I am writing to express my objection to the proposal to increase the gross floor area and floor space ratio for the Waterloo State Significant Development. I understand the importance of providing new housing: The original scope for the DASCO site more than provided for that outcome. But I am convinced that the substantial increase in density that Dasco are now requesting will have a significant personal impact on all residents in the surrounding area, myself included.

I am particularly worried about the substantial increase in housing density, especially since we are also fighting against a similar (very) high density request from the Coronation site next door. Additionally, the anticipated increase in traffic congestion will make everyday activities such as commuting and access to local services more challenging and time-consuming. Bourke Street does not have the capacity for the increase in public transport provision that will be required. The busses are overcrowded during peak hour as it is. If one hasn't left for work by 7.30 well, it could be a long wait to get on a bus. Add hundreds of extra new apartments to the mix - well, let's hope we don't have to find out!

Overall, the reduction in amenity – including noise and open space – will diminish the area’s liveability for all residents. The proposal seeks to increase the number of dwellings without demonstrating any change in supporting infrastructure, including essential services and public transport. I believe this would place additional pressure on local facilities and reduce the quality of life for all existing residents. At the public meeting Dasco sited that green space could easily be added to rooftops! How does that help meet community expectations? Their stated financial contribution to the government was their only response to infrastructure issues. Really? In other words, they will walk away leaving all these unresolved issues behind.

I believe the requested increase in GFA and FSR is not accompanied by any additional measurable community benefit, including any increased affordable housing provision. Or any expansion of public open space and delivery of community facilities. So, the Infrastructure contributions secured through a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) Density uplift should be balanced by tangible public outcome? Where is it? In the absence of additional community benefit, the proposal raises concerns regarding proportionality and planning equity. It's a massive increase in development which shows little regard to the local inhabitants.

As stated above, it appears opportunistic to have secured approval for the current development to then request a significant increase in overall density. But I'm beginning to understand that such requests aren't that unusual (all this is new to me). Dasco have taken what was a balanced plan and turned it into an overpopulated, solar compromised, wind affected, urban jungle. When combined with the increase in density applied for by the Coronation site next door, well... I like this area, it's high density living done well. We really don't want ultra-high density added to the mix.
For these reasons, I urge that the proposed changes be reconsidered. I respectfully request that the proposed increase in GFA and FSR not proceed.

I write to formally object to the proposed amendments to State Significant Development Application SSD-95997711 relating to the mixed-use development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.

While I acknowledge the importance of increasing housing supply and urban renewal, the scale and nature of the proposed amendments raise significant concerns regarding planning integrity, infrastructure capacity, and local amenity.

1. Excessive Increase in Height and Density
The proposal seeks to nearly double the permissible building height from 65 metres to 126 metres and increase the floor space ratio from 1.5:1 to 3.2:1. This represents a substantial and disproportionate intensification of the originally approved development. Such a dramatic uplift is inconsistent with the established planning controls and undermines the strategic planning framework intended to guide appropriate development in the area.

This scale of overdevelopment risks setting an undesirable precedent for similar site-specific uplifts, eroding confidence in the planning system and its adherence to transparent, consistent controls.

2. Inadequate Infrastructure and Services
An increase from 376 to 580 apartments (an additional 204 dwellings) will place significant pressure on existing local infrastructure, including transport networks, schools, healthcare services, and public open space. There is insufficient evidence that the surrounding infrastructure can absorb this level of population increase without a corresponding and clearly articulated upgrade plan.

The proposal to exclude the applicability of contributions toward community infrastructure is particularly concerning, as it removes an essential mechanism for mitigating development impacts.

3. Reduction in Planning Safeguards
The proposed exclusion of key planning provisions—including the competitive design process and community infrastructure contributions—raises serious concerns about design quality, accountability, and equitable development outcomes. These controls exist to ensure that developments of this scale achieve high-quality urban design and contribute fairly to the broader community.

Removing these safeguards appears to prioritise development yield over long-term liveability and public benefit.

