The proposed expansion of the project significantly departs from the initial proposal, and will place unsustainable pressure on existing infrastructure and amenities, including roads, public transport and parks. The added height of the building will impact on the sunlight that reaches the surrounding roads and homes and will be visually overbearing. An expansion of this magnitude would need to be accompanied by a significant investment to increase public transport, free communal public spaces like parks, and other amenities like gyms. The proposal will fundamentally, adversely change the nature of the neighbourhood. I am strongly opposed to the proposal.

I strongly object and condemn the amendment to the building project which benefits solely the builder and its bottom line and is at the expense of the local community. Based on the submission for additional 204 units and based on the plans that can be found on: https://meetings.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/documents/s70408/Attachment%20B%20-%20Architectural%20Drawings%20Tower%20and%20Plaza%20Buildings.pdf and https://meetings.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/documents/s70409/Attachment%20C%20-%20Architectural%20Drawings%20Young%20Street%20North%20and%20Young%20Street%20South%20Buildings.pdf
I can clearly see that the intention is to put the most of the additional planned units to a high-rise which is overshadowing the surrounding smaller planned residential buildings. This is also confirmed by the proposed drastic change to the floor space ratio!
Firstly, I don't want lex specialis of any form for a benefit of a corporation. I come from a country where this was done through political pressure and I thought Australians were better than this.
Secondly, I don't want high density in an area which is already quite dense in terms of population especially as I am a father of the young child and these plans are putting significant pressure on the future of my child (and future children). More specifically by granting DASCO this privilege you have put more pressure on local schools (most important for me), facilities and opportunities for my child to have a more peaceful childhood. Furthermore, I don't see any plans for better transportation (more bus lines, a tram line or some other form of public transportation) to absorb additional ~1000 people per day from the planned increase.
Thirdly, I expect my street, which is currently quite peaceful to become congested with much more traffic as all the extra cars are set off in the morning to workplaces.
Fourthly, I don't want any negatives (foreseen or unforeseen) from a highrise which might impact wind patterns, sewage, garbage collection, insolation given the about 100 to 150 m proximity of my dwelling to the planned construction.

I welcome that there is going to be a lot of additional commercial real estate meaning more restaurants, shops and entertainment venues but I categorically oppose that profit driven (and I'm sure this is the case) motives are now causing whining on corporate part for special rules and privileges. They had access to the zoning laws at the time when they were buying the property, they had ample time to do all sorts of financial modelling and they had ample time to consider all sorts of unfavorable scenarios which they could have stress modeled and tested.
I do not want higher buildings in this neighbourhood, I want my child and future children to have more chances for proper schooling and facilities and I don't want profit motives of others to impact my life any more than they currently are!

I am a resident of Waterloo writing to formally object to this application (SDD 95997711) for alterations and additions to the approved mixed use development at 903-921 Bourke Street and 3 McEvoy Street, which proposes to increase apartments from 347 to 580 and to add 17 storeys to the Young Street tower (21 to 38 storeys) and 19 storeys to the Bourke Street north tower (12 to 31 storeys), via the Housing Delivery Authority pathway with a concurrent amendment to Sydney LEP 2012.

I note that this application is being assessed simultaneously with an adjacent proposal at 881-885 Bourke Street (SSD-80441462), which proposes 850 apartments including a 36-storey tower, also via the HDA pathway. I have reviewed both applicants' EIS documents. They contradict each other on cumulative traffic impact, and neither accounts for the other's effects on solar access or infrastructure. My objection raises four grounds, each supported by the applicants' own documents.

FIRST GROUND: CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC - CONTRADICTORY ASSESSMENTS

Section 2.3 of this EIS states that cumulative traffic impacts would not significantly affect the road network and would be minor and acceptable. This directly contradicts the findings of the adjacent Coronation application's Traffic Impact Assessment (Genesis Traffic, October 2025), which assessed the same intersections and found that Bourke Street/Lachlan Street already operates beyond capacity in the AM and weekend peaks and declines from Level of Service B to LOS F in the PM peak under the Coronation proposal alone, with average delay increasing from 26 to 104 seconds. Danks Street/Bourke Street already operates beyond capacity on weekends, with the degree of saturation worsening from 1.203 to 1.439 under Coronation alone. Even after the Coronation applicant's proposed mitigation, both intersections remain over capacity on weekends.

