refused or significantly amended to reduce height, bulk, and impacts on surrounding residents.

(1) The surrounding transportation networks, specifically public buses, are already congested esp. during peak hours. Additional footfall (passengers) from this proposed drastic increase in density on this development can only worsen the stressed transportation network. You can argue that this can be countered by increasing the number of buses plying the area but can you find the people (employees) to drive the buses? I say this from present day experience trying to catch a bus from Waterloo to the CBD during peak hours, which is a frustrating experience as there are not enough buses. Imagine the situation if this drastic increase in living density is approved;
(2) The surrounding streets are also already congested esp. during peak hours. Additional traffic (cars) from this planned increase in density can only worsen the surrounding stressed street networks;
(3) This development, walking distance wise, is not near to the Waterloo Metro nor the Green Square train stations to justify such a drastic increase in density from 376 to 581 apartments (an increase of 55%);
(4) I understand from the City of Sydney Council that there are no plans to increase the amount of communal open spaces despite proposing a drastic increase in density on this development. This surely will negatively impact the sustainable living standards for the Waterloo residents;
(5) I appreciate the current NSW Labor government's commitment to reduce pressure on housing prices and rents by uplifting housing supply in NSW. But please also understand that suburbs like Waterloo and Zetland have more than done its fair share of heavy lifting in this regards. It's well documented that Waterloo/Zetland is one of the most densely populated suburbs in NSW and it would only be fair for other suburbs to play their part in increasing housing supply for NSW.
In summary, I believe it's important to avoid such overly dense developments in Waterloo such as the SSDA for 903-921 Bourke Street. This is to sustain the liveability standards for the Waterloo residents.

This is the second time this developer has attempted to change an approved plan. Some years ago I protested the plan to extend the heights of this development from around 8 stories to 12 in some cases and then to 21 in other cases. Sadly these changes were approved and the developer has commenced work on that basis.

The new proposal for heights up to 37 stories is absurd. This is in no way complementary to everything else in the area. I really enjoy living in this high rise area where most buildings are capped at about 8 stories and there is plenty of green space surrounding most buildings.

Apart from the unpleasant appearance of such tall buildings I can only imagine the disastrous effect on the pedestrian, car and bus movements in our area. The intersections of Bourke Street with McEvoy and Lachlan Sts is already inefficient and at times dangerous. At peak hours it is regularly blocked. Adding to the strain on this precinct can only reduce our enjoyment of the area.

I strongly object to the proposed mixed-use development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.

Quite frankly, this proposal shows a complete disregard for the current conditions in the area. Bourke Street and Lachlan Street are already heavily congested on a daily basis. During peak times, traffic is at a standstill, and even outside of those hours it is far from free-flowing. Pushing through a development of this scale will only make an already bad situation worse. More cars, more congestion, more frustration — with no realistic solution offered.

Parking in Waterloo is already a mess. Residents are constantly competing for limited street parking, circling blocks just to find a space. Many existing developments clearly don’t provide enough parking, and this proposal appears to follow the same pattern. Adding even more units without addressing this issue will push the situation from difficult to completely unmanageable.

It’s also impossible to ignore that Waterloo is already saturated with high-density apartment living. Overdevelopment has become the norm, and it is directly impacting the liveability of the area. There is a clear tipping point, and this proposal goes well beyond it. Instead of improving the neighbourhood, it will only add pressure, overcrowding, and strain on already stretched infrastructure.

This development is not what the community needs. It prioritises density over liveability and ignores the very real, everyday issues residents are dealing with right now.

I urge the relevant authority to reject this proposal in its current form.

I am deeply concerned about the implications this proposal would have for local residents and the broader neighbourhood.

Firstly, the substantial increase in density would place considerable strain on already congested infrastructure. Local roads, parking availability, and public transport services are already under pressure, and adding a large volume of additional residents would likely exacerbate these issues significantly.

