Waterloo Mixed Use Development 881-885 Bourke Street

Our building is one of the few residential communities within an area otherwise dominated by commercial uses, and we are deeply concerned that the proposed State Significant Development (SSD 80441462) does not properly account for the sensitive nature of our site or the planning expectations that were communicated to purchasers over many years.
When the precinct was rezoned and redeveloped, the masterplan clearly identified a 7-storey height limit for the sites surrounding us. This is still what is shown in materials held at the City of Sydney’s City Office.
However, after meeting with the developer, we were informed that only certain tiers would be altered—yet the current proposal now shows mass extended across the entire Young Street frontage, pushing height and bulk directly toward our homes and disregarding the existing residential interface.
Below is a summary of the key issues outlined in our formal submission:
________________________________________
1. Loss of Sunlight and Solar Access
The proposed height and massing will cause severe overshadowing of our building.
By 3:00pm in winter, no direct sunlight will reach our apartments, removing critical daylight access.
As our building was designed with west-facing living areas, the only reliable sunlight we receive is morning light into our east-facing bedrooms. The proposal would dramatically reduce even this limited solar access, contrary to the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) principles relating to daylight, cross-ventilation, and residential wellbeing.
________________________________________
2. Major Privacy Impacts — 19 Storeys Overlooking Low-Rise Homes
The development introduces a 19-storey tower immediately adjacent to our low-rise residential homes.
Balconies and habitable rooms have been oriented to face directly into our apartments, causing constant overlooking, loss of privacy, and visual intrusion.
________________________________________
3. Excessive Massing and Inequitable Built Form
The proposal shifts the bulk of the building toward our boundary, seemingly to maintain greater distance from the new Dasco development on the opposite side.
This creates a disproportionate built form outcome that places the most significant impacts on the smallest and most vulnerable residential site in the precinct. The design lacks adequate setback transitions, height modulation, and scaling appropriate for a mixed-use neighbourhood.
________________________________________
4. Departure from the Original Masterplan
The proposal represents a substantial departure from the agreed and long-publicised masterplan that guided our decision to move into this community.
Residents reasonably relied on the understanding that the surrounding built form would be consistent with the established planning framework.
The current scheme undermines that masterplan, eroding trust in the planning process and creating uncertainty about future development controls.
________________________________________
5. Imbalance of Interests for a Small Residential Community
Our building is surrounded by commercial sites whose occupants are far less affected by issues such as overshadowing, privacy loss, and acoustic impacts.
The proposal does not appear to recognise this imbalance, and the unique needs of our residential community have not been adequately considered within the development’s design or justification.
________________________________________
6. Visual, Acoustic, and General Amenity Impacts
The expansion of the building footprint over Young Street places active balconies and living areas directly overlooking our homes.
This will lead to increased noise, loss of visual privacy, and a higher level of activity facing our windows and courtyards—impacts that have not been sufficiently mitigated or addressed.

Submission to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Application No: SSD-80441462 – Waterloo Mixed Use Development (881–885 Bourke Street)
From: An Owner-Occupier of a 6th-Floor Unit within The Finery (Strata Plan 97459), located approximately 150 metres from the proposed development site.
FORMAL OBJECTION SUBMISSION
We are the owner-occupiers of a 6th-floor residential unit within The Finery (SP 97459), located approximately 150 metres from the proposed Waterloo Mixed Use Development.
We submit this formal objection on the grounds that the proposal, in its current form, would cause significant, measurable, and irreversible harm to both our residential amenity and the market value of our property.
1. Destruction of View Amenity and Measurable Asset Devaluation
1.1 Complete Loss of a Significant, Identifiable View Corridor
Our 6th-floor unit currently benefits from an open north-western outlook that includes the Redfern skyline and its night-time luminance.
The proposed 125-metre tower sits directly within this sightline and would entirely eliminate this identifiable view amenity.
Under established NSW planning principles (Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004]), this constitutes a “high-value, specific and identifiable” loss, which carries substantial material weight.
1.2 Objective Visual Obstruction – VOA 34.3°
A geometric analysis based on a 6th-floor elevation (approx. 18 m) and a development height of 120–125 m at 150 m horizontal distance demonstrates that the proposal creates a
Vertical Obstruction Angle (VOA) of approximately 34.3°.
A VOA of this magnitude represents:
Extreme visual bulk
Overwhelming looming presence
Full loss of distant view corridors
A degree of encroachment well above widely accepted amenity thresholds
In practical terms, this means the tower would function as a dominant wall-like mass, visually overwhelming existing dwellings.
1.3 Quantified Market Impact: 7%–15% Value Loss
Based on comparative case studies from Sydney mid-rise residential markets, the combined loss of:
skyline view amenity
open-sky exposure
visual bulk increase (34.3°)
is expected to result in a 7%–15% reduction in market value for affected 6th-floor units in The Finery.
This is an imposed financial detriment caused solely by the design of the development.
2. Severe Detriment to Liveability and Solar Access
2.1 Loss of Afternoon Sunlight – Winter Solstice Shadowing
The Environmental Impact Statement confirms that the tower casts a shadow exceeding 300 metres at 3:00 PM during the Winter Solstice (329 m).
This distance directly reaches 6th-floor elevations within The Finery.
As a result, our unit will experience:
Loss of 1:00 PM–4:00 PM direct sunlight (approx. 2+ hours)
Reduced natural illumination (−45% to −65%)
Increased reliance on artificial lighting and heating
This represents a major decline in liveability and environmental performance, contrary to the intent of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) and SEPP 65 principles.
2.2 Excessive Height and FSR Intensification – Liveability Impact
The proposed FSR of 3.05:1 and 125-metre height will require:
multi-year heavy construction
severe dust, vibration, and noise impacts
prolonged loss of outdoor amenity
This is completely inconsistent with the existing neighbourhood character and over-intensifies the site relative to its urban context.
3. Request for Rejection or Mandatory Design Modification
Given the significant and measurable adverse impacts outlined above, we respectfully request that the Consent Authority:
3.1 Reject the proposal in its current form
particularly the height (125 m) and FSR (3.05:1), which are neither contextually appropriate nor compliant with amenity protection standards.
3.2 Alternatively, impose the following mandatory design modifications:
Height reduction to below 80–100 metres
Increased northern setback to reduce VOA, overshadowing, and visual bulk
Protection of existing residents’ specific and identifiable view corridors, consistent with Tenacity principles
These adjustments are necessary to prevent the complete elimination of a significant view asset and to protect the residential amenity of affected dwellings, including 6th-floor units within The Finery.
Thank you for considering this submission.
We request that our concerns be fully evaluated in the assessment process.
Sincerely,
Owner-Occupier
6th-Floor Unit, The Finery (SP 97459)