The DASCO traffic assessment was conducted without modelling the Coronation development's traffic generation, yet concludes the network is not significantly impacted. The two assessments concern the same intersections and the same peak periods and cannot both be correct. Furthermore, Section 8.6 of the Coronation Traffic Impact Assessment - the cumulative impact assessment required by that application's SEARs - was never completed. It consists of a single sentence deferring to further consultation with TfNSW or Council. Neither application has therefore produced a credible combined cumulative traffic assessment for the precinct.

I ask: which assessment does DPHI accept, and why? Has DPHI required either applicant to produce a combined cumulative traffic model for the Danks Street South Precinct that accounts for both developments together, alongside City West Housing (74 dwellings completed), and the potential development at 923-935 Bourke Street currently under assessment?

SECOND GROUND: SOLAR ACCESS - PRECINCT COMPLIANCE NOT MODELLED

The Coronation application's Solar Access report (Bates Smart + SJB, September 2025) discloses that the Coronation proposal alone reduces the DASCO precinct's solar compliance from 73.5% to 70.9% of dwellings achieving 2 hours of mid-winter solar access - sitting at the absolute DCP minimum of 70%. This EIS does not appear to model the solar access impact of the Coronation proposal on this precinct's dwellings, nor does it assess whether the combined shadow envelope of both developments maintains precinct compliance. The DASCO proposal adds 233 apartments and substantially increases building height. If both developments proceed, the precinct is at or below the 70% threshold before the increased DASCO massing is factored in.

I ask: has the solar access assessment for this application been modelled with the Coronation development in place? If not, can the Department confirm that precinct solar compliance is maintained under the combined shadow envelopes of both developments? Has DPHI assessed whether both applications can proceed without the precinct falling below the 70% DCP minimum?

THIRD GROUND: DESIGN EXCELLENCE WAIVER - INADEQUATE BASIS

This application obtained a waiver of the competitive design process under Clause 6.21D(2) of SLEP 2012 on the basis that construction has already commenced, making a new competition disproportionate. The Coronation application relies on an analogous argument - that HDA timeframes make the mandatory competitive design process impossible. Both arguments produce the same outcome: the mandatory precinct-level design quality requirement, established specifically to govern the Danks Street South Precinct, is waived for both of the precinct's two largest developments simultaneously. The original DASCO consent (D/2021/1415) was the product of a competitive design process. The proposed 38-storey and 31-storey towers are not. This EIS describes the addition of 17 and 19 storeys to existing approved towers as alterations and additions for the purpose of the waiver. Adding nearly double the approved height to a building already under construction is not, by any ordinary meaning, a minor alteration, and the waiver provision was not designed for an intervention of this scale.

I ask: on what basis is it unreasonable or unnecessary to hold a design competition for towers that will add 17 and 19 storeys above an originally competitively-designed scheme? Is the Government Architect's endorsement of the Alternative Design Excellence Strategy a public document, and will it be published as part of the formal assessment record?

FOURTH GROUND: CONCURRENT REZONING AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

This application seeks not only development consent but a concurrent amendment to Sydney LEP 2012, including amendments to the Height of Buildings Map and insertion of new site-specific provisions. This permanently entrenches the proposed heights as permitted controls for the precinct. The community consultation recorded in Appendix 31 of this EIS explicitly captured feedback including traffic impacts, scepticism of the planning pathway being utilised, and a lack of confidence that community feedback will be considered - concerns recorded in the applicant's own document. Both the DASCO and Coronation applications seek concurrent LEP amendments via the HDA pathway affecting the same precinct, and both remove City of Sydney Council from the determination process, despite Council having formally objected to the adjacent Coronation proposal.

