Mixed Use Development - 903-921 Bourke St Waterloo

The amendment to increase the height of the building and the additional 204 additional apartments will increase traffic congestion and have an environmental impact on the surrounding area .

The local area cannot handle the proposed development's population density. The current infrastructure is already under significant strain - most of the surrounding roads are single lane and traffic is already significantly backed up during peak hours. Public transport is under the same strain with trains at Green Square and buses along Bourke st being completely packed during peak hour - buses often pass by without picking up passengers as they're too full. The height of the buildings will also completely dwarf surrounding buildings and there is lack of open spaces to offset this, creating an eyesore. There is also not enough green areas and public spaces in the current neighbourhood, even accounting for the proposed changes to Moore Park.

I write to formally object to the proposed modification to the approved development at 903-921 Bourke St, Waterloo (SSD-95997711), which seeks to increase the height and density of the existing consent to deliver approximately 250 additional apartments.

Please see the attached letter.

INTRODUCTION
I am a resident of Waterloo and formally object to this proposal. The applicant's own technical reports demonstrate the scheme cannot meet minimum planning standards for solar access, is undersupplied with parking, and relies on traffic modelling four years out of date. The Lord Mayor of the City of Sydney has formally objected. The applicant's own community engagement consultant has documented strong community opposition.

Bulk excavation has already commenced under the approved scheme, and the neighbourhood is already bearing significant construction disruption. Approving a wholly different, substantially larger development now would impose years of additional disruption on a community that had no meaningful opportunity to engage with this new scheme before it was lodged.

THE PROPOSAL
The site was approved for a development of up to 21 storeys. The current SSDA is not a modification. It is an entirely different scheme: a 38-storey tower and 31-storey building delivering 580 dwellings, a 67% increase above the amended consent. Total gross floor area grows from 37,268 m2 to 59,172 m2, an increase of 59%. Car parking grows from 346 to only 376 spaces (+8%), despite dwelling numbers increasing by more than half. The applicant must also amend the Sydney LEP 2012, lifting the FSR from 1.5:1 to 3.2:1 and the maximum building height from 65m to 126m, changes that require a concurrent rezoning assessed without the community exhibition process that would ordinarily accompany an LEP amendment of this significance.

SOLAR ACCESS FAILURES
The NSW Apartment Design Guide (ADG) requires that 70% of dwellings receive at least 2 hours of direct sunlight on 21 June. The applicant's own Design Report (Appendix 9A) admits that Building D1 (YSP tower) achieves only 55.6%, nearly 15 percentage points below the minimum, and Building D2 (BSN) achieves only 65.9%. Both fail the standard. These failures are the direct consequence of the scale of the proposal. A development that cannot meet minimum solar access standards for its own residents should not be approved.

CAR PARKING AND TRAFFIC
376 spaces for 580 dwellings is a ratio of 0.65 per dwelling, down from 0.92 under the approved DA. Apartments increase by 54%; parking increases by 8%. The Transport Impact Assessment (Appendix 15, JMT Consulting) justifies this by reference to car-free rates among existing low-income Waterloo residents, not the likely profile of future market-rate residents occupying 580 apartments, including 138 three- and four-bedroom units. The TIA also relies on intersection modelling prepared in 2022 for a 376-dwelling scheme. No new analysis has been conducted for 2026 base conditions. The cumulative traffic impact alongside the 850-dwelling Coronation development (SSD-80441462) in the same precinct has not been modelled.

HERITAGE IMPACTS
The Former Sydney Water Pumping Station and Valve House (LEP Item I2073; SHR No. 01630) is a State Heritage Register-listed item adjacent to the site. The applicant's own Supplementary Heritage Impact Statement (Appendix 26, Weir Phillips Heritage Consultants, 9 February 2026) concedes: "There will be some additional obstruction of views towards the Pumping Station as a result of the increased height, particularly from Lachlan Street and the southern end of Young Street." The same report's shadow analysis admits the proposed development will shadow the Valve House from 11:00-11:30am and again from 12:45-2:30pm on the winter solstice. Separately, the applicant's Design Report (Appendix 9A, prepared by project architects Bates Smart) identifies heritage legibility as a "key issue" for the project. That is two separate consultant teams, in two separate lodged documents, flagging the same unresolved problem. The State Design Review Panel reviewed this design at two separate stages before lodgement and heritage concerns persisted through both rounds of review. The SDRP Response Table (Appendix C), which documents what the panel raised and how the applicant responded, has not been made publicly available and must be disclosed before determination.