To whom it may concern,
I write as co-owners of Unit 21, 1 Danks Street, Waterloo, to lodge a strong objection to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD 80441462) at 881–885 Bourke Street.
Our building is one of the few residential communities in an area otherwise dominated by commercial uses, yet the proposed development shows a clear disregard for the sensitive residential interface and the planning expectations that have governed this precinct for years. The scale and placement of the 19-storey tower on Young Street are wholly inappropriate for a site immediately adjacent to low-rise homes and will produce unacceptable and irreversible impacts on our property.
Our principal concerns are as follows:
1. Severe loss of sunlight
The overshadowing caused by the proposed height and massing would remove almost all remaining sunlight from our building by mid-afternoon in winter. As Unit 21 has west-facing living areas and relies on limited morning light from our east-facing bedrooms, this loss is particularly damaging. The outcome is clearly inconsistent with the Apartment Design Guide and represents an unreasonable and harmful reduction in residential amenity.
2. Major invasion of privacy
Positioning a 19-storey tower directly alongside a small, low-rise residential building is inappropriate. Balconies and habitable rooms have been deliberately oriented toward our windows, resulting in direct and constant overlooking into our home. The proposal fails to provide any meaningful setback or screening to mitigate this unacceptable loss of privacy.
3. Disproportionate and inequitable massing
The bulk of the building has been pushed toward our boundary rather than distributed across the site. This appears to be an attempt to maintain greater separation from the new Dasco development on the other side, at the expense of our community. It results in an inequitable outcome that places the most intensive impacts on the smallest residential parcel in the precinct.
4. Clear departure from the established masterplan
The publicly available masterplan clearly identified a 7-storey height limit for the surrounding sites. This planning control was communicated consistently by Council and through precinct redevelopment materials. The current proposal, which more than doubles this height, contradicts the planning expectations long communicated to residents and undermines confidence in the City’s strategic planning process.
5. Failure to recognise the needs of an existing residential community
Our building is uniquely vulnerable within this largely commercial area. Overshadowing, privacy loss, noise, and visual intrusion have far more severe consequences for residents than for commercial occupiers. The proposal does not adequately acknowledge or address this imbalance and appears to prioritise yield over responsible urban design.
6. Visual, acoustic, and general amenity impacts
Expanding the building footprint toward Young Street and directing balconies and active spaces toward our homes will significantly increase noise and activity facing our windows, courtyards, and living areas. The design does not incorporate measures to soften, buffer, or mitigate these effects.

In its current form, the proposal overreaches in height, massing, and orientation, and demonstrates a disregard for the residential context immediately adjacent to the site. We urge the Department to require substantial redesign, including significant reductions in height and massing along the Young Street frontage, before the application is progressed any further.
I strongly oppose approval of the development in its current state.
Yours sincerely,
Simon Meilak

Co-owners, Unit 21

1 Danks Street, Waterloo

A key concern is the ongoing inability for residents to clean their windows, necessitating the implementation of clear and effective measures to ensure proper maintenance and safety.
Additionally, the proposed development would cause a significant and unacceptable reduction in natural light to both residential and commercial areas. This loss of daylight is expected to increase reliance on artificial lighting, leading to higher electricity consumption and associated costs, as well as reduced environmental efficiency.