I ask: has City of Sydney Council been formally notified of and invited to respond to the proposed SLEP 2012 amendments sought by this application? Has DPHI considered whether the concurrent LEP amendments sought by both applications should be assessed together as a single planning proposal rather than as separate development applications, given that they affect the same precinct and are being progressed through the same pathway simultaneously?

CONCLUSION

I am not opposed to housing development in Waterloo and recognise the genuine need to increase supply. My concern is that two large applications on adjacent sites are being assessed in parallel, using the same fast-track pathway, with technical studies that contradict each other on the central question of cumulative impact and with no mechanism in either assessment to consider the combined effect on the precinct's infrastructure, solar access, and public domain. The residents of this precinct will not experience these developments separately. They will experience them as a single built environment of three towers reaching 31, 36, and 38 storeys above streets whose intersections are already beyond capacity. Neither EIS accounts for that reality. I ask that each question raised above receive a written response.

Dear Assessment Team,

I am a resident of Danks Street in Waterloo, NSW, and I am writing to formally submit my objection to SSD-80441462 in its current iteration. While I appreciate and support the necessity for well-planned densification within our inner-city suburbs, I believe this specific proposal is drastically out of step with the established and emerging character of the surrounding neighbourhood.

1. Unacceptable height and incompatibility with local character
The proposed 36-storey skyscraper, reaching an elevation of roughly 125 metres, is entirely disproportionate to the existing urban fabric of this precinct. Current developments in the immediate vicinity generally range between 4 and 13 storeys, meaning this tower would be more than double the height of its neighbours. Such an extreme increase in scale creates a visual disconnect and lacks the necessary transition to integrate with the streetscape. A building of this magnitude is perhaps appropriate for a regional transport hub, but it is fundamentally misplaced on a mid-block site along Bourke Street.

2. Unjustified deviation from established planning controls
This site is already subject to a prior development approval that was granted under significantly more modest height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) limits. This new application seeks a massive uplift, moving from a 29-metre limit to 125 metres and increasing the FSR from 2.15:1 to 3.05:1 without offering a proportional public benefit in return. As a local resident, I find it concerning that the predictability of the planning system is being undermined, as many of us made long-term decisions based on the previously approved building envelopes for this site.

3. Significant loss of solar access and natural light
I am deeply concerned about the reduction of sunlight to neighbouring residential properties caused by the height and positioning of these towers. Upon reviewing the proponent's Solar Access report, it appears there is a failure to assess the overshadowing impacts on several directly affected buildings, such as Cameo at 6 Lachlan Street and Aria at 4 Lachlan Street, as well as various west-facing homes on adjacent streets. This lack of comprehensive modelling is a major oversight in the Environmental Impact Statement.

4. Establishment of a detrimental planning precedent
If a 36-storey residential tower is approved in this location, which lacks immediate proximity to a major transport interchange and is surrounded by low-to-mid-rise buildings, it will set a dangerous precedent for the area. Other developers will inevitably use this approval to justify similar disproportionate rezonings and uplifts throughout Waterloo. This approach contradicts the principles of orderly and strategic development as outlined in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

5. Critical pressure on public transport infrastructure
Waterloo currently lacks a centrally located train station, and the upcoming Waterloo Metro is a 15-minute walk from this site, being closer to Redfern. Existing bus services, particularly the 304, 392, and 348, are already operating at peak capacity and frequently bypass commuters because they are full. Introducing approximately 850 new apartments to this corridor without a confirmed and significant upgrade to transport frequency will cause these essential services to fail entirely.

6. Increased traffic congestion and road safety concerns
The intersections at Bourke, Lachlan, Danks, and McEvoy Streets are already heavily burdened by traffic. As arterial routes become more congested, local residential streets are being used as shortcuts, which compromises the safety of pedestrians and the amenity of the area. The provided Traffic Impact Assessment does not seem to take into account the cumulative effect of this proposal alongside other major nearby projects, such as the Dasco development and the broader Waterloo Estate renewal.

