Mixed Use Development - 903-921 Bourke St Waterloo

Please see attached submission

Please see attached submission

While I support the increase in supply of properties, I don't agree to such high rise apartment buildings. 31 and 38 storeys is way too high and has a too big impact on the neighborhood. I find 21 storeys too high already.

I was disappointed to learn after initially being supportive that an increase in size of the DASCO development on Bouke street Waterloo is sort. The great increase in size will be a blight on the skyline I believe, overshadowing the neighbourhood and being not in keeping with the rest of the new developments in the area. I feel it also will put a too large a demand on the existing infrastructure of the area given the other sites being redeveloped. I also feel it has the potential to put downward pressure on the value of my apartment in the area. I like where I live presently, I'm not sure that will be the case with this new development, and to move away may not be possible financially if my home is devalued.

I am writing to object to the proposed amendments to SSD-95997711 for the mixed-use development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.

My main concern is that the proposal represents a substantial intensification of the already approved development. The proposal seeks to increase the number of apartments from 376 to 580, increase the maximum building height from 65 metres to 126 metres, and increase the Floor Space Ratio from 1.5:1 to 3.2:1.

In my view, this is a significant increase in height, density and population for the site. I am concerned that it may create adverse impacts on the surrounding area, including increased traffic and parking pressure, greater demand on local infrastructure, overshadowing, visual bulk, privacy impacts and reduced residential amenity.

I am also concerned that the proposal seeks to exclude the application of certain planning controls, including the competitive design process. Given the scale of the proposed uplift, I believe strong design scrutiny and clear public benefit should be required.

For these reasons, I object to the proposal in its current form and respectfully request that the Department carefully reconsider the proposed height, density, apartment numbers and planning control exemptions.

Kind regards

Put simply, the infrastructure around Waterloo (especially public transport) can not support the current residents - let alone any further increases in significant developments.
The buses are always at capacity (especially the 304 even though it runs every 10 minutes). And the "Waterloo" station is so far away from Waterloo itself that no one I know who lives in Waterloo uses it.

The second reason for my strong objection is the departure from the original, approved design is so extreme. Had it been reasonable (eg: an extra floor here or there) - then it is what it is. But the Bourke St North proposal is almost TRIPLE the original plan and would impact the neighbours significantly in regards to shadows and wind.
This request, if allowed, makes a mockery of the original approval process.

I strongly object to the proposed major changes to the proposed modifications to the development plans for 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SSD-95997711). The proposed increase in height and density, is excessive and a gross departure from the originally approved concept. The impacts of this development will include:
1. Infrastructure strain — the extra residents would place unacceptable pressure on local roads 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 months, affecting a large area of nearby homes, streets and public open space.
5. Wind tunnel effects at street level - which reduces pedestrian comfort and makes the public domain unpleasant to use.
6. Parking pressure — the additional 233 apartments are being matched with only 20 extra parking spaces, which is clearly inadequate and will push more cars onto already congested local streets. This will worsen parking competition for existing residents, visitors and businesses, especially in an area already under heavy development pressure.

I strongly oppose to the project as the proposed changes due to the following:
Infrastructure strain — the extra residents would place unacceptable pressure on local roads 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.

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.

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.

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 months, affecting a large area of nearby homes, streets and public open space.

5. Wind tunnel effects at street level - which reduces pedestrian comfort and makes the public domain unpleasant to use.

Parking pressure — the additional 233 apartments are being matched with only 20 extra parking spaces, which is clearly inadequate and will push more cars onto already congested local streets. This will worsen parking competition for existing residents, visitors and businesses, especially in an area already under heavy development pressure.

Additional units will increase traffic and make parking harder in the area. As well as unsightly tall buildings.

I am in favour of more housing, but it must be a net positive for the overall community. More housing can be achieved without compromising existing housing and community amenity.

As such, I strongly object to the following aspects of the project:
- Height. The height is significantly higher than anything in the area, will dominate it, changing the character, which has high rise but these are double the height of existing buildings.
- further to above, the extreme heights will cause issues with cumulative overshadowing. More housing is needed , but what good is it (and how fair is it) if it makes existing houses unlivable?
- impact on infrastructure. I am an elderly resident and regularly use public transport. The 304, 320 and 392 are frequently overcrowded. What planning is the State Government providing alongside these huge developments to address these shortages?

I wrote a letter of objection to the pruposal by DASCO.

I object to increasing the height of the buildings to 31 and 38 storeys

I strongly oppose the proposed actions of SSD-95997711.
The increased height and density is excessive and a gross departure from the originally proposed approved concept.
Additionally, this would cause immense stress on an already stressed and highly populated area.
At the moment, the existing high rises in the area have caused wind tunnels throughout green square and Zetland.
The increase of turn restraints have negatively affected traffic flow in the area.
It is already one of the most densely populated areas in ALL OF AUSTRALIA. Sydney and the surrounding areas/suburbs can take on the additional housing needed.
Investments into transport and housing in other areas can help redistribute the strain on resources and infrastructure.

This proposal SSD-95997711 is strongly objected to. Others solutions that more equally distribute the load throughout Sydney and the surrounding areas, need to be explored and considered.

I object to the proposed amendment.

I live at 17 Joynton Avenue, Zetland, and my apartment currently has a valued city skyline outlook. I am concerned that this amended proposal will significantly increase visual bulk and further intrude into that outlook.

According to the NSW Planning Portal, this application seeks to amend the existing consent for 6 mixed-use buildings with 376 apartments by increasing the scheme to provide approximately 250 additional apartments. That is a major intensification of the approved development and strongly suggests increased built form impacts for neighbouring residents.

This is not a minor change. For nearby residents, the issue is the likely added height and/or building mass and the resulting loss of visual amenity. Even where a view is not completely eliminated, a narrowing or clipping of an existing skyline corridor can still represent a meaningful loss of residential amenity. I made submissions to Council when this was being considered and they appeared to be taken on board.