CONCURRENT LEP REZONING
The FSR and height controls on this site were established through the Danks Street South Precinct planning process following years of community consultation. The approved DA was designed to comply with them. The proposed SSDA cannot. To enable this development, the Sydney LEP 2012 must be amended to more than double the FSR and almost double the maximum building height. Under the HDA pathway, this is being assessed without the community exhibition, Gateway determination, or council resolution that would ordinarily accompany such changes. Residents who are neighbours to a site zoned for 65-metre buildings now face a 126-metre tower being approved through an administrative process, with no opportunity to engage with the rezoning itself.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The Social Impact Assessment acknowledges a contribution of approximately $40 million to the City of Sydney's Affordable Housing Fund. However, not a single dwelling in the development is reserved as affordable housing on site. This application uses a state government fast-track pathway justified by the housing crisis, yet delivers 580 market-rate apartments with no on-site affordable component. A cash payment to a fund is not the same as affordable housing in the building.

COMMUNITY OPPOSITION AND THE LORD MAYOR'S OBJECTION
The applicant's own Community Engagement Report (Appendix 31, Sarah George Consulting, March 2026) documents 218 or more written submissions, a webinar attended by 91 participants, and characterises community sentiment as "strong opposition." The Lord Mayor of Sydney, Clover Moore, formally objected on 19 February 2026, describing the proposal as achieving an increased apartment count "by a staggering increase to the height of buildings," noting that no increase in communal open space is proposed despite 205 more apartments, and expressing deep concern that the HDA has removed the community's right to local democratic decision-making. The Department should treat the Lord Mayor's letter as formal institutional opposition from the elected local authority.

REQUESTS
I formally request that this proposal is rejected.

I believe that the changes are not good for the community.

While I acknowledge the need for additional housing supply, this proposal represents an overdevelopment of an already constrained area and does not adequately address key issues relating to transport, infrastructure, and amenity.

In relation to public transport, this site is not within easy walking distance of a train or metro station for many residents, particularly when considering practical day-to-day use. Bus services in the area are already heavily utilised and unreliable at peak times. Increasing density at this scale without a corresponding uplift in public transport capacity will inevitably increase reliance on private vehicles.

There is also a clear lack of public open space in Waterloo relative to the growing population. Existing parks are already heavily used, and this development does not appear to provide sufficient or meaningful additional open space. High-density living without access to adequate green space will negatively impact the wellbeing and livability of residents.

Traffic congestion in the surrounding area is already a serious issue, particularly along Bourke Street, Botany Road and the O’Dea Avenue corridor. This development will add further pressure to an already strained road network. There is little evidence that the existing infrastructure can accommodate this additional demand without significant impacts on travel times and local accessibility.

The proposal also appears to underestimate parking demand. This will likely result in increased pressure on surrounding streets, where parking is already limited. Any shortfall in on-site parking will simply be displaced into the local area, negatively affecting existing residents.

More broadly, the scale and density of the development are excessive and not appropriate for the site. Waterloo is already undergoing substantial high-density development, and the cumulative impact of these projects is not being properly addressed. This proposal prioritises density over livability and will contribute to a decline in residential amenity.

Taken together, the lack of transport access, limited open space, worsening congestion, parking pressures and excessive density will reduce the overall standard of living in Waterloo.

For these reasons, I object to the proposal and request that it be refused in its current form, or significantly revised to reduce density and better address infrastructure constraints.

I have recently purchased a property in the immediate area. The character and public amenity of Waterloo was a significant factor in this investment. The new proposal will materially change the character of the area, particularly in regard to the substantial change in the proposed height of the construction. This proposal will impair light on adjacent properties, overshadowing current residences, towering over and altering the character of the immediate area. This proposal is neither appropriate or reasonable.