7. Overburdening of essential local services
Local community infrastructure is already reaching a breaking point. Green Square Public School is at capacity, there is a distinct lack of nearby public high schools, and local medical practitioners are increasingly difficult to access. This proposal introduces a massive influx of new residents without providing any substantial commitment to the social infrastructure required to support such a population boom.

8. Inadequacy of proposed public open space
The central park included in the plans is touted as a public benefit, but in reality, it is a small area that will be overshadowed by towers ranging from 13 to 36 storeys. The space appears to have very limited recreational utility, lacking basic amenities like play equipment, functional lawn areas, or facilities for pets. It cannot realistically meet the needs of 850 new households while also serving the existing community.

9. Cumulative impacts of ongoing construction
Our precinct has been subject to continuous construction for years, leading to persistent issues with noise, dust, vibration, and heavy vehicle traffic. Adding a project of this scale will significantly worsen these disruptions. Should the Department move toward approval, it is vital that a transparent and enforceable Construction Management Plan be implemented to strictly regulate work hours, noise levels, and haulage routes in coordination with other active sites.

10. Exacerbation of wind tunnel effects
The sheer mass and height of the proposed towers are likely to intensify wind tunnel effects throughout the precinct. This will make outdoor areas, including balconies, the proposed park, and the surrounding footpaths, uncomfortable for residents and pedestrians. I do not believe the wind impacts have been sufficiently modelled or mitigated in the current application.

11. Threat to the neighbourhood atmosphere
The unique neighbourhood feel of Waterloo is at significant risk of being eroded by hyper-dense developments that ignore the human scale. Without a more sensitive approach to design and density, there is a real danger that this vibrant community will be transformed into an impersonal and sterile urban wasteland, devoid of the character that makes our suburb a desirable place to live.

Requested outcome

I request that the Department refuse the application in its current form or require major amendments. Specifically, there must be a significant reduction in the maximum building height to ensure it aligns with the existing built form of the precinct. Furthermore, I request a more transparent and comprehensive solar access assessment and a robust, enforceable Construction Management Plan. To be clear, I do not oppose the redevelopment of this site entirely; however, I strongly object to a development of this excessive scale and height under the current planning framework.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours sincerely,

Sandra Kontos
Danks Street, Waterloo NSW

Dear Assessment Team,

I am a resident of Danks Street in Waterloo, NSW, and I am writing to formally submit my objection to SUB-117619490 in its current iteration. While I appreciate and support the necessity for well-planned densification within our inner-city suburbs, I believe this specific proposal is drastically out of step with the established and emerging character of the surrounding neighbourhood.

1. Unacceptable height and incompatibility with local character
The proposed 36-storey skyscraper, reaching an elevation of roughly 125 metres, is entirely disproportionate to the existing urban fabric of this precinct. Current developments in the immediate vicinity generally range between 4 and 13 storeys, meaning this tower would be more than double the height of its neighbours. Such an extreme increase in scale creates a visual disconnect and lacks the necessary transition to integrate with the streetscape. A building of this magnitude is perhaps appropriate for a regional transport hub, but it is fundamentally misplaced on a mid-block site along Bourke Street.

2. Unjustified deviation from established planning controls
This site is already subject to a prior development approval that was granted under significantly more modest height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) limits. This new application seeks a massive uplift, moving from a 29-metre limit to 125 metres and increasing the FSR from 2.15:1 to 3.05:1 without offering a proportional public benefit in return. As a local resident, I find it concerning that the predictability of the planning system is being undermined, as many of us made long-term decisions based on the previously approved building envelopes for this site.

3. Significant loss of solar access and natural light
I am deeply concerned about the reduction of sunlight to neighbouring residential properties caused by the height and positioning of these towers. Upon reviewing the proponent's Solar Access report, it appears there is a failure to assess the overshadowing impacts on several directly affected buildings, such as Cameo at 6 Lachlan Street and Aria at 4 Lachlan Street, as well as various west-facing homes on adjacent streets. This lack of comprehensive modelling is a major oversight in the Environmental Impact Statement.