Secondly, there are serious concerns regarding the adequacy of community infrastructure and amenities. The current availability of schools, green spaces, and recreational facilities in the area is limited, and it is unclear how these essential services would accommodate a large increase in population.

Overshadowing is also a major concern. Buildings of this proposed height are likely to significantly reduce solar access to neighbouring residential buildings and public spaces, negatively impacting liveability and the enjoyment of shared community areas.

Additionally, towers of this scale can create severe wind tunnel effects at street level, which may impact pedestrian safety and comfort. The visual impact of buildings of this height would also be dramatically out of scale with the existing neighbourhood character.

Finally, the construction phase itself would bring prolonged disruption through increased noise, heavy vehicle traffic, and general construction impacts in an area that is already experiencing significant development activity.

For these reasons, I strongly oppose the proposed modifications to the development plans. I respectfully request that my objection be formally noted and passed on to the NSW Department of Planning as part of the consultation process.

I am writing as a local resident of Waterloo to formally object to the proposed changes to the development at 903–921 Bourke Street.

The plan to increase the height of the Bourke Street North building from 12 to 30 storeys, along with the Young Street Tower from 21 to 37 storeys, is a significant and unreasonable shift from what was originally approved by the City of Sydney. Such a substantial increase in height would dramatically change the scale and density of the project, as well as its impact on the surrounding area.

I have serious concerns about how these changes would affect both current residents and the wider community.

To begin with, the increased density would place additional pressure on infrastructure that is already struggling to cope. Local roads are congested, parking is limited, and public transport services are often overcrowded. Introducing a large number of additional residents would only intensify these existing issues.

There are also concerns about whether community facilities can support this level of growth. Access to schools, open green spaces, and recreational amenities is already limited, and there is no clear plan for how these services would meet the needs of a significantly larger population.

Overshadowing is another major issue. Buildings of this height would likely reduce sunlight to nearby homes and public areas, which would negatively affect living conditions and the usability of shared spaces.

In addition, developments of this scale can create strong wind tunnel effects at street level, potentially impacting pedestrian safety and comfort. The visual presence of towers of this size would also be out of character with the existing neighbourhood.

The construction phase is also a concern, as it would result in ongoing disruption due to noise, increased truck movements, and general construction activity in an area that is already heavily impacted by development.

For these reasons, I strongly oppose the proposed amendments.

I am the owner of Unit 202, 17–19 Danks Street, Waterloo, located immediately adjacent to the proposed development site. I wish to register my objection to the amended application seeking to increase the number of apartments from 376 to 580 and the maximum building height from 65m to 126m.

Excessive height and incompatibility with existing built form

The proposed increase to 126m is entirely out of character with the surrounding Danks Street precinct. Existing residential buildings in the immediate area, including mine, are predominantly lower-to-mid-rise. A tower of this scale would create significant overshadowing of neighbouring properties, private open spaces, and the public domain — particularly during winter months when sun access is already limited. The proposal has not adequately demonstrated compliance with the solar access provisions of the Apartment Design Guide, and I request that detailed shadow analysis be made publicly available for the amended envelope.

Inadequate public transport infrastructure

The site is over 1km from the nearest metro station, with no direct, high-frequency rail connection within comfortable walking distance. The existing bus network along Bourke Street and Botany Road is already at or near capacity during peak periods. Approving a 54% increase in dwelling numbers without a commensurate commitment to public transport upgrades would place an unreasonable burden on existing infrastructure and is inconsistent with the principle that density should follow transport investment, not precede it.

Traffic and parking impacts

The surrounding road network — particularly Danks Street, Bourke Street, and the Lachlan Street intersection — already experiences significant congestion during morning and evening peaks. An additional 204 apartments will generate substantial vehicle movements regardless of any reduced parking ratios applied to the development. The cumulative effect of this project alongside other approved and under-construction developments in Waterloo and Green Square has not been adequately assessed. I request that an updated Traffic Impact Assessment be prepared that accounts for all committed development in the precinct, not just this site in isolation.