While we should recognise the need for additional dwellings, however this cannot be done to the detriment of existing residents and investors by irreparably damaging the character of the local area as well as impairing the liveability for current residents.
This significant increase in development density is out of character for the area. The proposal will have negative visual impact in the community - mainly due to it's unreasonable height - it is unconscionable for the rezoning to consider almost doubling a new maximum building height to 126m.

I very strongly object to the proposed changes and urge that they be rejected and planning remains within the current zoning envelope.

I support the original DA under Danks Street South Plan, but I object to the proposal to increase the size of the towers. That would add too much to local traffic, public transport, etc. Keep it as is.

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

I write to formally object to the proposed modifications under SSD-95997711 for the development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.

I strongly oppose the proposed changes, particularly the significant increase in building height and density. These modifications represent a substantial and unjustified departure from the originally approved concept, which had established clear expectations for scale, character, and integration with the surrounding area. The current proposal undermines those expectations and erodes community confidence in the planning process.

My key concerns are as follows:

1. Excessive Height and Density
The proposed increase in height and density is disproportionate to the site and surrounding context. It risks creating an overbearing built form that is inconsistent with the existing and planned urban fabric of Waterloo.

2. Amenity Impacts
Increased building scale will likely result in adverse impacts on neighbouring properties, including overshadowing, loss of natural light, reduced privacy, and potential wind tunnelling effects. These impacts have not been adequately addressed.

3. Infrastructure and Services Pressure
The proposal appears to place additional strain on already constrained local infrastructure, including roads, public transport, schools, and community services. There is insufficient evidence that supporting infrastructure will be upgraded in line with the increased population density.

4. Departure from Approved Planning Framework
The extent of the proposed changes effectively disregards the intent of the originally approved development and broader planning controls. Such a departure sets a concerning precedent for future modifications and weakens the integrity of the planning system.

5. Community Impact and Consultation
The proposal does not adequately reflect the interests or concerns of the local community. Meaningful consultation and consideration of community feedback are essential, particularly when significant changes are proposed.

In summary, the proposed modifications are excessive, inadequately justified, and inconsistent with the established planning framework and community expectations. I respectfully request that this proposal be rejected.

I write to lodge a strong objection to the proposed mixed‑use development comprising two towers at 903‑921 Bourke Street and an additional tower at 881‑885 Bourke Street. The scale, massing and amenity‑impact of this scheme are incompatible with the existing character of the precinct and will place an unacceptable burden on local infrastructure, public amenities, visual amenity and resident wellbeing.

Having lived in that area for years, and currently renting out my apartment, the strain on public transport is already clearly identifiable. The area, while already high density, has a community feel and the obtrusive proposed height of these new buildings is unjustifiable and is not a valid proposal for solution.

As a local citizen of the area i would strongly object to this structure.

I am a resident who lives nearby and knowing the site opposite would be redeveloped and that the redevelopment would be significant and knowing it was offering limited amenity and community benefit despite it being subject to a planning agreement with City of Sydney.

The revised proposal is simply too large and bulky and will be too high in terms of existing residential heights in the vicinity. It will cast very significant shadows over the other proposed buildings on the subject’s conglomerated sites and adjoining residential properties in Bourke St.

It will also adversely affect the local amenity causing significant wind tunnelling and reduced light access to surrounding properties.

There is no additional proposed outdoor space or internal community facilities despite the current proposal having little significant or useable outdoor space.

The additional residents, parking and cars will further congest often completely blocked local roads, including Lachlan St which is already a longstanding disaster, often being gridlocked.

Bus routes, particularly during busy periods, are already often full. This will make it worse. The development is too far away from Waterloo Metro or Green Sq Station for these transport systems to have any impact on reducing demand on local bus systems.

The proposed additional height (nearly doubling), floor space and number dwellings is a grossly oversized grab which is not supportable in respect of local amenity or liveability.

It would be unconscionable for the Dept of Planning or the Minister to approve this oversized development. This sort of development needs to be rail transport oriented.