Multiple submissions from the building have already raised these concerns.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Waterloo Mixed Use Development at 881–888 Bourke Street. While I acknowledge the need for thoughtful urban growth, this proposal—in its current form—raises significant concerns regarding height, density, and the cumulative strain it will impose on an already congested local infrastructure.
1. Excessive Building Height
The proposed building height is inconsistent with the prevailing character of the surrounding area. The development would overshadow existing residences, reduce access to natural light, and create an imposing built form out of scale with the neighbourhood. The height intensifies the development’s impacts, amplifying issues relating to traffic, congestion, and infrastructure strain.
2. Overdevelopment and Apartment Density
The number of apartments proposed far exceeds what the immediate infrastructure can reasonably support. Waterloo and the broader Green Square precinct are already experiencing rapid densification, and any further intensification without corresponding investment in public infrastructure is unsustainable. The proposed density risks compromising liveability for both current residents and future occupants.
3. Significant Strain on Existing Infrastructure
Local infrastructure is already under considerable pressure, and this development would exacerbate several critical issues:
Roads and traffic congestion: The road network around Bourke Street and surrounding intersections is heavily congested, particularly during peak hours. Adding hundreds of new residents and associated vehicle movements will worsen bottlenecks, reduce pedestrian safety, and increase travel times. The poor state of our roads in and around this area currently cannot cope with traffic movement and will continue to get worse with additional load and no plan to address or keep up with our deteriorating roads.
Public transport capacity: Bus services and nearby train stations are already at or near capacity, especially during commuting periods. The proposal does not address how increased demand will be accommodated.
Parking impacts: On-street parking in the precinct is scarce. A development of this scale will intensify parking competition and spillover into neighbouring streets, affecting residents and local businesses.
Schools and child-care services: Local educational facilities are overstretched, with long waitlists and limited capacity. Additional population influx cannot be supported without new or expanded schools.
Community services and open space: Community centres, recreational facilities, and open spaces are already struggling to meet current demand. The development does not provide adequate additional community infrastructure to offset its impact.
4. Cumulative Impact on Liveability
This precinct has undergone continuous large-scale redevelopment over the past decade. Many of the promised infrastructure upgrades to support this growth have lagged behind. Approving further high-density development without ensuring the delivery of essential infrastructure will diminish community wellbeing, undermine local amenity, and erode the area’s liveability.
Conclusion
Given the concerns outlined above, I respectfully request that the proposal be rejected in its current form. Any future redevelopment at this site must be scaled appropriately, aligned with local character, and supported by committed infrastructure investment to ensure that growth is sustainable and responsible.

Dear NSW Department of Planning, Housing & Infrastructure,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed mixed residential development at 881-885 Bourke St, WATERLOO. While I understand the need for responsible urban growth, this proposal raises several serious concerns that will negatively impact the surrounding community and broader precinct.
1. Excessive Density and Incompatibility with the Local Character: The development’s scale and density are grossly disproportionate to the established built form of the area. The oversized tower will dominate the skyline and stand out as an intrusive visual landmark, undermining the existing aesthetic and overall feel of the precinct. Current residential buildings are generally low to medium rise, and this proposal is inconsistent with the planning intent and character of the neighbourhood.
2. Increased Traffic and Congestion: The area already suffers from significant traffic issues, especially during peak hours. A development of this size will substantially increase vehicle movements, further exacerbating congestion on local streets and arterial roads. The proposal does not adequately address how this additional traffic will be managed or mitigated. Many residential streets are now being used as a "rat-run" to avoid traffic jams. This creates safety issues for residents and pedestrians.
3. Insufficient Provision of Parking: The proposed number of parking spaces is inadequate for the anticipated number of residents and visitors. This shortfall will inevitably spill onto surrounding streets, worsening resident parking availability and creating unsafe parking behaviours, particularly in areas already under strain.
4. Strain on Local Roads and Infrastructure: Our existing road network is already in a poor state and has not kept pace with population growth in the area. Adding a high-density development will accelerate deterioration and increase maintenance demands. Public services—including waste management, street cleaning, utilities, and emergency services—are already struggling to meet current needs, and this development will compound those challenges.
5. Lack of Alignment with Long-Term Community Planning: There is no clear evidence that this proposal aligns with a coordinated approach to growth in the precinct. Sustainable development should complement existing amenities, preserve the neighbourhood’s character, and consider future population needs holistically. This project appears driven by density rather than thoughtful and balanced urban planning.
6. Public Transport (Buses): are already overloaded. Green Square Train Station and the Light Rail are not closely connected to be able to cope with any overflow.
For these reasons, I respectfully object to the current proposal or require substantial amendments to ensure it is sympathetic to the existing community, infrastructure capacity, and the long-term vision of the precinct.

To whom it may concern,

I am writing as an owner in the building at 1 Danks Street, Waterloo, to raise my strong concerns about the proposed State Significant Development (SSD 80441462) at 881–885 Bourke Street.

Living in one of the very few residential buildings in a predominantly commercial precinct means that changes on neighbouring sites affect us in very immediate and personal ways. After reviewing the proposal, it’s evident that the development has not been designed with the realities of an established residential community in mind. The scale, placement, and orientation of the tower would have deep and lasting impacts on the people who live here.

My concerns relate to the following issues.

1) Height and massing that are fundamentally mismatched to the surroundings
The decision to place a 19-storey structure beside a low-rise residential building is disproportionate. The bulk of the building has been concentrated along the Young Street side, intensifying the impact on our homes while appearing to prioritise separation from the larger development across the site. This creates an imbalanced outcome for existing residents.

2) Departure from long-standing planning expectations
When I purchased my home, the publicly available masterplan for the precinct clearly indicated a height limit of around seven storeys for adjacent sites. This formed a reasonable expectation about how the area would evolve. A proposal that more than doubles that height undermines confidence in the planning process and disregards what has been communicated to residents for years.

3) Loss of privacy due to orientation and proximity
The orientation of balconies and habitable rooms towards our building would result in unavoidable and direct overlooking into private living areas. The limited setbacks offered in the design do little to mitigate this. For a building that sits immediately alongside homes, this represents a significant and ongoing intrusion.

4) Loss of natural light and overshadowing
The height and placement of the tower would substantially reduce sunlight to our building, especially during winter months. For residents who rely on the limited periods of natural light available, this would have a meaningful effect on everyday living conditions. The overshadowing outcomes appear inconsistent with principles set out in the Apartment Design Guide.

5) Insufficient response to the presence of an existing residential community
The proposal reads as though it was prepared for a site surrounded entirely by commercial buildings. The impacts on an established residential population—noise, visual dominance, increased activity, and general amenity loss—are not adequately addressed in the design.

