As the owner-occupier of a residential unit at 1 Danks Street, Waterloo, I strongly object to the amended Development Application for 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.
Our understanding as residents of 1 Danks Street has always been that this area is governed by a planning framework intended to limit building heights adjacent to low-rise residential properties and maintain the character of this long-established community.
The already approved scheme for 903–921 Bourke Street already sits well above our three-storey building. The current proposal to further increase building heights is therefore deeply alarming. The revised application proposes extreme height increases, most notably the Young Street tower, which is proposed to rise from 21 storeys to 38 storeys. This is almost double the approved height. This scale is unprecedented in the immediate locality and it is almost impossible to reconcile with the Design Report’s claims that the development responds to local character.
At a previous community information session, the developer Dasco presented the proposed increase in scale and sought community feedback. The feedback at that time was overwhelmingly negative. Despite this, the current submission appears to retain the same height outcomes with no meaningful response to community concerns. The consultation process gives the impression of being a procedural ‘box-ticking’ exercise rather than genuine community engagement, with little evidence that local input has had any influence on the outcome.
My primary concern is the impact of the proposed scale on existing residential amenity. Concentrating the tallest built form toward the centre of the site is presented as a design response, however it results in significant bulk being positioned closer to the low-rise dwellings along Danks Street. The so-called “Danks Street District” branding appears to appropriate our street name for development marketing purposes while simultaneously overwhelming the existing small-scale residential context.
Privacy impacts are a major issue. A 38-storey tower in close proximity to low-rise housing will result in direct overlooking and ongoing visual intrusion. This will materially reduce residential privacy and significantly alter day-to-day living conditions. There will also be substantial loss of daylight and increased overshadowing, with corresponding impacts on the liveability of existing dwellings.
The application also suggests that increased height is justified by a separate and currently unapproved development lodged by Coronation Property for the neighbouring 881–885 Bourke Street site. It is not appropriate to rely on a proposed neighbouring development to justify additional height in this application, particularly where that proposal has not yet been determined and has itself attracted significant community concern.
Overall, the proposed scale places disproportionate built form on the edge of a low-rise residential precinct. It does not provide a meaningful transition to surrounding homes and instead intensifies height and density at the interface with established residential buildings. This will increase pressure on local amenity, including privacy, sunlight access, outlook and streetscape character.
In summary, the proposal significantly increases the burden on a residential area that was intended to be protected by a considered planning framework. The impacts on privacy, overshadowing, noise and overall liveability are substantial and, in my view, unacceptable in the context of the existing built environment at Danks Street.

I object to this proposal on multiple grounds as a longstanding resident of Waterloo since 2012. The proposal seeks to drastically alter the original plans approved by the City of Sydney to increase 1 tower from 12 to 31 storeys and another from 21 to 38 storeys to add ~200 apartments with only 20 car spaces. This combined with other substantial developments puts additional strain on the densest suburb in the city which is already under pressure.
Infrastructure:
The extra residents will place unnacceptable pressure on local roads, parking and public transport, all of which are already stretched. the 304 and 343 are the only two bus routes within walking distance that go into the city. They are both full during peak periods and the services can't keep up. Green square station is already over capacity and with planned developments - will not be able to meet the forecasted demand. The Metro is too far for walking distance - there are hills to navigate and the 392 bus adds extra cost to a commute to the city (it's cheaper to take the 343 or 304 hence why both are over capacity). To begin considering this development, the state needs to commit to high density travel options such as dedicated metro lines, light rail and/or more efficient public transport to handle the strain of the planned developments in the area.

Amenities:
These are also already under pressure. Local doctors are limiting new patients, RPA (hospital) is stretched, green square public school is already over-subscribed and Alex Park High school is the same. The proposed school on Young st was declined - the state needs to seriously consider funding a dedicated high school for the increase in residents.

