(1) The surrounding transportation networks, specifically public buses, are already congested esp. during peak hours. Additional footfall (passengers) from this proposed drastic increase in density on this development can only worsen the stressed transportation network. You can argue that this can be countered by increasing the number of buses plying the area but can you find the people (employees) to drive the buses? I say this from present day experience trying to catch a bus from Waterloo to the CBD during peak hours, which is a frustrating experience as there are not enough buses. Imagine the situation if this drastic increase in living density is approved;
(2) The surrounding streets are also already congested esp. during peak hours. Additional traffic (cars) from this planned increase in density can only worsen the surrounding stressed street networks;
(3) This development, walking distance wise, is not near to the Waterloo Metro nor the Green Square train stations to justify such a drastic increase in density from 376 to 581 apartments (an increase of 55%);
(4) I understand from the City of Sydney Council that there are no plans to increase the amount of communal open spaces despite proposing a drastic increase in density on this development. This surely will negatively impact the sustainable living standards for the Waterloo residents;
(5) I appreciate the current NSW Labor government's commitment to reduce pressure on housing prices and rents by uplifting housing supply in NSW. But please also understand that suburbs like Waterloo and Zetland have more than done its fair share of heavy lifting in this regards. It's well documented that Waterloo/Zetland is one of the most densely populated suburbs in NSW and it would only be fair for other suburbs to play their part in increasing housing supply for NSW.
In summary, I believe it's important to avoid such overly dense developments in Waterloo such as the SSDA for 903-921 Bourke Street. This is to sustain the liveability standards for the Waterloo residents.

I object to the proposed development on the basis of unacceptable impacts on residential amenity and inconsistency with established planning controls.

The proposed increase in building height (from 65m to 126m) and significant uplift in density will result in substantial overshadowing of surrounding properties, likely reducing solar access below the minimum standards outlined in the Apartment Design Guide. This will materially impact natural light, energy efficiency, and overall liveability.

The scale and height of the development will also introduce direct overlooking into neighbouring apartments, including my own, resulting in a loss of visual privacy that is inconsistent with NSW design principles for residential development.

Further, the proposed floor space ratio increase (from 1.5:1 to 3.2:1) represents an excessive departure from the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 and is not in keeping with the existing built form of the area. The cumulative impacts of overshadowing, privacy loss, increased density, and associated traffic and noise will result in an unreasonable reduction in quality of living for existing residents.

Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, these impacts must be appropriately considered. In its current form, the proposal fails to achieve a balanced and acceptable planning outcome.

I request that the application be refused or significantly amended to reduce height, bulk, and impacts on surrounding residents.

I object to this proposal on the basis of infrastructure capacity, transport limitations, and insufficient green space.
While I acknowledge that Sydney requires additional housing, this particular location is not suitable due to existing road constraints. The surrounding road network is already under significant pressure, with key intersections such as McEvoy Street turning onto Bourke Street and Lachlan Street turning onto Bourke Street being notably narrow and difficult to navigate. In practice, two standard-sized vehicles are often unable to turn simultaneously, and buses or trucks frequently require multiple lanes to complete these turns.
An increase in residents will inevitably lead to increased traffic volumes, and it is unclear how the current road infrastructure will accommodate this demand. There does not appear to be sufficient capacity to support higher density development without significant congestion and safety concerns.
In addition, the site is not conveniently located near high-capacity public transport. It is unclear whether there are plans to increase bus services connecting the development to nearby stations such as Redfern, or to improve access to the metro. However, given the already constrained road network, further reliance on buses may not be a viable solution. Clarification is needed on whether there are any plans to upgrade road infrastructure or provide alternative transport solutions beyond existing bus services.
A further concern is the lack of adequate green space to support an increased population. The proposal to reduce the size of Moore Park Golf Course is not supported, as the course contributes significant revenue to Greater Sydney Parklands, which helps fund important public spaces such as Parramatta Park and Centennial Park. Reducing this revenue stream may negatively impact the maintenance and quality of these broader parklands.
Given current economic conditions, it would be more prudent to prioritise investment in infrastructure and services before pursuing higher-density development in areas that are not well-equipped to support it.

I am writing to object to the proposed development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo. As a resident of 806 Bourke Street directly opposite, I have significant concerns.

While increased housing is important, this area is already experiencing substantial density growth, placing strain on infrastructure, transport, and local amenity. The proposed added building heights and additional apartments are a step too far.