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

The scale of the proposed changes represents a significant departure from what was originally approved. Increasing the buildings to 31 and 38 storeys, alongside a substantial uplift in apartment numbers, introduces density that is not aligned with the existing infrastructure capacity of the area.

My key concerns are:

Infrastructure strain: Local roads, parking, buses, and peak-hour trains from Green Square are already at or near capacity. This level of additional density will exacerbate congestion and reduce liveability. Importantly, none of the surrounding train stations are within a reasonable walking distance of the proposed development, meaning residents will rely heavily on buses. This will place ongoing pressure on bus services that are already under strain.

Insufficient amenities: Public spaces and services are already under pressure and will not keep pace with the rapid population increase.

Overall, the proposal is excessive in height and density and represents a clear overreach beyond the originally approved concept. It risks materially reducing the quality of life for existing residents.

I ask that you use your influence to oppose this proposal and advocate for a more balanced, infrastructure-aligned development

As owners of an apartment in the Tiara building (cnr Bourke and Danks St, Waterloo), we formally object to the proposed amendment to the LEP 2012. We specifically oppose the additional 204 apartments, the height increase from 65m to 126m, and the FSR expansion from 1.5:1 to 3.2:1.

While we acknowledge the need for increased housing supply, these specific increases are unsustainable. The local infrastructure—particularly bus services on Bourke Street—is already at capacity. Local street parking is non-existent, and public services are overstretched by 25 years of high-density development. The current LEP was created to protect the area’s character; steamrolling these rules is a breach of public trust. There is no precedent for a building of this height.

We urge the Department to reconsider this over-development in favour of a more balanced, sustainable approach While the government needs more housing, this specific proposal is a mistake that will blemish the suburb for decades. We will be remembering this decision at the next State election.

To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,
I write to object to the proposed development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo, specifically on the grounds of excessive density and overdevelopment.
Overdevelopment and Excessive Density
The proposal to increase the development to 580 apartments (an additional 204 dwellings) represents a significant and unjustified intensification of the site.

This level of density is inappropriate for the location and raises serious concerns:

1. Overcrowding and Liveability
A development of this scale will lead to, increased population concentration beyond what the site and surrounding area can comfortably support, we also have Danks Street District coming up with many apartments as well.
High-density outcomes of this nature often result in diminished quality of living, particularly when not matched with proportional increases in amenity.
2. Floor Space Ratio (FSR) Increase is Excessive
The proposed increase in FSR from 1.5:1 to 3.2:1 is more than double the existing control.
This represents:
- A substantial overdevelopment of the site
- A clear departure from the intended planning framework
- An outcome driven by maximising yield rather than appropriate urban design
Such a large uplift is not consistent with balanced and sustainable development principles.
3. Pressure on Local Infrastructure
The increase in dwelling numbers will place additional demand on already stretched infrastructure, including:
- Roads and traffic networks
- Public transport services
- Local amenities and community facilities
There is insufficient justification that the surrounding infrastructure can support this level of additional density.

4. Inadequate Justification for Increased Yield
The scale of the proposed increase appears to prioritise development intensity over community outcomes.
There is limited evidence that:
- The increase delivers meaningful public benefit
- The design sufficiently mitigates the impacts of such density
- The proposal aligns with long-term planning objectives for the area
Conclusion
The proposed increase in density is excessive, poorly justified, and inconsistent with the principles of sustainable urban development.
I respectfully request that the Department reject the proposed increase in dwelling numbers and Floor Space Ratio, or require a substantial reduction to align with existing planning controls and community expectations.
Yours sincerely,

The impacts of this development will include:
1. Infrastructure strain — the extra residents would place unacceptable pressure on local
roads, parking and public transport, all of which are already stretched. Services such as
the 304 bus and peak-hour trains from Green Square are already at or near capacity, and
buses often pass by because they’re full.
2. Shortage of amenities - Public amenities are already under pressure and are unlikely to
keep pace with the additional residents. Even now it can be difficult to find a place to
sit and work at the library. This development would add further strain and make an
already crowded situation worse.
3. Visually overbearing development - The proposed height is far too large for its
surroundings and is out of character with the existing neighbourhood. Its scale would
dominate the local streetscape and create a serious visual impact, undermining the
current character of the area.
4. Overshadowing impacts - The two oversized towers proposed at 903-921 Bourke Street,
together with the tower proposed at 881-885 Bourke Street, would create significant
cumulative overshadowing during the winter solstice, affecting a large area of nearby
homes and public open space.