4. Establishment of a detrimental planning precedent
If a 36-storey residential tower is approved in this location, which lacks immediate proximity to a major transport interchange and is surrounded by low-to-mid-rise buildings, it will set a dangerous precedent for the area. Other developers will inevitably use this approval to justify similar disproportionate rezonings and uplifts throughout Waterloo. This approach contradicts the principles of orderly and strategic development as outlined in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

5. Critical pressure on public transport infrastructure
Waterloo currently lacks a centrally located train station, and the upcoming Waterloo Metro is a 15-minute walk from this site, being closer to Redfern. Existing bus services, particularly the 304, 392, and 348, are already operating at peak capacity and frequently bypass commuters because they are full. Introducing approximately 850 new apartments to this corridor without a confirmed and significant upgrade to transport frequency will cause these essential services to fail entirely.

6. Increased traffic congestion and road safety concerns
The intersections at Bourke, Lachlan, Danks, and McEvoy Streets are already heavily burdened by traffic. As arterial routes become more congested, local residential streets are being used as shortcuts, which compromises the safety of pedestrians and the amenity of the area. The provided Traffic Impact Assessment does not seem to take into account the cumulative effect of this proposal alongside other major nearby projects, such as the Dasco development and the broader Waterloo Estate renewal.

7. Overburdening of essential local services
Local community infrastructure is already reaching a breaking point. Green Square Public School is at capacity, there is a distinct lack of nearby public high schools, and local medical practitioners are increasingly difficult to access. This proposal introduces a massive influx of new residents without providing any substantial commitment to the social infrastructure required to support such a population boom.

8. Inadequacy of proposed public open space
The central park included in the plans is touted as a public benefit, but in reality, it is a small area that will be overshadowed by towers ranging from 13 to 36 storeys. The space appears to have very limited recreational utility, lacking basic amenities like play equipment, functional lawn areas, or facilities for pets. It cannot realistically meet the needs of 850 new households while also serving the existing community.

9. Cumulative impacts of ongoing construction
Our precinct has been subject to continuous construction for years, leading to persistent issues with noise, dust, vibration, and heavy vehicle traffic. Adding a project of this scale will significantly worsen these disruptions. Should the Department move toward approval, it is vital that a transparent and enforceable Construction Management Plan be implemented to strictly regulate work hours, noise levels, and haulage routes in coordination with other active sites.

10. Exacerbation of wind tunnel effects
The sheer mass and height of the proposed towers are likely to intensify wind tunnel effects throughout the precinct. This will make outdoor areas, including balconies, the proposed park, and the surrounding footpaths, uncomfortable for residents and pedestrians. I do not believe the wind impacts have been sufficiently modelled or mitigated in the current application.

11. Threat to the neighbourhood atmosphere
The unique neighbourhood feel of Waterloo is at significant risk of being eroded by hyper-dense developments that ignore the human scale. Without a more sensitive approach to design and density, there is a real danger that this vibrant community will be transformed into an impersonal and sterile urban wasteland, devoid of the character that makes our suburb a desirable place to live.

Requested outcome

I request that the Department refuse the application in its current form or require major amendments. Specifically, there must be a significant reduction in the maximum building height to ensure it aligns with the existing built form of the precinct. Furthermore, I request a more transparent and comprehensive solar access assessment and a robust, enforceable Construction Management Plan. To be clear, I do not oppose the redevelopment of this site entirely; however, I strongly object to a development of this excessive scale and height under the current planning framework.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours sincerely,

Sandra Kontos
Danks Street, Waterloo NSW

I object to this project, as it sets a precedent for CBD high-rise office tower height apartment blocks in small residential suburbs, which will cause shadowing and unsightly big buildings as well as added congestion to already busy streets. Also, many people have bought apartments in surrounding suburbs and paid $100,000 plus for uninterrupted Sydney skyline views in high locations where it would be inconceivable that the view would ever be blocked due to their location/height, yet apartment towers at these extraordinary heights proposed here would never have been predicted, as their heights are only found in CBD locations such as Sydney, Parramatta, North Sydney, etc., not in residential Waterloo.