Liveability
The propose height changes are out of character with the existing neighbourhood and surroundings, undermining the current character of the area. The City of Sydney had rightly already approved a mix of low rise and medium rise in keeping with the current community - balancing housing needs and making the area a place where residents can have quality of living standards. Further, combined with the proposed 38 storey tower at the adjacent 881-885 Bourke street site - this development would create significant cumulative overshadowing that hasn't been modelled in the proposal. This would affect nearby homes and public open space that would be affected during the winter months, driving up heating costs for impacted residents. I firmly support developments that deliver quality, liveable housing - this change request is not in keeping with that and is not the solution to alleviate the housing shortage in Sydney - especially adding more density to the densest suburb in the city as it stands today.

This development modification request is an excessive, gross departure from the original plans approved by the City of Sydney. I implore the state to decline this amendment in the best interests of local residents who live in a suburb which has already done its fair share of the work to improve housing accessibility in NSW.

To: NSW Department of Planning and Environment
Re: Submission of Objection – SSD-95997711 (903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo)
To the Planning Officer,
I am writing to formally lodge my strong objection to the proposed modifications for the residential development at 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SSD-95997711).
As a resident living directly across the road from this site, the proposed amendments represent a gross departure from the originally approved plans and will have a direct, detrimental impact on my daily life and the broader Waterloo community.
My objections are based on the following critical concerns:
1. Significant Loss of Solar Access
Living directly opposite the site, I am highly concerned by the proposal to increase the Bourke Street North building from 12 to 31 storeys, and the Young Street Tower from 21 to 38 storeys. This massive increase in height will result in severe overshadowing of my home and the surrounding public spaces. The cumulative effect of these towers, alongside the adjacent proposal at 881-885 Bourke Street, will drastically reduce natural light during the winter solstice, affecting both my well-being and the energy efficiency of my residence.
2. Traffic Congestion and Parking Shortfall
The proposal adds 233 additional apartments over the approved plan (a total of 580 units) yet provides only 20 extra parking spaces. The local streets, particularly the intersection of Bourke and McEvoy, are already heavily congested. Adding thousands of new residents without adequate parking or road infrastructure will create a permanent traffic gridlock, making it increasingly difficult for local residents to navigate the area or find parking for essential services.
3. Infrastructure and Amenity Strain
Our local services are already at a breaking point. I frequently observe the 304 bus and Green Square trains operating at full capacity, often passing by commuters because there is no room. Adding "a small country town's worth of residents" to this specific block without a proportional increase in public transport and amenities—such as library space and seating—is unsustainable and will significantly diminish the quality of life for current residents.
4. Overbearing Scale and Wind Impacts
The proposed height is visually overbearing and entirely out of character with the existing streetscape. Furthermore, the creation of 30+ storey "walls" along these corridors poses a high risk of severe wind tunnel effects. As a pedestrian who uses these footpaths daily, I am concerned that the street-level environment will become hostile and potentially unsafe due to these downdrafts.
Conclusion
While I support sensible, sustainable growth in Waterloo, this specific proposal is excessive. The leap from 12 storeys to 31 is not a minor modification; it is a complete reimagining of the site that ignores the local context and the constraints of our infrastructure.
I urge the Department to reject these amendments and hold the developer to the scale originally approved by the City of Sydney.
Sincerely, Grant