4. Amenity Impacts
The increased height and density are likely to result in adverse impacts on surrounding properties and the public domain, including overshadowing, reduced solar access, wind impacts, loss of privacy, and increased urban bulk. These impacts have not been adequately justified given the extent of the proposed changes.

5. Reduction in Property Values and Loss of Views
The proposed increase in building height is likely to result in significant loss of existing views for surrounding residential properties. In many cases, these views contribute directly to property value and overall residential amenity. Their loss represents a tangible and material impact on nearby residents.

Diminished outlook, increased visual bulk, and a sense of overdevelopment can adversely affect the desirability of neighbouring properties, leading to a reduction in property values. This impact has not been adequately assessed or addressed in the proposal and should be given proper consideration in the determination of the application.

6. Concerns Regarding Target Market and Community Outcomes
It is also concerning that, during community engagement, a representative of the developer indicated that the primary target market for the development is overseas investors. While investment is an accepted part of the property market, developments of this scale—particularly those benefiting from significant planning uplifts—should prioritise contributing to local housing needs and community cohesion.

A strong focus on non-local investment risks outcomes such as reduced owner-occupancy, increased vacancy rates, and limited integration into the local community. This raises questions about whether the proposal genuinely serves the housing needs of the local population, which is a key consideration in assessing developments of this nature.

7. Social Mix and Community Integration
While the provision of social and affordable housing is an important policy objective, any increase in density must be supported by careful planning to ensure balanced and well-integrated communities. A significant uplift in population without corresponding investment in services, community facilities, and integration measures can place strain on local cohesion, public spaces, and support systems.

It is important that developments of this scale demonstrate how a balanced social mix will be achieved and supported, rather than simply increasing dwelling numbers without adequate supporting infrastructure and planning for community wellbeing.

8. Traffic and Parking Implications
While basement amendments are proposed to accommodate additional parking, increased density will inevitably generate additional traffic movements, exacerbating congestion in an already constrained local road network. The cumulative transport impacts require more rigorous assessment.

9. Lack of Justification for Rezoning
The concurrent rezoning proposal appears to be driven primarily by development uplift rather than strategic planning merit. There is insufficient justification for such significant departures from the existing planning framework, particularly in the absence of broader precinct-level planning or community consultation.

Conclusion
In its current form, the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site, inconsistent with established planning controls and unsupported by adequate infrastructure or strategic justification. It undermines key planning principles, reduces important safeguards, and risks significant adverse impacts on the local community.

For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposal and request that it be refused, or at minimum, substantially revised to align with existing planning controls, infrastructure capacity, and community expectations.

Graham Snell Waterloo - U67 830 Bourke Street NSW 2017

SSD-95997711 903–921 Bourke Street and 3 McEvoy Street, Waterloo

I strongly object to the proposed development.

I further express my disappointment and outrage at the scale and nature of the proposal for the redevelopment of the former Water Board site at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.

Building Heights
The original LEP for the area had a height restriction of six storeys. This continues to change with no proper consultation with any stakeholder in the DSS precinct. Increasing the heights of all building exceeds this limitation. This objective was to retain a corridor of six storey high buildings up to almost Oxford Street and retain the existing aesthetics.
The proposed building heights are markedly disproportionate to the established and emerging character of the overall Waterloo precinct. The scale of these buildings will dominate the surrounding streetscape and materially alter the neighbourhood context.
The view from residences in Divercity will be affected. The northern view is already blocked by the buildings on the east side of Bourke Street. The planned taller building will block most of the view back towards the city. Increasing the lower levelled buildings from six storeys to eight storeys will eliminate all of the green district view and neighbourhood amenity north toward Kings Cross.
Significantly increasing the buildings’ heights is a material change to the current development. It spectacularly amplifies and substantially affects the development already in progress, changing the whole character of the existing development.

Structural Stability
Increasing the tallest building by 85% (20 storeys to 37 storeys) will impact its physical stability. Laying of foundations has already commenced on the site. There is no engineering impact assessment increasing the height of any of the buildings. The risk is that another disastrous event like that similar to the Opal Tower at Homebush occurs. There are too many examples around Sydney of such experiences of this eventuating.