I object to the proposed development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.

As a long-term resident and a mother raising a young family in this community, I would like to express my deep concern regarding the scale and impact of this proposal.

Over the years, this neighbourhood has developed into a relatively low- to moderate-density residential area that supports a safe, family-friendly environment. This balance is extremely important for households like ours, where daily life depends on access to manageable, uncrowded, and safe surroundings.

1. Impact on safety and daily liveability
A development of this scale, with a very high number of additional residents, will inevitably increase congestion in already constrained local streets and public spaces.
As a parent, I am particularly concerned about:

• Increased traffic risks for children walking in the area
• Overcrowding in footpaths and shared spaces
• Reduced sense of safety in what is currently a relatively quiet and peaceful environment

These are not abstract concerns, but practical, day-to-day realities for families.

2. Overcrowding of essential family-oriented amenities
Facilities that families rely on are already under pressure. Playgrounds, parks, and open spaces are often crowded, especially during peak hours. It is common to see children waiting to use basic play equipment.

Similarly, access to everyday services such as healthcare, childcare, and local shops is becoming increasingly strained.

A significant population increase without meaningful expansion of these services will directly impact the wellbeing of families living in the area.

3. Disproportionate scale compared to community character
The proposed height and density are far beyond what has been established in this neighbourhood. Previous developments have generally been moderate and have respected the existing urban character.

This proposal introduces a level of density more comparable to a central business district, which is not appropriate for a neighbourhood that has evolved as a residential community.

4. Lack of supporting infrastructure and planning balance
It is particularly concerning that the proposal seeks flexibility around infrastructure requirements. Growth must be accompanied by proper planning and investment in supporting facilities.

Without this, the burden is shifted onto existing residents, reducing overall quality of life.

5. Long-term impact on community cohesion
One of the strengths of this area is its sense of community, where neighbours interact and families feel comfortable living long-term.

A sudden and significant increase in density risks undermining this balance and changing the nature of the community in a way that may not be reversible.

In conclusion, I respectfully submit that this proposal is excessive in scale, inconsistent with the needs of families, and unsupported by adequate infrastructure.

I strongly urge that the development be refused, or significantly redesigned to better reflect the character, capacity, and long-term liveability of the community.

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

The proposed increases in height, from 12 to 31 storeys on Bourke Street North and from 21 to 38 storeys on the Young Street Tower, represent a gross departure from the concept originally approved by the City of Sydney. These are not minor amendments. They fundamentally change the character and scale of what was agreed with the community.

My specific concerns are:

Infrastructure and transport. The area's infrastructure is already at capacity. The 304 and 343 buses and Green Square train services regularly run full during peak hours with 2 buses often passing before you can get on at Waterloo. Bourke Street and Lachlan Street are both already exceedingly busy at rush hour already with cars queued all the way along. Adding hundreds of new residents without meaningful transport and road infrastructure investment is not a planning decision, it is a deferral of a crisis.

Amenity and liveability. Public amenities including libraries, parks and community spaces are already under pressure. This development would make an already stretched situation significantly worse for existing residents.

Built form and neighbourhood character. The proposed towers are between five and ten times the height of existing apartment buildings nearby. The visual impact, compounded by other proposals in the area, would be severe and permanent, creating a development completely out of character with the surrounding streetscape.

Overshadowing. The cumulative overshadowing impact of this proposal, together with the adjacent Coronation development at 881-885 Bourke Street, would affect a large area of nearby homes and public open space, particularly during winter months.

The cumulative effect of this and other approved developments already represents an estimated 4,000 new apartments and up to 8,000 new residents in this precinct. That is an extraordinary concentration of density. This proposal adds to that burden with only 20 additional parking spaces, which is inadequate and frankly insulting to existing residents.