6) Noise and general amenity impacts
Balconies and active spaces facing towards our building will significantly increase noise and overlook into our homes. The expansion of the building footprint along Young Street also brings more activity and movement to our windows and outdoor areas, without meaningful buffers or design measures to soften these effects.

Taken together, these issues suggest a development that is simply too tall, too close, and too intensive for a site immediately beside a long-standing residential building. I respectfully request that the Department require substantial amendments to the proposal—particularly reductions in height, a redistribution of massing, and design changes that meaningfully respond to the presence of an existing residential community.

I strongly oppose the approval of the development in its current form.

Yours sincerely,
Cameron Douglas
Owner, 1 Danks Street, Waterloo

Our building is one of the few residential communities within an area otherwise dominated by commercial uses, and we are deeply concerned that the proposed State Significant Development (SSD 80441462) does not properly account for the sensitive nature of our site or the planning expectations that were communicated to purchasers over many years.
When the precinct was rezoned and redeveloped, the masterplan clearly identified a 7-storey height limit for the sites surrounding us. This is still what is shown in materials held at the City of Sydney’s City Office.
However, after meeting with the developer, we were informed that only certain tiers would be altered—yet the current proposal now shows mass extended across the entire Young Street frontage, pushing height and bulk directly toward our homes and disregarding the existing residential interface.
Below is a summary of the key issues outlined in our formal submission:
1. Loss of Sunlight and Solar Access
The proposed height and massing will cause severe overshadowing of our building.
By 3:00pm in winter, no direct sunlight will reach our apartments, removing critical daylight access.
As our building was designed with west-facing living areas, the only reliable sunlight we receive is morning light into our east-facing bedrooms. The proposal would dramatically reduce even this limited solar access, contrary to the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) principles relating to daylight, cross-ventilation, and residential wellbeing.
2. Major Privacy Impacts — 19 Storeys Overlooking Low-Rise Homes
The development introduces a 19-storey tower immediately adjacent to our low-rise residential homes.
Balconies and habitable rooms have been oriented to face directly into our apartments, causing constant overlooking, loss of privacy, and visual intrusion.
3. Excessive Massing and Inequitable Built Form
The proposal shifts the bulk of the building toward our boundary, seemingly to maintain greater distance from the new Dasco development on the opposite side.
This creates a disproportionate built form outcome that places the most significant impacts on the smallest and most vulnerable residential site in the precinct. The design lacks adequate setback transitions, height modulation, and scaling appropriate for a mixed-use neighbourhood.
4. Departure from the Original Masterplan
The proposal represents a substantial departure from the agreed and long-publicised masterplan that guided our decision to move into this community.
Residents reasonably relied on the understanding that the surrounding built form would be consistent with the established planning framework.
The current scheme undermines that masterplan, eroding trust in the planning process and creating uncertainty about future development controls.
5. Imbalance of Interests for a Small Residential Community
Our building is surrounded by commercial sites whose occupants are far less affected by issues such as overshadowing, privacy loss, and acoustic impacts.
The proposal does not appear to recognise this imbalance, and the unique needs of our residential community have not been adequately considered within the development’s design or justification.
6. Visual, Acoustic, and General Amenity Impacts
The expansion of the building footprint over Young Street places active balconies and living areas directly overlooking our homes.
This will lead to increased noise, loss of visual privacy, and a higher level of activity facing our windows and courtyards—impacts that have not been sufficiently mitigated or addressed.
Thank you
Concerned resident

Dear Lord Mayor Clover Moore,

On behalf of the residents of 1 Danks Street, Waterloo, we are seeking your urgent assistance in protecting our small residential warehouse conversion from the significant impacts of a commercial Build-to-Rent (BTR) development proposal that seeks to exceed the established masterplan for our precinct.

Our building is one of the few residential communities within an area otherwise dominated by commercial uses, and we are deeply concerned that the proposed State Significant Development (SSD 80441462) does not properly account for the sensitive nature of our site or the planning expectations that were communicated to purchasers over many years.

When the precinct was rezoned and redeveloped, the masterplan clearly identified a 7-storey height limit for the sites surrounding us. This is still what is shown in materials held at the City of Sydney’s City Office.
However, after meeting with the developer, we were informed that only certain tiers would be altered—yet the current proposal now shows mass extended across the entire Young Street frontage, pushing height and bulk directly toward our homes and disregarding the existing residential interface.

Below is a summary of the key issues outlined in our formal submission:

1. Loss of Sunlight and Solar Access
The proposed height and massing will cause severe overshadowing of our building.
By 3:00pm in winter, no direct sunlight will reach our apartments, removing critical daylight access.

As our building was designed with west-facing living areas, the only reliable sunlight we receive is morning light into our east-facing bedrooms. The proposal would dramatically reduce even this limited solar access, contrary to the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) principles relating to daylight, cross-ventilation, and residential wellbeing.

2. Major Privacy Impacts — 19 Storeys Overlooking Low- to Mid-Rise Homes
The development introduces a 19-storey tower immediately adjacent to our low- and mid-rise residential homes.
Balconies and habitable rooms have been oriented to face directly into our apartments, causing constant overlooking, loss of privacy, and visual intrusion.

3. Excessive Massing and Inequitable Built Form
The proposal shifts the bulk of the building toward our boundary, seemingly to maintain greater distance from the new Dasco development on the opposite side.

This creates a disproportionate built form outcome that places the most significant impacts on the smallest and most vulnerable residential site in the precinct. The design lacks adequate setback transitions, height modulation, and scaling appropriate for a mixed-use neighbourhood.