Parking
An 67% (234) increase in units to 581 would require an equivalent increase in off-street parking. The SSD-95997711 suggest there will be no material increase in off-street parking. Based on the current ratio of car spaces to units (234 to 347) an additional 218 on-street parking spaces is required. The local streets around the development site are already at capacity. Further we already
experience out of area people parking in the surround area to access public transport to and from the CBD.

Traffic and transport
The public transport is already overloaded in peak hours and at times on weekends. The Dank street bus stop is already very crowded on weekday mornings. People cannot get on the buses. The increase in population will greatly exasperate this situation.

Wind and Pollution
It’s well documented that increased building heights causes wind issues and increases noise levels. This would impact the wellbeing of residents and make living nearby quite uncomfortable.

Solar Access
Increasing the building heights to 30–37 storeys will result in substantial overshadowing of residences, public areas and open, reducing the amount of and exposure time of natural light. This would affect the wellbeing of residents. It is well documented that exposure to direct sunlight is important to people’s health and wellbeing.

Public Areas and Open Spaces
The developments’ buildings footprints are already maximised and there is no capacity to expand this in anyway.

Precedence for Future SSD Applications
Approving SSD-95997711 will enable all other residential developments in the vicinity will leverage this to apply similarly increase (+67%) the number of units in their developments. This would further amplify the impact on the community, infrastructure and existing residents.

Extended Development Time
The current development is to be completed by the end of 2028. If the SSD-95997711 application is permitted then the end date will extended by more than two to three years. The development would not be completed until well after 2030. This would further affect traffic, parking noise and pollution, etc. that residents are already enduring. We already endure Bourke Street being regularly blocked in morning peak hours to allow trucks better access to the site. Currently the noise and dust is significant. It’s affecting the health of many nearby residents. These problems will continue well beyond the current planned end date.

Flight Path
Previously Meriton made an application to extend the height of the twenty, storey residential property above the Dank Street Coles supermarket. Part of the reasoning for the application to be declined was that there was a maxim height restriction of twenty storeys for structures on the flight paths from Sydney airport. This was for aviation safety reasons. The development site is on the flight path and is closer to the airport than the Dank Street property.

Development of Toyota property
Previously there was an application to the SCC for the Toyota site in Bourke Street (adjacent to the development site) to construct a ten storey property that included residential apartments. This was knocked back by SCC as there was concern about the increased number of ten and twenty storey structures and would increase in the vicinity.

Special Development Dispensation Already
The developer DASCO has already received special dispensation to exceed the LEP height limit of six storeys to allow additional units to be built. This was to offset the parts of the site could not be developed such as the heritage structures and the services easement through the site. The DSS has already been greatly impacted by this one-off allowance. To further increase the building heights is scope creep and doing so continues to amplify the impacts on the residents, the DSS and surrounding areas.

I strongly object to the proposed SSD-95997711. It will have a significant and material impact on the community and environment.

I write to formally oppose the proposed modification to the approved development at 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo, which seeks to significantly increase the number of dwellings beyond what was originally assessed and approved.
While the initial approval reflected a scale of development that aligned with the character and capacity of the area, this amendment represents a substantial intensification that fails to adequately consider the existing limitations of local infrastructure and the resulting impact on living standards.

1. Infrastructure Capacity Already Under Strain.

The surrounding area is currently experiencing clear pressure on essential infrastructure. Roads are frequently congested, particularly during peak hours, and operate at or near capacity. Increasing the number of dwellings to the extent proposed will inevitably exacerbate traffic volumes, leading to longer travel times, reduced road safety, and increased environmental impacts such as noise and air pollution.

Public transport services are similarly strained. Buses servicing the area are often overcrowded, it is already near impossible to get to the city on a weekday morning, with limited ability to absorb additional demand without significant upgrades. There is no clear evidence that the necessary transport infrastructure improvements will be delivered in tandem with this increased density.