There is also a serious process concern here. This proposal follows a pattern where a developer secures initial approval through community consultation, delays construction long enough to sell the approved apartments, and then applies to nearly double the height of the development, leaving residents minimal time to respond and offering nothing in return by way of additional infrastructure or amenity. That is a pattern the NSW Government should refuse to reward.

These developments are not addressing housing affordability. A two-bedroom apartment at the nearby Dank Street District starts at $1,450,000. These projects are targeting wealthy investors, not the ordinary Sydneysiders who live and work in this area.
Housing affordability is a genuine crisis, and as a renter I feel that acutely. But the answer is not to approve overpriced 40-storey tower blocks that will be snapped up by investors, built without the infrastructure to support them, and pushed through in defiance of existing planning approvals.

Sydney's appeal is inseparable from its character, its neighbourhoods, its streetscapes and its liveability. That is not a small thing to sacrifice. Once it is gone, it does not come back. Towers of this scale are not a housing solution for ordinary Sydneysiders. They are a windfall for developers, dressed up as progress.

I strongly urge the NSW Government to decline this modification and uphold the planning controls agreed through proper community process. We can do better than this.

Summary of Objection
I vehemently object to the proposed increase in building heights at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo, for an additional 250 dwellings (from 367 to 617). The proposal to increase one building from 12 to 30 storeys and another from 21 to 37 storeys is excessive and inconsistent with the adopted LEP height limit of approximately 71.5 m. This scale of development will exacerbate existing wind tunnel effects, significantly increase traffic congestion at known pinch points, and further strain local infrastructure and public roads already affected by construction. Combined with other high-density developments in adjoining blocks, the proposal represents unsustainable overdevelopment in the precinct and is contrary to the strategic planning intent for Waterloo and Green Square.
________________________________________
As a long-term resident of the Waterloo precinct since 2007, I write to strongly object to the proposed increase in building heights at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo, specifically the proposed increase from 12 to 30 storeys on Bourke Street and from 21 to 37 storeys for Young Street.
The scale of these proposed increases represents a staggering departure from the established planning framework applying to the site. Under the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 (as amended), the mapped maximum height for the tallest portion of the site is approximately 71.5 metres. A 30-storey building is likely to reach approximately 90–100 metres, and a 37-storey building approximately 110–120 metres, depending on floor-to-floor heights. This would constitute an exceedance of approximately 20–40 metres above the adopted planning control.
The existing height controls were the product of a strategic planning process that balanced density, infrastructure capacity, heritage considerations, public domain outcomes and amenity impacts. A proposal of this magnitude fundamentally alters that planning balance and cannot reasonably be characterised as a minor or technical variation. It represents a wholesale change in scale and urban form out of proportion to the size of the lot in comparison to developments as close as the Green Square precinct.
Wind Impacts and Pedestrian Amenity
There are already severe wind tunnel effects in the surrounding area, particularly around the Meriton and Divercity complex directly across 903-921 Bourke Street (particularly the corner of Bourke and Potter Street), which consists of substantially smaller towers than those now proposed. Pedestrian comfort in parts of Bourke Street and surrounding streets is already compromised during periods of strong wind. The common areas located at the top of the neighbouring buildings, as well as balconies on higher floors, are already compromised by the strong wind and can be unsafe during these periods. Increasing building heights to 30 and 37 storeys is likely to materially intensify downdraft and ground-level wind acceleration effects to the point of compromising safety. The cumulative wind impacts of taller buildings in this location require careful assessment, particularly given the established pedestrian activity along Bourke Street and connections to Green Square.
Traffic and Transport Constraints
The surrounding road network already experiences significant congestion and pressure. Known pinch points include:
• The intersection of Bourke Street and McEvoy Street (continuing from Lachlan Street)
• Lachlan Street approaching the Eastern Distributor
• The intersection of McEvoy Street and Elizabeth Street
• Bourke Street and Phillip Street
• McEvoy and Elizabeth Street
These locations experience peak-hour queuing, merging delays and constrained turning movements. A substantial increase in dwelling numbers associated with 30- and 37-storey towers will add to traffic generation and service vehicle movements in an already stressed network. The newly built apartments on 890 Bourke Street and the planned apartments for 935 Bourke Street, will further worsen traffic congestion.
Additionally, ongoing construction on Bourke Street has already caused visible road damage immediately in front of 903 Bourke Street. Further intensification at this scale is likely to exacerbate these impacts, particularly during construction phases. Access to public transport during peak times is already difficult and would be further compromised by the proposed increase.
Cumulative Impact of Adjoining Developments
It is also important to note that there are current or proposed plans for adjoining blocks and estates in the Waterloo South and Green Square precinct, some of which also involve additional towers and high-density residential developments. Any approval for this complex must be considered in the context of the cumulative demand on road infrastructure, public transport, open space, and community facilities. Taken together, these proposals will result in a density that exceeds the capacity of existing and planned infrastructure and public domain, creating significant adverse impacts on amenity, traffic, pedestrian safety, the quality of life and community character of the precinct.
Strategic Planning Integrity
The integrity of the planning system relies on consistency with adopted controls. Any proposal to exceed the mapped height by this magnitude must clearly demonstrate why the established height limit is unreasonable or unnecessary. In the absence of such justification, the proposal risks undermining the certainty, transparency and strategic intent of the planning framework for this precinct, as well as compromising the welfare of the current community.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