4. Departure from the Original Masterplan
The proposal represents a substantial departure from the agreed and long-publicised masterplan that guided our decision to move into this community.
Residents reasonably relied on the understanding that the surrounding built form would be consistent with the established planning framework.

The current scheme undermines that masterplan, eroding trust in the planning process and creating uncertainty about future development controls.

5. Imbalance of Interests for a Small Residential Community
Our building is surrounded by commercial sites whose occupants are far less affected by issues such as overshadowing, privacy loss, and acoustic impacts.

The proposal does not appear to recognise this imbalance, and the unique needs of our residential community have not been adequately considered within the development’s design or justification.

6. Visual, Acoustic, and General Amenity Impacts
The expansion of the building footprint over Young Street places active balconies and living areas directly overlooking our homes.
This will lead to increased noise, loss of visual privacy, and a higher level of activity facing our windows and courtyards—impacts that have not been sufficiently mitigated or addressed.

Request for Assistance
Given the scale of the impacts described above, we respectfully request your support in advocating for:

Adherence to the original precinct masterplan

A reduction in height, bulk, and overshadowing impacts

Increased setbacks and more appropriate massing transitions

Removal of direct overlooking into existing homes

A design response that protects the amenity of the only residential community directly adjacent to the proposal

We appreciate your longstanding commitment to community wellbeing, equitable development, and design excellence within the City of Sydney. We hope you can support us in ensuring that this development proceeds in a way that respects both the planning framework and the rights of existing residents.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
We would welcome the opportunity to meet with your office to discuss these concerns further.

I live directly behind the Toyota building and the height of the new proposal will restrict light including sunlight to my apartment and balcony.
The additional sudden influx of people will create overcrowding in an already busy area, where public transport is restricted to a few buses to the city. The additional influx of traffic will bring roads to a standstill, drive more traffic through community streets and reduce the liveability of the area.
Overall, the proposal will change the demographics of a thriving and liveable community to a less palatable one.

RE: State Significant Development Application SSD-80441462
Waterloo Mixed Use Development – 881–885 Bourke Street, Waterloo

To whom it may concern,

I write to lodge a detailed objection to SSD-80441462. My concerns arise from a full review of the Environmental Impact and Rezoning Statement, which reveals substantial and unacceptable adverse impacts on existing residents, public open space, neighbourhood character, and urban amenity. The proposal seeks extraordinary planning concessions without delivering commensurate public benefit and, in its current form, should not be approved.

1. Overshadowing and loss of amenity to existing dwellings:
The EIS confirms material daylight loss to surrounding homes at 1 Danks Street Waterloo, including:
- Four dwellings losing more than 20% of their existing sunlight
- One additional dwelling losing up to 20%
- Existing west-facing dwellings who already below minimum standards experiencing further reductions
These are not minor impacts. They represent a profound and irreversible loss of winter solar access.
In my building specifically, the combined massing of Parcels 1 and 3 will create:
- substantial morning and afternoon overshadowing,
- loss of sky exposure, and
- markedly reduced indoor daylight.
Our west-facing rooftop and balconies, which currently form an important part of our usable living space, will be overshadowed and directly overlooked. This results in a dual impact:
(1) loss of essential sunlight, and
(2) loss of privacy due to the proximity of high-rise apartments with direct sightlines into private outdoor areas.
The EIS acknowledges “some” reductions but grossly minimises the real-world consequences for residents who will live with permanent light loss and visual intrusion.

2. Excessive height and an inappropriate urban transition — Particularly in Parcel 1:
While all parcels together create an oversized built form, Parcel 1 warrants particular concern. Situated at the precinct edge closest to existing homes, Parcel 1 proposes building heights of up to 18 storeys, creating an abrupt and unacceptable transition from established mid-rise and low-rise buildings of Danks St to high-rise massing.
The consequences are clear:
- Visual domination of the street frontage
- Oppressive enclosure of neighbouring properties
- Height non-compliance fundamentally inconsistent with the intended scale of the Danks Street South precinct
- Substantial privacy loss due to inadequate separation distances
- Amplified overshadowing of both private dwellings

Parcel 1 should form the lowest edge of the development. Instead, it stands as one of the tallest elements at the site interface — a planning outcome contrary to established urban design principles and the City of Sydney’s own height transition objectives.
A meaningful reprioritisation of massing is required, including significant height reduction of Parcel 1.

3. An inadequate, overshadowed, and functionally limited “Park”:
The EIS repeatedly positions the central park as a key public benefit. However, an objective reading of the material demonstrates that the park:
- is small and heavily enclosed by buildings of 13–36 storeys
- receives limited midwinter sun, particularly between 9am–11am
- contains no children’s play equipment
- lacks meaningful open lawn, recreation space, or dog-friendly areas
- is dominated by hard-surface circulation areas rather than green parkland
- was already required under the previous VPA and is not a new public contribution
In its present form, the park cannot function as a genuine neighbourhood open space for a precinct expecting 1,500–2,000 new residents.
Children have no safe area to play; dog owners have no open exercise space; families have no sunny passive recreation area; and residents will find the park cold, shaded, and windy during precisely the hours it would otherwise be most valued.
To be a meaningful public benefit, the park must be:
- materially larger,
- designed with genuine recreational function,
- equipped with play facilities,
- provided with open grassy areas, and
- protected from overshadowing through reduced building heights

4. Rezoning requests are disproportionate and unjustified:
The proposal seeks sweeping modifications to planning controls:
- Height uplift: 29m → 125m
- FSR uplift: 2.15:1 → 3.05:1
- Removal of competitive design provisions
- Removal of key LEP controls for large retail tenancies and built-form modulation

These represent extraordinary concessions. The scale of uplift is neither justified by the site context nor offset by genuine, lasting public benefit. The short-term affordable housing offer (with only 15 years of guaranteed tenure) is insufficient to justify such a substantial departure from the planning framework.