I am writing to firmly oppose the amended development. I live near the site, and I invested in this neighbourhood to build a stable, long‑term home for my family. This proposal, as it stands, undermines the liveability and sustainability of the area for current and future residents.
My objection is not to additional housing — it is to the wrong kind of housing. What is being proposed is 580 high‑priced apartments starting at nearly $1 million for a one‑bedroom unit. That does nothing for families, essential workers, or long‑term residents who need housing they can actually remain in as their circumstances change. This is density without community benefit.
My concerns fall into four key areas:
1. Critical evidence gaps
The contamination assessment is incomplete. Two new basements are proposed in areas with known vapour risks, yet final floor levels and full modelling are missing. Approving a project of this scale without complete contamination data is irresponsible.
The wind assessment relies on shielding from a neighbouring development that is not approved. If that project does not proceed, the modelling collapses. A revised assessment based only on approved developments is required.
2. Removal of community protections
The proposal seeks to bypass both the competitive design process and the community infrastructure levy — obligations that existed for good reason. The building is now nearly double the approved height, yet the developer wants to self‑assess design excellence. That is unacceptable for a 126‑metre tower on a heritage‑sensitive site.
The VPA was negotiated for a much smaller development. The public is being offered the same infrastructure despite a 55% increase in apartments. That is not a fair or reasonable exchange.
3. Affordable housing that may deliver nothing
The so‑called 12% affordable housing contribution is not binding. The applicant openly states they are not subject to the policy from which that figure is drawn. Without a binding VPA, the entire contribution can be paid out as cash, resulting in zero affordable dwellings on site.
This community needs actual homes — not financial offsets — for families, older residents, and essential workers who keep this area functioning.
4. No cumulative transport assessment
The proposal shifts transport pressure onto public infrastructure without assessing the combined impact of multiple major developments in the precinct. This is a significant oversight and must be addressed before any approval is considered.
I ask the Department to:
Require complete contamination assessments and vapour modelling
Require a revised wind assessment based only on approved developments
Reject the removal of Clause 6.21D and require independent design review
Reject the removal of Clause 6.14 or secure an equivalent binding contribution
Renegotiate the VPA to reflect the increased yield
Require affordable housing as actual on‑site dwellings, secured in perpetuity
Require a cumulative transport assessment
Hold a public hearing
This decision will determine whether Waterloo remains a mixed, inclusive community or becomes a precinct only accessible to those who can afford premium apartments. I urge the Department to act in the long‑term interests of the neighbourhood.
Sincerely,
Sean Brown

I live on Morehead Street, about 280 metres from the former Sydney Water site on Bourke Street. I bought my home here to put down roots: to be close to family, to raise my child in a neighbourhood with footpaths, parks, and a real community, and to grow old here. I am writing because this proposal, as submitted, will make that harder for people like me and significantly harder for people more vulnerable than me.

My concern is not that this site should have less housing. It is that this neighbourhood needs housing that lets people age in place rather than being pushed out when their circumstances change. Housing close enough to schools and family that grandparents can do the school run and adult children can check in on parents. Housing that a nurse, a teacher, or a childcare worker can actually afford. What is proposed here is 580 apartments starting at $985,000 for a one bedroom. That is not housing for the people who need it most.

My objections cover three areas: gaps in the evidence base that should pause this application; community protections being removed without binding replacement; and an affordable housing offer that, on close reading of the applicant’s own documents, may produce no affordable dwellings at all.


The evidence base

The contamination assessment is incomplete

Two new basements are proposed that were not part of the original approved consent D/2021/1415. The Young Street North basement sits in the northern part of the site where the applicant’s own contamination consultant identified historical soil vapour contamination from the former Lawrence Dry Cleaners. The Bourke Street South basement has not been fully assessed.

The contamination cover letter (EI Australia, Appendix 13 of the EIS) states:

“While the finished floor level of the basement (BSS) in the south-eastern portion of the site is not available at the time of writing this letter… the potential of vapour intrusion risk into the proposed basement is considered unlikely.”*

I ask the Department to require finalised floor levels and full vapour intrusion modelling for both new basements before any consent is granted.

The wind assessment relies on an unapproved development

The wind report (Mel Consultants, Appendix 33) concludes that pedestrian safety standards are met, relying in part on wind shielding from the Coronation development at 881-885 Bourke Street. That project is currently under exhibition as an SSD and has not been approved. If Coronation is not built, or is built differently, this wind assessment is unreliable.

I ask the Department to require a revised wind assessment based only on approved developments.



Two community protections are being removed with nothing binding offered in return

When this site was originally rezoned and approved through the City of Sydney, two obligations applied. The first required a competitive design process, run twice for this site, providing independent scrutiny of design quality. The second required community infrastructure contributions for Green Square, recognising that a growing population needs schools, childcare, libraries, and open space.

This application seeks exemption from both.

The revised proposal is nearly double the approved height with no independent design review. At 126 metres on a heritage-sensitive site, self-assessment of design excellence by the developer’s own consultants is not sufficient.

