I object to the development.

I have reviewed the following documentation,
-E3 Design Report A2 Solar Access
-F1 Visual Impact Assessment
I believe that these documents have been prepared without consideration of the visual and solar access to our existing community at 1 Danks Street.

1 Danks Street has west -facing habitable spaces which will be impacted by the proposed uplift in bulk and scale of the development beyond the existing approved height envelope.

1 Dank Street has a west facing elevation that contains,
-private open space as roof top terraces,
-floor to ceiling glass to habitable space on Level 3,
-floor to ceiling glass on habitable space and communal open space on Level 2,
-Void to Level 1 which provides light to communal open space which includes a substantive garden and is the only natural solar access for commercial occupants.

I would like to see a survey that adequately plots our buildings features in relation to the proposed development and an updated view and solar report to enable me to determine the view and solar impacts proposed by this development.

Thank you for your consideration of my submission.

as attached letter thanks.

Objection to Development Application
Application number: SSD-80441462

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the proposed development application located near my office at 1 Danks street Waterloo

My concerns primarily relate to the impact that the construction period will have on the surrounding area. The expected long duration of construction is likely to result in persistent noise disturbances and potential traffic obstruction. These disruptions will significantly affect daily operations for nearby businesses, including my own, as well as create unnecessary inconvenience for local residents.

Furthermore, prolonged construction activity may introduce additional issues such as reduced accessibility, safety risks, and interruptions to essential services. Such impacts will undermine the amenity and productivity of the local community over an extended period.

For the above reasons, I respectfully request that the Council carefully reconsider this application and make appropriate changes to this development plan.

Thank you for considering my submission. I would appreciate being kept informed of any further consultations or decisions regarding this development.

Yours faithfully,
Sharen Tan

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission for SSD-80441462 Waterloo Mixed Use Development 881-885 Bourke Street.

I object to this proposal.

The reasons are as follows.

1. Intensification of illegal and dangerous driving behaviour leading to increased risk of pedestrian injuries, at the following intersections:
1.(a) Morehead St and McEvoy St. This intersection is currently congested at peak and near-peak times. Drivers turning right into Morehead St from McEvoy St routinely ignore the lawful requirement to give way to pedestrians concurrently crossing Morehead St (page 101 NSW Road User Handbook). This proposal would likely increase congestion at this intersection, leading to increased pressure for these turning drivers to turn quickly with reduced awareness of pedestrian activity. This would increase risk of injury to pedestrians walking down McEvoy St.
At the same time, other approved/planned developments (e.g. Dasco project, 267 Young St (Woolworths), 228-222 Young St, and also the Waterloo Renewal Project) will cumulatively result in greatly increased pedestrian activity at this section of McEvoy.
This intersection has been not been included in the Traffic Impact Assessment, however needs to be considered as this will be the most straightforward way for drivers from Waterloo 881-885 to travel west on McEvoy St, including towards the M8. (Table 8-1 of the Traffic Impact Assessment 25420 shows no cars turning right (west) into McEvoy, demonstrating that the existing analysis is insufficient to model actual driver behaviour and impact to surrounding areas.)

1.(b) Young St and McEvoy St. Drivers travelling south on Young St occasionally ignore the 'left-turn only' control at the McEvoy intersection and illegally turn right on McEvoy St or continue straight into Young St south. This illegal behaviour is not modelled in the Traffic Impact Assessment and needs to be taken into account. Increasing the number of cars using Young St is likely to increase this behaviour, with increased risk to pedestrians. Again, pedestrian use of this area can be expected to greatly increase due to other planned/approved development projects (listed in 1.(a)).
(Note: Table 5-2 in the Traffic Impact Assessment 25420 incorrectly states that there is a 'No Right Turn' control from Young Street to McEvoy St. Table 8-1 correctly models this as a 'Left-Turn Only' control.)

1.(c) Bourke St, Phillip St and Crescent St. This intersection is currently over capacity, and drivers routinely drive through red lights in order to move through the intersection. Anecdotally, I would conservatively estimate that approximately 70-80% of signal changes for peak and near-peak times have drivers going through red lights in order to go through the intersection. This intersection is a very high traffic pedestrian area. Table 8-3 shows this proposal will significantly increase road use and congestion at intersections of Bourke St and Potter St, and Bourke St and Danks St (which is already rated F overly congested on weekends). The traffic impact modelling needs to be extended to the adjacent intersection of Bourke St, Phillip St and Crescent St, as the proposed development is likely to further increase congestion and therefore the risk of dangerous driving leading to pedestrian injury at this intersection.