I am against the modifications to the development application for 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SSD-95997711) My three main reasons: infrastructure; excessive height and community misalignment.
I have lived locally for 12 years and seen massive change in the area over that time. I expect change and know that change will happen in the area as it moves from industrial to residential. However, overall past development has been balanced, as well as providing the community with many benefits.
Originally as planned this development was approved with height and density creating a socially responsible balance. It was a dense masterplan development with greenspace and infrastructure support. It no long is.
Infrastructure
This is crucial for the success of any development. It is essential that people can get in and out of a location. Good infrastructure brings visitors into an area to help sustain local businesses. For this development infrastructure is poor.
Transport Networks: The heavy rail network, Green Square and Redfern, are each a good 20-minute walk away. The metro at Waterloo is also a 20-minute walk as is the light rail in another direction. Though, these are all positive a 20-minute walk for most people is too long and therefore not practical for daily commutes and even visitors.
The area, therefore, is only directly served by busses. These are already very well patronised – stretched in peak times. Injecting an additional 580 apartments is going to put additional pressures on this service. Buses will need to be increased to cope with the demand.
Even if busses are significantly increased many people, both residents and visitors will still be dependent on motor vehicles. This should not be the outcome of any development. The area will not cope well more vehicles. It will put additional pressure on street parking, causing inconvenience as well traffic blockage. It is already in high demand. Parking spaces for residents in the proposed buildings have not increased.
Walking will not increase; in fact, it will probably decrease given the increased traffic.
In addition, there are no on street electric vehicle charging hubs, though there are some charging facilities in shopping centre car parks.
The two best local retail precincts in the area East Village Shopping Centre and Surry Hills Shopping Village both offer adequate parking to supplement the local population by drawing visitors from other parts of Sydney. New developments can’t survive without adequate parking. Surry Hills Shopping Village with the strong restaurant mix supports/highlighting this fact.
Retail Infrastructure: This will change over time, but it is challenging especially now. For example Dank Street has morphed, after struggling since COVID, from cafes and restaurants to a design fit out/renovation street dominated by Winnings, plumbing/bathroom suppliers, flooring and garden furniture. Foot traffic has declined dramatically. Food outlets have opened but mostly closed. There are now only 2 food outlets at its peak there were 7 maybe 8!
A walk around the area will see many vacant shops many under large apartment buildings. Dining habits have radically changed over the last few years with a noticeable decline across the area – check out Green Square, so sad!
The height!
Two buildings are to have the height increased which will create massive towers overshadowing areas the east - in the afternoon, west - in the morning and south – just about all day. The historical water pumping station will see very little natural light as it will be wedged in by buildings on all sides, except south where there is no sun.
Bourke Street North is proposed to go from a ‘typical in the area’ height of 12 storeys to almost triple - 31 storeys. There is only one building in the area that high – Green Square where transport infrastructure is maximised. Ovo acts like a sun dial casting broad slash shadows over the surrounding roads.
Young Street Tower – which was originally approved to be 21 storeys, currently the high side of the local area in terms of building height, this will increase to a massive 38 storeys, dominating the landscape and casting shadows over the local district.
The original design for the site, was high in density. It is now proposed to increase dramatically by an additional 233 dwellings. It will also create a much wider shadow effect on buildings outside the development site as well as visual dominance given its block/square design.
Community
The Waterloo/Zetland precinct has grown significantly over the last 10 years. This has put massive pressure on the local community and resources. It is under pressure now.
Outdoor Space: A park is planned in the development. Disappointingly though this proposal seeks to increase dwellings by 233 – but there is no increase in the public outdoor space within the precinct.
Further, the park is going to be in shadow for a large part of the day. Therefore, other local parks will be utilised by residents where they can obtain sunlight, putting additional pressure on these communities.
Pressure on existing services: Increased population will put additional pressure on local libraries, schools, childcare and medical services. The bus only transport system will also be put under pressure with residents having to wait for extended periods as busses drive past full.
New demographics: The new student accommodation adjacent to the development on McEvoy Street is also going to add to a change in the area with increased pressure on community services and infrastructure.
The new development seeks to offer accommodation for essential workers. This is a positive however, these people also work erratic and long hours and this in turn will change the dynamic of the local community, potentially having both positive and negative impacts.
Currently I walk my dog most afternoons. Daily I pass this site either down Bourke Street, up Dank Street or along Young. I will in the future walk in shadow as well a dodge cars and bikes (especially as there is no dedicated bike path). In addition, I’m sure there will many more dogs and children looking to enjoy the limited outdoor space.
Conclusion
In conclusion I am against the change to this development. The earlier balanced masterplan, that was approved and should be maintained.
The changes are excessive in height, will disadvantage existing as well new residents, put considerable pressure on infrastructure and radically change the community. I urge that the development application be rejected.
Best regards
Philip Smith 3 Hunter Street Waterloo 2017