The applicant’s own Social Impact Assessment (Sarah George Consulting, Appendix 17) acknowledges that Waterloo is already experiencing cumulative pressure on childcare, schools, recreation space, and aged care. The same application then seeks exemption from the levy that exists to fund those things.

On the Voluntary Planning Agreement: the VPA was negotiated for a development of 347-376 apartments. The same plaza, footpath widenings, and heritage square are now presented as community return for 580 apartments. The public receives identical infrastructure while the development grows 55% larger.

I ask the Department to refuse the exclusion of Clause 6.21D and Clause 6.14, and to require the VPA to be renegotiated to reflect the actual scale of what is proposed.


The affordable housing offer may produce no affordable dwellings

The planning statement (Sutherland & Associates, March 2026) presents a 12% affordable housing contribution on the uplift floor space as a significant community benefit. The same document states:

*“The City of Sydney Affordable Housing Program is an internal Council policy and the subject application is not bound by this Council policy.”*

The 12% figure comes from a policy this application is explicitly not bound by. Voluntary commitments in planning statements do not bind developers once consent is granted unless secured through a condition or Voluntary Planning Agreement. No binding VPA is proposed for the affordable housing component.

Both the mandatory 3% baseline under Clause 7.13 and the proposed 12% uplift contribution can be discharged through “an equivalent financial contribution” rather than actual dwellings. The entire affordable housing offer can be paid as cash, with no affordable dwelling built on this site.

This neighbourhood needs the family that can no longer afford the rent to stay near their children’s school. It needs the older resident who has lived here for thirty years to have somewhere to go when their circumstances change. It needs the community worker, the paramedic, the cleaner, to live within reach of the place they work.

I ask the Department to require affordable housing to be delivered as actual dwellings on this site, managed in perpetuity by a registered community housing provider, secured through a binding VPA that cannot be substituted with a financial contribution.

Cumulative transport has not been assessed

The EIS claims the proposal generates fewer vehicle trips than the approved DA by capping car parking at 376 spaces for 580 apartments. The transport burden is transferred to public transport, which is not assessed. The Coronation project, the Barings development on O’Dea Avenue, and the Waterloo Metro Quarter are each assessed individually as having negligible impact. Cumulatively, they do not.

I ask the Department to require a cumulative transport assessment covering all concurrent developments in the precinct before consent is granted.

Summary of requests

I ask the Department to:

- Require completed contamination assessments for both new basements, with finalised floor levels and vapour intrusion modelling, before consent is granted
- Require a revised wind assessment that does not rely on unapproved neighbouring development
- Refuse the exclusion of Clause 6.21D or require an independent design review
- Refuse the exclusion of Clause 6.14 or secure an equivalent contribution through a binding VPA
- Require the VPA to be renegotiated to reflect the 55% increase in apartment yield
- Require affordable housing as actual on-site dwellings, managed in perpetuity by a community housing provider, secured through a binding VPA, not dischargeable as a financial contribution
- Require a cumulative transport assessment across all concurrent developments in the precinct
- Direct that a public hearing be held

What happens on this site will shape what Waterloo becomes: whether it remains a place where people of different ages and incomes can stay and belong, or whether it becomes somewhere that only certain people can afford to enter. I am asking the Department to weigh that carefully.

Please note the diagrams at the end of the attached letter. In particular the attention drawn to the morning overshadowing and massive bulk and scale of the project relative to the surrounds. (The letter is provided to NSW Government portal via this form only.) I have commissioned and there should be a further heritage comment forthcoming which I will email through to you Joe.

ASSESSMENT OFFICER UPDATE: Objector provided an additional attachment on 18/02/2026. The Assessment Officer manually uploaded this to the Major Projects Portal on 18/02/2026 to be considered in addition with the original PDF objection letter.
ASSESSMENT OFFICER UPDATE: Objector provided an additional attachment on 24/02/2026. The Assessment Officer manually uploaded this to the Major Projects Portal on 26/02/2026 to be considered in addition with the original PDF objection letter.