5. Traffic, parking, and cumulative transport impacts
The transport impacts of this proposal are significantly understated. Danks Street — a key interface for the development — already operates as a 40km/h slow-movement zone, reflecting its high pedestrian activity, café strip, outdoor dining, local retail and cyclists. This reduced speed limit is not incidental; it exists because Danks Street is already a fragile pedestrian corridor where safety, walkability and public amenity are prioritised over vehicle throughput.

Introducing 850 new dwellings, retail premises, gyms and restaurants into this constrained environment will fundamentally alter how the street functions. More residents, more cars, more delivery vehicles, more ride-share activity, and more restaurant-related traffic will inevitably increase congestion, reduce walkability and elevate pedestrian risk — particularly for families with prams, young children, elderly residents and commuters.

In practice, this will mean:
- More stop-start vehicle movements along a slow-speed street not designed for high-volume traffic
- Increased queueing and delays at the Bourke/Danks intersection
- Conflicts between vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians, especially during peak periods and evenings
- Greater pressure on already limited parking in the Danks Street precinct
- Reduced safety and comfort in outdoor dining areas and footpaths
- A cumulative deterioration of the mixed-use character that makes Danks Street functional and attractive

The Traffic Impact Assessment does not adequately address the reality that Danks Street is operating at its functional limit as a human-scaled, pedestrian-oriented corridor. Intensifying development of this magnitude will push it beyond capacity and degrade both safety and amenity.

Given that Danks Street is meant to serve as a neighbourhood high street — not a traffic funnel — the traffic implications of this development, particularly in combination with other precinct growth, are unacceptable in their current form.

6. Wind impacts:
The wind assessment acknowledges several areas of unsafe or undesirable pedestrian-level wind conditions around building corners and edges of the park. These conditions undermine the comfort, safety, and practicality of outdoor spaces.

Conclusion and Request
SSD-80441462, in its current form, imposes unreasonable and avoidable impacts on surrounding residents and fails to deliver balanced urban outcomes. The proposal prioritises density and yield above neighbourhood amenity, sunlight, open space quality, and transition to existing residential areas.

I therefore request that the Department refuse the application unless substantial amendments are made, including:
1. Major height reductions, particularly within Parcel 1 and Parcel 3, to respect existing dwellings and ensure adequate solar access to both homes and the park.
2. Greater separation distances to protect privacy and avoid visual dominance.
3. A materially improved park with:
- play equipment,
- functional lawn areas,
- dog-friendly space,
- improved winter sunlight,
- reduced overshadowing.
4. A stronger and permanent affordable housing commitment.
5. Enhanced construction and traffic management measures to protect residential amenity.

Without these amendments, the development will result in a built form that is incompatible with its surroundings, harmful to existing residents, and inadequate in its provision of public benefit.

Yours sincerely,
Waterloo Resident

A direct negative impact to solar access to unit in Cameo, specifically close to the Winter solstice (21st June each year) that is not considered

There doesn’t appear to be any assessment of the solar impact on Cameo on the Solar Access report. Why is this not completed.

The population density in the area is already one of the highest densities in Australia
And therefore public transport will be impacted

Increased Wind Tunnels

A 36-storey building is out of character with the current building heights and will detract from the existing building elevation/skyline. I personally think the design is unattractive and unsuitable for the area.

To whom it may concern:
I have been the owner of 14/1 Danks Street since 2013. It seems just yesterday I was writing a submission to object to the proposed 7 story height complex for this development, but going back through my files, it was March 2020.
I was alerted to the new development proposal only last week, I rent out my apartment now and am appalled at the new proposal.
The charm of Danks Street & the precinct is the low level apartments that have been maintained over the years. To the best of my knowledge, 7 stories is the maximum allowed for the Young Street address, how is it possible that higher can be proposed?
1. Apartments 14-17 will lose almost all of the winter solar light, this was outlined in our prior objection to the 2020 development proposal. The living room, second bedroom & rooftop deck will be severely affected by 19 stories within chewing gum spitting distance.
2. Privacy will be gone for that side fo the apartment, making my tenants vulnerable & unsafe. I am a single woman & lived there solo for 6years, this would be a horrible outcome & could potentially lead to danger.
3. The aesthetics of the proposal are very unfavourable. They are more like the suicide towers than a new build that should reflect the Danks Street vibe.
4. I own a business on Danks Street, so always welcome more population, however, how is the infrastructure of the area going to cope?

Overall, I am disappointed to have to be writing yet another submission for this development. Last time it took about a year before it came up at a council meeting in 2021, which owners of apartments in 1 Danks Street attended. The general feeling was that no body cared & developers are allowed to do whatever will bring in the bucks, at the expense of a community. I hope this submission is not in vain & that there are people out there who do listen to those who live, love & have built lives/memories/families/communities in Waterloo.

Here are some photos of my apartment 14/1 Danks Street.
1. My rooftop in winter
2. Living Room
3. Living Room
4. The original plans from 2020 that we still objected to the height, due to the same reasons, although, seems like an ok deal compared to what is being proposed now.