2. Diminished Livability and Amenity.
The scale of the proposed amendment risks significantly diminishing the livability of the area. Increased density at a high-rise scale is inconsistent with the established and planned character of the locality, which is more appropriately suited to mid-rise development.
Excessive building height and bulk can lead to reduced access to sunlight, increased overshadowing, loss of privacy, and a sense of overcrowding.
These factors directly affect residents’ quality of life and undermine the balanced urban environment that the original approval sought to achieve.

The area is already subject to significant residential dwellings, adding this density will further add to residents lack of space and overcrowding, The politicians and developers pushing for this density won’t be the ones living here, we have borne the brunt of density for years, enough is enough.

3. Impact on Local Services and Amenities.

Beyond transport, essential services—including healthcare, schools, childcare, and community facilities—are already operating under pressure. A dramatic increase in population density without corresponding investment in these services risks overwhelming them, reducing accessibility and quality for existing and future residents alike.

The proposal does not appear to adequately address how these cumulative impacts will be managed, nor does it demonstrate that sufficient infrastructure planning has been undertaken to support the intensified development.

4. Inconsistency with Appropriate Planning Outcomes

Mid-rise development (as originally approved) represents a more appropriate and sustainable form of density for this location. It allows for population growth while maintaining a balance with infrastructure capacity, urban character, and amenity.

The proposed high-rise intensification appears to prioritise yield over considered planning outcomes and does not align with the principles of orderly and sustainable development.

Conclusion.

In summary, the proposed modification represents an overdevelopment of the site that fails to adequately account for existing infrastructure constraints and would result in a tangible decline in living standards for current and future residents.
The original approval struck a more appropriate balance between growth and livability, and this balance should be maintained.

I respectfully request that this application be refused, due to unacceptable impacts on infrastructure capacity, service provision, and the long-term livability of the area.

Yours sincerely,
Concerned local residend.

As a local resident of 18 years who lives one block away from the proposed development, I strongly object to the DASCO development proposal. I understand the need for more housing closer to the city. However the current proposal will have a massive impact on the local community as there will be insufficient amenity and infrastructure with the proposed density.

There is currently a shortage of parking in the area and there are insufficient parking spaces for the additional apartments. In the proposal Dasco argues that by providing less car parking spaces there will be less cars . However you cannot stop new residents owning cars so they will inevitably park on the surrounding streets. The streets surrounding the new development are already at maximum capacity for traffic and the new apartments will further increase this. Getting onto and crossing South Dowling street is particularly difficult and Lachlan Ave is often backed up almost to Bourke Street. Most of the surrounding streets allow for only one lane of traffic either direction. There is also the issue of safety of pedestrians, particularly children walking to school, and cyclists with the increased traffic. The local buses are already overcrowded at peak hour.

The increased height proposed will cast long shadows onto surrounding streets and a wind tunnel. As someone who walks and cycles around the area to get around this will impact me. My privacy will also be impacted as people will be able to see into my bedroom. There will be less green space available as the proposal seeks to override the City of Sydney’s development stipulation to provide a certain amount of green space. The scale of the buildings is out of character with the immediately surrounding streets.

I regularly use local public pools in the area which are very busy outside standard working hours. Increased density would put a greater demand on them. Also the the cycleways are very busy at peak hour and will be strained with the proposed increased density.

On a broader note the proposal does not clearly address affordable housing which is much needed close to the city. The 12% affordable housing contribution is not binding. The starting price of the already approved apartments is beyond the reach of average Australians and there there are relatively few apartments planned with sufficient number of rooms for families compared to those for one person or a couple. There are already a plethora of studio and one-bedroom apartments in nearby Zetland. This type of high cost housing does not help to alleviate the housing crisis.

I have very happily raised a family and built a community here. I very much would like to continue living here and sharing the area with other residents but only in so much that we have enough public facilities like adequate roads, public transport, green spaces, parking, libraries, public pools and recreation centres, schools, daycare centres and playgrounds.
Therefore, I request a public hearing regarding the current plans.

I am a resident who has been living since 2022 in an apartment complex, which is less than 200 metres from this site.