I OBJECT the proposed increase of height of Young st tower from 21 to 38 levels, the increase of height in Bourke st North tower from 12 to 31 levels and the increase of height of the Bourke st South from 7 to 11 levels.
The doubling of the tower heights will create wind tunnel as the "towers in GreenSquare" have created a wind tunnel and will impact my and the neighbourhood enjoyment of the area.

Dear Decision Makers,

As a Zetland resident for many years, living with my husband and one remaining adult child at home, I’m deeply concerned about the proposed height and density increases at 903-921 Bourke Street.

At 62, I’ve recently received my Gold Opal Senior’s Card. I’ve started to use more public transport - buses and early trains - and I've noticed they’re already crowded, just with existing residents.

Our library, GP medical practice and other local amenities are under strain. This development would worsen that.

We’d also lose much of our beautiful skyline view. While we know we don’t own it, it has been a cherished part of our life, from our rooftop garden space on our apartment lot title.

Additionally, overshadowing and wind tunnels from oversized towers will dominate the neighborhood, dwarfing everything.

I urge you to reject or scale back these changes to preserve our community’s livability and character.

Sincerely,
Ange Ryan
813 17 Joynton Ave
Zetland

This proposed development present a psychosocial and environmental hazard to the health of the current rand future residents in waterloo and on the proposed site. The apartment blocks are hostile towers squashing too many people into too little space. In addition with a rise in global temperatures predicted for sydney (which is already experiencing a significant trend towards hotter and longer summers, with research suggesting that summers have lengthened by roughly 50 days since 1990)! The area needs larger greener spaces to cool it down in summer and provide social space for mental well being and developing community connections.
This site represents a trend towards 'burning infernos' people stacked on top of one another by greedy developers with no thought given to the mental health of the population therein creating urban ghettos. Judging by the plans it is an extremely depersonalised aesthetically deficient proposal. The local libraries are already jammed for space and there is very little green cooling space on this side of Bourke street for such an intense population burden. Look at the trends of larger cities in the world and take note.Think about it and do NOT impose this on existing and proposed residents.

I strongly object to this DASCO proposal for the gross overdevelopment at 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo, living very close by at 850 Bourke Street as an owner occupier.
This proposal shamelessly rips up the City of Sydney-approved plans, jacking Bourke Street North from 12 to 31 storeys and Young Street from 21 to 38 storeys while cramming in another 233 apartments for a total of 580. It adds just 20 pathetic parking spaces.
Combined with the adjacent 38-storey Coronation tower (SSD-80441462) and the avalanche of other approvals, this dumps the equivalent of a small country town—4,000 extra apartments and up to 8,000 new residents—into an already choking Waterloo-Zetland area.
Local roads, parking and public transport are already at breaking point: the 304 bus routinely skips stops and Green Square trains are standing-room only. Amenities cannot cope—our library is already impossible to use. The twin towers will loom overbearing and completely out of character, casting massive cumulative winter-solstice shadows across homes and open space, while creating dangerous wind-tunnel effects at street level that endanger pedestrians.
This is reckless, unacceptable over-development.