I ask that the Department give close weight to the impact on surrounding apartments, including those in Joynton Avenue, and require a design response that avoids or reduces further loss of outlook.

If these impacts cannot be satisfactorily avoided, the amendment should not be approved. Large developments are not in the interests of either the local area or even the people that live within them. They are generally unhappy places.

Thank you for considering my objection.

Simply put, as many have already stated, the area is not prepared for a boom of up to 8000 new residents in the coming years. Buses along Bourke St, Green Square trains and Waterloo Metro services are already packed as it is, and while promises to add more may help a little, it's unlikely to alleviate the issue much.

Given the proposal to only provide 20 new parking spaces, parking in the area will ruin all nearby streets, affecting current residents.

I was supportive of the existing approved build, but the height of the new proposed towers would simply create a blackout effect on the neighbouring area, not to mention a depressing sight.

As a resident and owner living across the street, this would directly affect me and the value of my property, which I cannot afford. There are many other places where additional properties could be built, those proposing inundating one small area with the population of a small country are clearly not the ones who live here in this suburb and have to deal with it.

Please refuse this proposal.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally express my strong concerns regarding the proposed large-scale residential development in the Waterloo and Queens Square area.
While I understand the importance of urban development and housing expansion, I believe that this particular project, due to its size and density, will have a significantly negative impact on the local community and existing infrastructure.
Firstly, the increase in population resulting from such a high number of new dwellings will place considerable strain on public transport. At present, bus services in peak hours are already operating at full capacity, often passing stops without picking up passengers. An influx of additional residents will likely exacerbate this issue, making public transport increasingly unreliable and inaccessible for current and future residents.
Secondly, local community facilities, including the municipal swimming pool, library, and other public amenities, are already heavily used. The proposed development will likely lead to overcrowding, reducing the quality and accessibility of these essential services.
Furthermore, the local commercial infrastructure, particularly supermarkets and essential retail services, appears insufficient to support such a significant population increase. Without corresponding investment in these facilities, residents may face reduced access to basic necessities and a decline in overall quality of life.
In addition, increased population density will inevitably lead to greater traffic congestion, pressure on parking, and a general overburdening of the neighbourhood’s infrastructure.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the relevant authorities to reconsider or significantly revise this proposal. Any development of this scale should be accompanied by substantial and clearly planned improvements to public transport, community facilities, and local services to ensure the area remains liveable and sustainable.
Thank you for considering my submission.

Objection to SSD-95997711 (Mixed Use Development – 903-921 Bourke St, Waterloo (SSD-95997711)
I am writing to formally object to the proposed height and density increase for the development at 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.
While I recognise the need for diverse housing, this proposal represents an excessive and unsustainable departure from the established planning framework for the following reasons:
1. Undue Strain on Local Infrastructure
The Waterloo/Zetland precinct is already one of the highest-density areas in Australia. Local infrastructure is not keeping pace with current growth, let alone a 60% increase in apartment yield on this single site.
Public Transport: Green Square Station and existing bus networks are frequently at capacity during peak periods. Adding hundreds of additional residents will exacerbate dangerous overcrowding.
Traffic Congestion: The intersection of Bourke and McEvoy Streets is already a known bottleneck. The influx of vehicles from this high-density proposal will lead to gridlock on residential streets.
Public Open Space: The surrounding parks and community facilities are already heavily utilized. This proposal fails to provide the necessary proportional increase in social infrastructure to support its expanded population.
2. Excessive Building Height and Scale
The request to add up to 18 storeys to previously approved towers is far taller than necessary and ignores the "transition in height" principle originally intended for this site.
Loss of Amenity: Towers of 36-38 storeys will create significant overshadowing and wind-tunnel effects, diminishing the liveability of the new public plaza and surrounding homes.
Incompatible Built Form: The proposed heights are vastly out of scale with the 4-8 storey character of the immediate neighborhood. This "uplift" prioritizes developer profit over coherent urban design and community well-being.
Conclusion
The community reasonably relied on the original masterplan. This new proposal undermines trust in the planning process by seeking "State Significant" shortcuts to bypass local height limits. I urge the Department to reject the proposed height increases and hold the developer to the density limits originally deemed appropriate for this precinct.

I live near Green Square, this rezoning application is an improper use of the SSD HDA pathway.
Green square is already on track to deliver an abundant number of apartments - its infrastructure is already under strain. Buses are constantly full, I get the 370 to work and its regularly full with students on way to UNSW.
This rezoning application will be at the compromise of less commercial space. Green square town centre was meant to be a hub, with town like amenites but this is not being addressed. The original approved DA by city of sydney was carefully thought out and to forsake that work is appalling. I am also concerened with the overshadowing feel of these high rise apartments. It results in loss of character & sunlight to the streetscape. Zetland and Waterloo are already taking a massive share of Sydney's rapid apartment expansion, please do not have regretable planning ruin the design that City of Sydney spent many years carefully preparing.

Please see attached letter for the underlying reasons for my strong objection to this development

There are already too many high rise apartments in the area. Anything higher will contrast with what is there. The infrastructure in this area is poor, and in particular the corner between Bourke Street , Lachlan Street and McEvoy Street are an absolute bottleneck. This puts even more stress on South Dowling Street which at peak times is atrocious. It is also deplorable that the Council is giving permission to increase the number of apartments to 580 just in this area, adding only 20 additional parking spaces. Young families and individuals who live in the area will not be able to commute relying on poor public transport. There is not enough enough public infrastructure in the area. Public transport only goes to limited areas not enough cross transport . This will not solve the housing problem as what is required is affordable housing not more “luxury “ apartments at exorbitant rents.