2. Increased traffic congestion.
2.(a) The additional congestion from this proposal is downplayed within the TIA however the analysis clearly demonstrates substantial increases to congestion and the mitigation actions proposed are limited to a short section of Bourke St.
The Traffic Impact Assessment modelling demonstrates significantly increased congestion at Bourke & Lachlan St, Bourke & Potter St, and Bourke and Danks St (which is not highlighted as a significant impact in Table 8-3 Weekend Peak as it is currently rated F over congested). As mentioned previously, this modelling does not currently consider the likely downstream impacts of the increased traffic at the intersection of Bourke St/Phillip St/Crescent St, and the intersection of Morehead St and McEvoy St.
While mitigation options are suggested (but not assured within this proposal), removal of car-parking spaces on Bourke St (Figure 8-2) will only fix some localised congestion and not the already existing congestion at Bourke St and Lachlan (which is partially a result of gridlock emanating from existing congestion at the Lachlan St/Dacey St/M1 intersection), Bourke St and Danks St (already over congested on weekends), and Bourke St/Phillip St/Crescent St (which is not included in the modelling at all).

2.(b) Additionally, the modelled 2% increase in local traffic growth does not appear to fully account for other planned/approved developments in the area. For example, this development alongside the Waterloo Renewal Project will likely greatly increase traffic and congestion at the Wellington St and Elizabeth St intersection. That intersection is currently part of a rat run used to avoid major intersections such as McEvoy St and Elizabeth St. Adding several thousand new homes across either side of that intersection will likely result in a substantial environmental impact for those streets and the surrounding streets. These streets currently have a suburban character and increased traffic flow may have a substantive impact to the local community. Again, this impact should be explicitly modelled in the proposal for allow for proper planning and community consultation.

3. Inadequate application of the standard TIA methodology leading to insufficient focus on road safety.
This extends from the previous two points (i.e. 1.(a,b,c) and 2.(a,b)). The 'NSW Guide to Transport Impact Assessments' provides guidelines for TIAs. The prior points support the argument that this TIA (G Transport Impact Assessment_Updated_21Oct25) does not adequately follow these guidelines, as the analysis currently (a) does not adequately identify the 'area of influence and surrounding traffic networks' (i.e. TIA Table 5-1 needs to include Morehead St, Crescent St and Phillip St); (b) does not adequately analyse local pedestrian activity and the impact of the development on this activity (no formal analysis is described for pedestrian activity in TIA section 5, just some generic language indicating that there are no pedestrian-related issues to consider); (c) does not prioritise road safety but instead has a focus on congestion management (Table 5-5 is presented for historial data but there is no formal analysis presented that accounts for future road risks as a result of this proposal). I appreciate that analyses such as the TIA rely on analytic assumptions and boundaries, and that a huge amount of work has gone into this TIA. However, it is also incumbent on this proposal to provide confidence that all significant road safety issues have been identified and analysed.

4. The Build Form of the proposed buildings is greatly out of character with the local vicinity. There has been a lot of development in the local area over the past few decades, however the imposing height and bulk of the proposed buildings is several orders of magnitude greater than any other local development. As a result, the proposed design will greatly detract from the overall character of the local community and built environment, introducing an overly imposing built presence over the Danks St commercial block and adjacent area of Young St, and a ridiculously out-of-place tall building on Bourke St. It is notable that the SSDA Design Report presents few arguments that the proposed buildings are in harmony or alignment with the existing local environment and character. (For example, within E1 Architectural Design Report: p.32 states there is a strategy of taller buildings but offers almost no design rationale for above the streetwall heights and stepped form; p.46 describes considerations for residential upper without any reference to aligning with the current local built environment; p.48 describes architctural harmony within the site, but not between the site and the current local built environment; p.59 describes a "sculpted skyline" and "dynamic skyline" which can be interpreted as essentially value-free statements for describing the excessive bulk and height of the proposed buildings.) This suggests that alignment or hamonisation of the excessively tall and/or bulky proposed buildings with the current local built environment is not a substantive focus or consideration within this proposal.

I recognise that the recent development of the local area has created a vibrant community, and would like to voice my support for reasonable development in this area. I am looking forward to the adjacent Dasco development project being completed. In contrast, this proposal is greatly excessive in size with a jarring and out-of-character build form, and the impact on the surrounding environment has been inadequately analysed particularly in relation to road safety. In line with this, I object to this proposal but would be supportive of a more reasonable and better planned/integrated mixed-use development at this site.

as per attached letter

please see attached