I am the owner of Unit 202, 17–19 Danks Street, Waterloo, located immediately adjacent to the proposed development site. I wish to register my objection to the amended application seeking to increase the number of apartments from 376 to 580 and the maximum building height from 65m to 126m.

Excessive height and incompatibility with existing built form

The proposed increase to 126m is entirely out of character with the surrounding Danks Street precinct. Existing residential buildings in the immediate area, including mine, are predominantly low-to-mid-rise. A tower of this scale would create significant overshadowing of neighbouring properties, private open spaces, and the public domain — particularly during winter months when sun access is already limited. The proposal has not adequately demonstrated compliance with the solar access provisions of the Apartment Design Guide, and I request that detailed shadow analysis be made publicly available for the amended envelope.

Inadequate public transport infrastructure

The site is over 1km from the nearest metro station, with no direct, high-frequency rail connection within comfortable walking distance. The existing bus network along Bourke Street and Botany Road is already at or near capacity during peak periods. Approving a 54% increase in dwelling numbers without a commensurate commitment to public transport upgrades would place an unreasonable burden on existing infrastructure and is inconsistent with the principle that density should follow transport investment, not precede it.

Traffic and parking impacts

The surrounding road network — particularly Danks Street, Bourke Street, and the Lachlan Street intersection — already experiences significant congestion during morning and evening peaks. An additional 204 apartments will generate substantial vehicle movements regardless of any reduced parking ratios applied to the development. The cumulative effect of this project alongside other approved and under-construction developments in Waterloo and Green Square has not been adequately assessed. I request that an updated Traffic Impact Assessment be prepared that accounts for all committed development in the precinct, not just this site in isolation.

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed major changes to the development plans for the former Water Board site (903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo).
The proposed increase in height—from 12 to 30 storeys on Bourke St, and from 21 to 37 storeys on Young St—is excessive. This represents a ~67% increase in building scale, which is a fundamental departure from the originally approved concept.
My key concerns as a local resident include:
Visual Impact & Neighbourhood Character: The proposed height is drastically out of scale with the surrounding Waterloo precinct.
Overshadowing: Towers of this magnitude (30-37 storeys) will significantly reduce solar access to neighbouring homes and public spaces.
Infrastructure Strain: A 67% increase in density will place unmanageable pressure on local traffic, parking, and public transport, which are already at capacity.
Wind Impacts: Increasing height to 37 storeys poses a risk of severe wind tunnel effects at street level, impacting pedestrian safety and comfort.
If council approves this, terrible precedents will be set evading proper precinct planning & the entire area of Waterloo will suffer forever.
The creation of three separate lots facilitates future staged State Significant Development (SSD) modifications or sales of individual parcels, deliberately evading comprehensive precinct-wide assessment of traffic, servicing and amenity impacts required under Danks South planning controls.

Submission Objecting to State Significant Development Application SSD-95997711

I am writing to object to the proposed amendment to the approved mixed‑use development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.
The amended proposal seeks to significantly increase the height and density of the development beyond what was originally approved and beyond the established planning controls. In particular, the two tallest towers are proposed to increase in height by approximately 81% and 158%. These increases represent a substantial escalation in scale that cannot reasonably be characterised as a minor modification.
The proposed height increases raise serious overshadowing concerns, with likely adverse impacts on surrounding residential areas, streets, and public spaces, including areas proximate to the Waterloo Heritage Conservation Area. The loss of sunlight and increased visual dominance are inconsistent with good urban design principles and established expectations under the original approval.
The amended tower heights would also result in excessive visual bulk, creating a development that dominates the surrounding built environment and fails to provide an appropriate transition in scale. In addition, the increased height and bulk raise concerns regarding loss of privacy for nearby residents due to additional overlooking.
The site’s adjacency to the Waterloo Heritage Conservation Area further heightens concern. The proposed increases fail to demonstrate a sensitive response to the scale and character of the heritage area and risk diminishing its setting and significance, contrary to heritage conservation objectives.
Despite the scale of the additional height and density sought, the amendment does not demonstrate a commensurate increase in public or community benefit that would justify the increased impacts. The uplift appears to primarily benefit the proponent, while the surrounding community bears the consequences.
For these reasons, the proposed amendment represents an unacceptable increase in scale, resulting in adverse amenity and heritage impacts and an outcome inconsistent with the intent of the original approval. I respectfully request that the amendment not be approved.