Yours Sincerely
Dr Kimberly Ivett

i object this project due to the following reasons:
1. the height of the tower is too tall for the area and the local surroundings
2. the height of the tower will impede the private open space of my property and it will impede the public open space of the building amenities particularly the green space and the roof top space used by the building occupants within my property
3. the overall density sought is too dense, this type of development will put pressure on local car parking, local traffic, local amenities (including roads, drainage, schools, transport etc)

I support upzoning all of Sydney to address elevated housing prices by supplying more well-located homes. Waterloo is well serviced with amenities such as supermarkets, cafes, health services, daycares. Waterloo also has good access to the city and lots of parkland such as Moore Park. To provide equity to all land owners in Waterloo I would strongly support a uniform upzoning of Waterloo to at least 5 times FSR and 150m tall buildings. I would also support the removal of “affordable” housing requirements. These just make projects more expensive and reduce the supply of housing, hurting overall affordability.

- The Solar access assessment has not considered North facing units at 4 Lachlan Street (Aria Building) and 6 Lachlan street (Cameo). Nor has it considered the West facing units of Aria in Crown Square immediately to the east of the Toyota building. At Winter solstice, the solar impact is in access of 20% for these units. Please ensure the solar report considers all impacted properties.
- Waterloo is already one of the most densely populated suburbs in Australia, the infrastructure already struggles in peak periods in terms of public transport . Catching buses out of Waterloo during 8am to 9am peak is near impossible and when accessible incredibly uncomfortable due to over crowding . This is despite the Metro in Waterloo (really closer to Redfern residents than Waterloo residents) and increased bus frequency - the population density in Waterloo is at its limit and cannot afford to be increased any further. I personally invite you to catch a 304 bus between 8:30 - 9.00AM , at the corner of Danks and Bourke st into the city and tell me different.
- this proposal does nothing to alleviate any issues for housing affordability for first home buyers - the area is so densely populated that banks will only lend at a 50% loan to value ratio, i.e. they will only lend out half the value of the property - no first home buyer has a 50% deposit . I would suggest then it would be predominantly wealthy investors that could afford to purchase these properties - not a great result given current housing issues. (acknowledging they are "Built for Rent" ).
-A 36 storey building is out of character with the current building heights and will detract from the existing building elevation / skyline - in fact its an eyesore - its a revolting design and does nothing to enhance the local ambiance, rather it detracts from it.
-The increase in building heights will further increase wind tunnels - one only needs to view the new trees that were introduced to the area just outside of Waterloo coles at the end of Crystal street to see the current impact of wind tunnelling - although they were mature weeping Lillie Pillies, they were adversely impacted by wind tunnelling created by existing tall buildings - the proposed increase in heights will only increase the wind issue. It makes any sort of outdoor activity either in residence or in existing parks difficult to impossible, not to mention the damage it is already doing to awnings and outdoor fixtures.

For the proposed 36 storey building, the height of this tall structure is NOT in keeping with the surrounding buildings and will NOT enhance the community or the surrounding streets. The proposed 29m tall structure will block sunlight to many of the adjacent properties and diminish the quality of living everyone affected by its shadow. It will stick out like a horrible eye sore (Fig 40) and diminish the character of our precinct. As the proposal stands, Viewpoint 6 should be changed to a moderate to high visual impact rating since a 29m building will absolutely tower over us. I suggest the height of this building be dramatically reduced to be in line with building heights of the streets immediately adjacent to the site and within the wider precinct.

FORMAL OBJECTION – Waterloo Mixed-Use Development, 881–885 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SSD-80441462)
To the Assessing Officer,
NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure

I am writing to lodge a formal objection to the proposed Waterloo Mixed-Use Development at 881–885 Bourke Street. After reviewing the available documents and prior submissions, I have significant concerns relating to scale, rezoning impacts, housing transparency, traffic congestion, and cumulative regional planning issues.

1. Excessive height and inconsistent character
The proposed development is substantially taller, approximately double the height, of any surrounding buildings in this part of Waterloo. This is a major and abrupt departure from existing low- to mid-rise built form. Previous submissions for adjacent sites have confirmed that surrounding height data in some planning documents was incorrectly stated, with the real context being considerably lower than suggested. For example, the BKD Group’s submission for a nearby project highlighted that local building heights had been overstated, making proposed towers appear more consistent than they actually are. This strongly suggests a pattern of mischaracterisation in this precinct. As a result, the development does not suitably respond to its context and risks permanently undermining the established character and amenity of the neighbourhood.

2. Rezoning impacts and consequences for existing owners
This proposal relies on rezoning and amendments to planning controls, including substantial height and density uplifts. Many current owners purchased their properties under the expectation of established planning limits regarding height, overshadowing and density.

Allowing an isolated and extreme uplift will: significantly alter amenity and natural light for existing nearby dwellings,
create privacy and overshadowing issues, reduce the relative market value of nearby homes purchased under previous controls, and undermine confidence in the predictability of NSW planning frameworks. Rezoning should only occur where the uplift is properly justified and aligned with the surrounding built form. In this case, the magnitude of change is not justified, and the proper strategic rationale is not demonstrated.

3. Internal amenity , concerns about “shoebox” dwellings
If the project provides affordable or social housing, this reinforces the need for high standards of internal design. It is essential that units: exceed minimum Apartment Design Guide standards (not merely meet them), offer adequate natural light and ventilation, provide sufficient internal space for long-term occupation, and are built to a standard that supports community wellbeing rather than short-term density outputs. Waterloo has already seen examples of developments where apartment size was minimised to increase yield, resulting in poor outcomes. This project should not repeat those mistakes.