As a resident and owner at 1 Danks Street, Waterloo, I wish to register a clear objection to the revised Development Application for 903–921 Bourke Street.
From the outset, those of us living at 1 Danks Street have understood that local planning controls were established to protect the scale and character of this area—particularly by preventing excessive building heights where new developments meet low-rise housing. That principle appears to be eroding.
Even in its approved form, the Bourke Street development already rises significantly above our three-storey building. The newly submitted amendments push this disparity much further. The most concerning change is the proposed increase of the Young Street tower from 21 to 38 storeys—an escalation that nearly doubles its height. Such a dramatic shift feels entirely out of step with the surrounding neighbourhood and sits uneasily alongside claims in the Design Report that the project is sensitive to its context.
It is also difficult to reconcile the current proposal with the feedback process that preceded it. At an earlier community consultation hosted by Dasco, residents expressed strong opposition to the increased scale. Despite this, the revised plans show little evidence that these concerns have shaped the outcome. The consultation appears to have functioned more as a formality than a genuine attempt to engage with or respond to the community.
Of particular concern is how the expanded bulk of the development is arranged. While the design rationale suggests concentrating height toward the centre of the site, in practice this shifts substantial mass closer to the lower-scale homes along Danks Street. The use of the term “Danks Street District” in project branding only heightens this tension—borrowing the identity of the street while introducing a development that fundamentally alters its character.
The implications for residents are significant. A tower of this height, positioned nearby, will lead to pronounced overlooking and a loss of privacy. Daily living conditions will be affected by increased visual intrusion, reduced access to natural light, and greater overshadowing. These are not minor changes but meaningful degradations to residential amenity.
Additionally, the justification for increased height appears to lean on a separate proposal by Coronation Property for 881–885 Bourke Street—a development that remains unapproved and is itself contentious. It is inappropriate to use an unresolved neighbouring application as a basis for intensifying this project.
Taken as a whole, the proposal introduces an excessive scale of development at the boundary of a low-rise residential area. Rather than stepping down to meet its context, it amplifies height and density at precisely the point where sensitivity is most needed. This places undue strain on key aspects of local amenity, including privacy, sunlight, outlook, and the established streetscape.
In essence, these changes undermine the intent of the planning controls that were meant to safeguard this community. The cumulative impacts—on light, privacy, noise, and overall quality of life—are considerable, and in this setting, they are simply not acceptable.