I am writing to register my objection to the project - the details of my objection are fully outlined in the attached PDF.

I'm the owner of the apartment at 6 Lachlan St, Waterloo NSW 2017,
which is located on the block across the road from the 903-921 Bourke
Street development site.

I have received a message from Mayor Moor regarding the change to
application SSD-95997711, specifically the increase in the number of
storeys in the building and a significant increase in the number of
apartments from 376 to 581.

As a resident of this area, I'm strongly opposed to such a change to
the development plan and believe it diminishes the local amenity and
poses significant threats to all residents of the new development and
neighbourhood.

The development site is surrounded by only secondary roads, and these
existing two-lane roads are already very busy with the current number
of residents. Adding a significant number of cars and commuters will
make the situation worse, leading to traffic blockage. Street parking
will become a nightmare, increase violations, and pose a safety
threat. Additionally, the area doesn't have enough schools and
childcare centres to accommodate the new families. Other amenities,
like shops and grocery stores, are already busy with the existing
number of residents, and the new development doesn't address these
problems. Local bus stops and buses are busy during rush hours.
Another problem is the lack of public community spaces, which are
insufficient for the increased number of residents.

While the existing buildings maintained a balance between houses and
public community areas, the new development offers significant density
growth and very few shared common spaces.

I strongly object to the change in the development plan and hope the
project stays unchanged with the previously planned 376 apartments.

I object to this proposal as the area is already too conjested . We have no parking in the area . Too many units already . This will affect sunlight coming into my property

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to formally object,that is strongly object, to the proposed increases in building height and density for the Bourke Street North apartments (from 12 to 31 storeys) and the Young Street tower (from 21 to 38 storeys).

These amendments would increase the number of residential units from 347 to 580—an additional 233 dwellings—while providing only 20 additional parking spaces. This imbalance raises serious concerns about infrastructure capacity and the cumulative impacts on local residents.

This proposal must also be considered alongside the adjacent development at 881–885 Bourke Street (SSD-80441462), which includes a proposed 38-storey building. When combined with other nearby developments, the cumulative effect is estimated to introduce approximately 4,000 new apartments and up to 8,000 additional residents into the area.

The impact of this level of densification is already being felt:

*Parking congestion has significantly worsened. It is increasingly difficult to find on-street parking anywhere near my home, often requiring multiple circuits of surrounding streets to secure a space.
*Public transport capacity is insufficient. Buses are frequently at capacity and pass stops without picking up passengers, including myself, making reliable travel difficult, particularly during peak hours.
*Community facilities are under strain. Booking exercise sessions at the local sports centre has become increasingly difficult, with classes filling well in advance or facilities being so crowded as to be essentially untenable for easy access and usage. This is particular evident with lane swimming
*Daily life disruptions are increasing. I now avoid scheduling early morning appointments due to unreliable transport access.

These issues demonstrate that the current and proposed scale of development is outpacing the capacity of local infrastructure and services.

While I recognise the importance of increasing housing supply, it must be balanced with appropriate investment in infrastructure and a commitment to maintaining liveability. The current proposals do not adequately address these concerns and risk significantly diminishing the quality of life for existing and future residents.

I urge the Committee to reconsider the proposed increases in height and density, and to ensure that any development is aligned with infrastructure capacity, transport availability, and community amenity.

Yours sincerely,
Roger Graham