The “Environmental Impact and Rezoning Statement” states on page 94 that “Letter box drop: 750 notices were distributed to properties within close proximity to the site”. The “Engagement report” on page 13 says the same. Despite living around 200m from this site, I confirm that I never received such a letter. There was no information about this intention to amend or even any notices around the site that I walk around regularly. Therefore, this statement is misleading and inaccurate, which calls into question the credibility of the entire proposal.

I only came to know about this amendment proposal for the first time, less than a week ago, from the building manager of our apartment complex. I was already aware of the original proposal, which was put forward several years ago; however, this amendment appears to have been introduced in a manner that allows it to slip past the surrounding community.

Having said that, going through the “Engagement report”, it shows that even if more community feedback was sought, concerns wouldn’t be addressed adequately anyway. The community has strongly opposed this amendment as per the raw comments in “Engagement report”; however, none of the submitted documents by the developer seems to genuinely address these concerns. Rather, they try to brush off or provide some convincing-looking argument.

The area around this building is already congested with so many residential apartment complexes. The number of community parks, public spaces, green spaces, playgrounds, and recreational areas is very low compared to the density of the number of people living around. The narrow roads are already full of traffic, no parking spaces are available, and buses are full during the peak hours. The original proposal itself was a further burden on this, but adding 200 more apartments on top of the already proposed 300 is insane. To add more, this NSW scheme that bypasses the council seem to have an application for another massive tower with hundreds of apartments less than 50 meters from this site. These sites are >500m away from the green square station (which is already crowded) and the new metro station, so without having proper transport options provided for that 500m, this will create massive congestion. See the traffic in the attachment near the green square – on 26th Sunday, April 2026, even during non-peak hours. At least if these buildings were next to the Waterloo metro (where there are areas that are not yet this densely packed), it would have made at least a bit more sense. The NSW state government’s ad hoc approvals like this will make the Waterloo/Zetland/Greensquare area unlivable like Hong Kong.

While there is a housing crisis and affordability issues, putting an unsustainable level of apartment units in an already crowded and densely populated area is totally unacceptable. There are many suburbs towards the east of Sydney that are significantly less dense and can be utilised for these. Eastlakes and Kensington are very good examples. I do not understand why more and more apartments are being put into this already crowded area. The same developer has done a maximum 8-story apartment complex with only 142 units in Kensington – why aren’t towers of 30 floors not being built in these suburbs that have very little housing density? Furthermore, apartments from this developer are extremely expensive, and there is no way they will create affordability. Consequently, this amendment to the proposal will not adequately address the issues, despite claims to the contrary.

Furthermore, the documents state “The subject proposal does not include affordable housing, but makes a significant (~$40M) contribution to the City of Sydney’s Affordable Housing fund to fund future affordable housing projects.”. This demonstrates that the application does NOT intend to help affordability, but instead procrastinate it to the future. By the time this building is finished, it could be way later than 2029. So, unless this proposal itself has ways to provide affordable houses as soon as possible, it does not fall under the HDA’s priority “The Government's priority is delivering completed homes, not just approvals.” Rather looks like the developer is gaming this system to increase their profit margins. I hope those who review these documents pay careful attention to these. In fact, there is an already approved application for 300 apartments, and this amendment will delay the delivery of those by a few more years.

Furthermore, it’s important to note that the City of Sydney council has already failed to adequately control excessive housing density under its relaxed limits for this area; attempting to bypass even those by doubling the allowable density is unreasonable.

In summary, I strongly object to this proposal. Many residents in the area likely feel the same; however, I suspect that a number of them may not even be aware that it has been proposed.

26 April 2026
To Whom It May Concern,
Mixed Use Development - 903-921 Bourke St Waterloo - (EXH-113655238)
I am writing to formally object to the amended development proposal for 903-921 Bourke St Waterloo - (EXH-113655238), which now seeks to significantly increase the height and scale of the originally approved plan. The revised proposal represents a substantial departure from what was initially presented to the community. Doubling the building height is not a minor adjustment—it fundamentally alters the character of the area and has serious consequences for surrounding residents.