4. Social and affordable housing, unclear intentions and lack of transparency
A key problem is the lack of clarity regarding the type and proportion of housing being delivered. The documents do not clearly state: whether the project includes social housing, how many affordable dwellings will be provided, whether these will be owned by government, a community housing provider, or delivered via a private scheme, or how the proposal aligns with actual social housing needs in the Waterloo LGA. If the intention is to accommodate public housing tenants, it must be explained why this is not occurring on the large, already government-owned Waterloo and Redfern estates. Those sites are specifically designed for public housing and contain support networks and community infrastructure. This is an objection to unclear planning logic and poor use of existing public assets.

5. Major transparency issues , relationship to Redfern/Waterloo Estate renewal
There is a notable lack of transparency regarding how this project relates to the Redfern and Waterloo Estate renewals, particularly those near the Waterloo Metro station. The documentation does not disclose: what is planned for the existing social housing buildings adjacent to the Metro, whether tenants from those buildings are expected to be relocated to new private developments such as this one, whether the Metro-adjacent public housing land, now extremely high-value, is intended for sale or private redevelopment, how these movements fit into the broader staged redevelopment schedule.

Similar concerns about missing or omitted information have been raised in other Waterloo planning submissions, where essential details about the Redfern/Waterloo Estate were absent from Scoping Reports, limiting the ability of the public to understand cumulative impacts. The omission of such fundamental information creates the appearance, fair or not, that the process is deliberately opaque.

The public has a right to know: What is happening to the existing Redfern and Waterloo estates near the Metro?
Are tenants being moved into developments like this one to free up Metro-adjacent land for redevelopment?
If so, where is that disclosed in the planning documentation?
How does this proposal integrate with the Waterloo Estate (South and Central) renewal plans already underway?
Without transparency, the proposal cannot be meaningfully assessed.

6. Traffic congestion and cumulative impacts
The precinct is already congested, with narrow streets, heavy pedestrian flow, and increasing density from the Waterloo Metro precinct and multiple concurrent redevelopment projects. Transport for NSW, in another Waterloo submission, has already raised concerns about: incomplete or inaccurate traffic modelling, lack of safe pedestrian movement analysis, increased pressure on public transport and active-travel networks, and cumulative impacts not being adequately captured.

Approving this development without addressing combined impacts, including those from the nearby social housing renewal, would be irresponsible and contrary to the EP&A Act’s requirement for orderly development and proper cumulative impact assessment.

7. Legislative and design-framework concerns
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
The proposal does not sufficiently demonstrate compliance with the EP&A Act’s objectives, including: promotion of orderly development, good design and amenity, proper consideration of cumulative impacts, sustainability and good planning outcomes.

SEPP (Housing) 2021
The proposal does not clearly demonstrate: how it improves housing affordability, how the mix of dwellings meets local needs, or how internal amenity will exceed minimum design standards.

Apartment Design Guide
Concerns remain regarding: apartment sizes, solar access, cross-ventilation, building separation, overshadowing of neighbouring properties, overall design suitability.

Conclusion
Given the substantial concerns summarised above, including excessive height, unjustified rezoning, unclear housing purpose, serious transparency failures, potential relocation of tenants from Metro-adjacent land, traffic congestion, incomplete cumulative impact assessment, and questionable design amenity, I respectfully request that the proposal be: Not approved in its current form, and revised significantly to address these issues, with full disclosure of how nearby estate renewals connect to this project.
Until transparent, comprehensive, and accurate information is provided, this development cannot be considered a responsible or well-planned addition to the Waterloo community.

I am an owner-occupier living in an apartment at 1 Danks Street, directly adjoining the western edge of the proposed development. Our primary living space, one of our two bedrooms, and our private rooftop terrace face directly toward the site.

I object to the proposal in its current form due to the major and unacceptable impacts on sunlight, visual outlook, privacy and overall liveability — particularly as these arise from a significant and unexpected increase in building height.

1. Height increase from the understood 6–7 storeys to 18 storeys

When the earlier DA was exhibited, the built form along our boundary was approximately 7 storeys, and on that basis I was supportive of development. The new SSD now proposes an 18-storey (90m) tower immediately to our west. This is a dramatic and unreasonable departure from what the community was led to expect. This change entirely alters the impact on our home and daily life. An 18-storey wall on our boundary is wholly incompatible with the existing mid-rise character of Danks Street South.

2. Severe overshadowing of our rooftop, living room and bedroom

We chose this apartment specifically for its sunlight and liveability. Our private rooftop terrace, second bedroom and main living space receive warm western light throughout the afternoon — even in deep winter. The submission suggests that “existing west-facing units currently don’t achieve a minimum of 2 hours solar access.” This is simply incorrect in our experience and confused how this figure was determined. The current plans would significantly impact access to sunlight in our property.

3. Major loss of outlook and privacy

The proposed tower sits directly in front of our western facing spaces (rooftop terrace, second bedroom, living space and courtyard) and communal space. It will remove all sky outlook, create a sense of enclosure, and significantly increase overlooking. No visual impact imagery has been prepared from our building, despite us being one of the closest residential receivers.

4. Overdevelopment and pressure on local amenity

The uplift to 850 apartments far exceeds the original concept. This scale will place substantial pressure on:
- already limited local open space
- parking availability
- pedestrian safety

Requested Outcome
I respectfully request that the Department require the proponent to significantly reduce the height and massing along the western boundary (consistent with the originally understood 6–7 storeys), and that overshadowing and visual impact on 1 Danks Street be properly assessed.

I wish to raise my objection to the proposed building height of up to 125 metres. This height is inconsistent with the existing character of the area, including both new and established developments. It would also significantly impact neighbouring Waterloo residents by obstructing their current long-distance views toward the city, replacing them with the imposing presence of a single oversized structure. The structure height should not exceed the height of other residential buildings in the area.