First, the increased height will result in the loss of existing city views from my property. These views are a key component of the amenity and value of my home. Their loss represents not only a significant reduction in quality of life, but also a decrease in property value.

Second, the proposal fails to adequately address infrastructure impacts. The increase in density will inevitably lead to greater traffic congestion in an area that is already under strain. There has been no meaningful commitment to improving transport options. Existing bus services are already overcrowded, and no additional services have been proposed to accommodate the increased population.

Third, the development raises serious concerns regarding community impact. The inclusion of additional social housing, without appropriate support infrastructure, risks exacerbating existing issues in the area. Residents already experience disturbances including late-night noise, antisocial behaviour, and public drunkenness. Increasing density without proper planning and safeguards will likely intensify these problems. I understand that a number of the proposed units will be small one bedroom apartments. Developments of this nature can present challenges if not supported by appropriate planning, management and community services. Without these measures in place, there is a risk of further strain on the local environment and community amenity.

In addition, residents have already endured prolonged disruption from ongoing and past construction in the area. This has included years of exposure to construction noise, dust, and general disturbance, both on weekdays and weekends. As someone working from home, these impacts have been particularly challenging, affecting daily life and the ability to work effectively. Extending or intensifying this level of disruption through a significantly larger development is unreasonable and unfair to existing residents.

The development has also already impacted the usability of my property. I have often been unable to use my balcony, which is my only outdoor space, due to excessive dust, noise, and unpleasant odours emanating from the site, including sewer-like smells. This has significantly reduced my ability to enjoy my home and outdoor living space.

Finally, there are existing environmental and health concerns that have not been addressed. Issues such as rodent activity are already present in the area, and higher population density may worsen these conditions if not properly managed.
In summary, the amended proposal prioritises increased scale and density at the expense of existing residents’ amenity, infrastructure capacity, and community wellbeing. I respectfully request that this application be refused.

Thank you for considering my objection.

The ammenities are not sufficient to support the current population, let alone an increase. The privatisation of the 320 and 304 along with limited 392 services - buses are unable to cope. The Metro is placed in Alexandria not Waterloo and is unsafe to be for older people and women after dark. The 304 needs to run more frequently in peak hour. The 320 needs to resume running at least to Wynyard (it used to go over the bridge but not only stops at Central). The proposed development doesn’t include gyms, pools, or sufficient parking for the area. Regardless of metro area requirements - you should follow ACT and build enough spots underground for everyone to own a car as you wish to put bikes on the roads. Most Australians road trip and have family interstate and prefer to have freedom of cars. This is not going to change. This removes parked cars and enables use of additional lanes without obscene construction costs. Additionally Crown st and Baptist st could use additional development and road redesign to allow flow of traffic and still support business. It is a major thoroughfare for Waterloo. The Bus Stop as you are travelling towards Zetland from the City past the Surry Hills Village but before Phillip St can be removed. Jutting out the bus lanes along crown creates traffic and stops the 8000 people living here being able to drive up it. That was a terrible decision and a waste of money - the flow of traffic is terrible. The height of the propose building is gargantuan and unnecessary. Current height approvals are more than sufficient. Additionally, the wind tunnel that exists along potter st and surrounding areas will be worsened. The density proposed is obscene without genuine thought out common sense logic. You fail to service the current population adequately and have already privatised the bus routes. Density will also be increased in surrounding areas like Zetland and Waterloo near the metro. Without adequate parking mandated for these buildings you will destroy Sydney. It is a wealthy city with wealthy people that want to be able to drive their nice car. We have to have cars for work, to see family, travel to investment properties or simply holiday without wanting to pay a gross amount to rent a car. Bit of a disgusting grab from the developer and would be an absolute blight on the current government administrations overseeing the go ahead that have failed to be able to think at a wholistic level thinking of every important part. Projects like this will kill Sydney if not done sensibly with action on community ammenities and the facilitation of the Australian Sydney lifestyle.