The proposal underestimates impacts. The heights far exceed existing towers in Green Square and are inconsistent with the current neighbourhood character. Increased traffic, noise, and pedestrian congestion along Bourke and Potter Streets will worsen already high levels, including when adding an extra street. Public transport, particularly bus routes, already at capacity, and claims of minimal impact are unrealistic. Overshadowing, reduced light, and a street-level design that creates a dense, uninviting corridor are also key concerns. It was interesting to see CGI imagery from this angle was not provided. Note, McEvoy and Bourke streets will not be family & stroller friendly places to hang out as per the unrealistic CGI imagery offered. Parking provision, incl the added spaces squeezed within the same flooring for 200+ more units is inadequate and will further strain availability and traffic congestion. The findings in the applications from experts are clearly bias in favour of Dasco who have paid for the service. So, should all be taken with a grain of salt. Sarah George's watering down of the community engagement findings is a prime example.

Finally, claims regarding affordability and community benefit appear overstated and not reflective of local conditions. I.e. local citisens will not be able to afford these units.

This updated proposal represents overdevelopment and a cash grab from the builder without sufficient consideration of its impact on existing residents and infrastructure. Please do not allow this to proceed for the sake of the people who actually live here.

Dear Sir/Madam,

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

While development on this site has already commenced, this application appears to seek a substantial increase in building height and scale—effectively doubling the originally approved development. I strongly object to this escalation.

As a nearby resident located to the west of the site, with an east-facing apartment, I am particularly concerned about the impact this increased height (up to approximately 125m) will have on sunlight access and residential amenity. My apartment relies on morning sunlight, and a development of this scale is likely to significantly reduce or delay direct sunlight, particularly during winter months.

In addition, the proposed height and bulk will significantly reduce sky outlook and visual amenity. The development would become one of the tallest buildings in the immediate area and would dominate the outlook from surrounding residences, creating an overbearing built form and diminishing the sense of openness currently enjoyed.

The proposed increase in height and scale is excessive and does not appropriately respond to the surrounding built environment or the amenity of existing residents. It represents a material departure from what was originally approved and what the community would reasonably have expected.

I respectfully request that this proposed increase in height and scale be refused, or significantly reduced to mitigate impacts on neighbouring properties.

Thank you for considering my submission.

I support the project, I believe it will significantly improve housing affordability and availability in the area.

I would like to see the number of storeys and units significantly increased as well as units set aside for essential workers.

I'm currently the owner of unit 33 at 830 Bourke Street, living here for more than 8 years. I strongly object this project due to reasons below:
- Impacting current residents around the streets through blocking natural light & sight
- Pressure already limited resources in the area such as public transport, facilities and road traffic.
- Permanent impact on foot traffic and noise, this will undoubtably happen which will further impact our daily lives.
- There are TOO many apartments in Waterloo/Zetland area already, with a supply & demand issue and the increased scope of this DASCO project will only do harm to an already fragile economy in Sydney / Australia.

This project has been active for many years at the original plan, the fact DASCO has now applied to increase scope can only mean their initial project planning was very poor or they have stakeholder pressure to increase margins - this is at the cost of people's livelihoods and should not be approved by NSW Government.

Submission – Objection to SSD-95997711903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo

I am a nearby resident of O’Dea Avenue, Waterloo. I object to the proposed amendment to increase building height, density, and reduce key planning controls for the above development.

My concerns are outlined below.

1. Excessive Increase in Building Height (65m → 126m)The proposed increase in height is substantial and fundamentally alters the scale of the approved development.

This level of intensification is inconsistent with the existing built form and will result in:

Increased visual bulk and urban overdevelopment

Potential overshadowing impacts on surrounding residential areas

Reduced residential amenity for the local community

Such a significant departure from the current planning controls requires strong justification, which has not been adequately demonstrated.

2. Overdevelopment Through Increased Density (FSR 1.5:1 → 3.2:1)The proposed floor space ratio more than doubles the originally permitted density.

This raises serious concerns regarding:

Capacity of existing infrastructure (roads, parking, local services)

Increased traffic congestion in an already constrained road network

Pressure on local community facilities and open space

The proposal prioritises yield over liveability and does not align with sustainable urban planning principles.

3. Unjustified Removal of Key Planning ControlsThe proposal seeks to exclude:

Clause 6.21D (Competitive Design Process)

Clause 6.14 (Community Infrastructure Contributions)

These controls exist to ensure:

High-quality architectural outcomes

Adequate contributions to public infrastructure

Removing them while simultaneously increasing height and density is not appropriate and undermines the planning framework intended to protect community interests.

4. Inadequate Balance Between Public Benefit and Private GainWhile the proposal references increases in communal open space and non-residential floor area, these benefits are not proportionate to the scale of intensification proposed.

The development appears to deliver:

Significant additional private yield (over 200 additional apartments)

Limited and unclear public benefit in return

This imbalance is inconsistent with the principles of State Significant Development, which should demonstrate clear net public benefit.

5. Impact on Local Amenity and Residential CharacterThe cumulative effect of increased height, density, and reduced controls will result in:

Greater noise and activity levels

Reduced sense of space and privacy

Increased urban congestion

For existing residents, this represents a measurable decline in living conditions.

ConclusionThe proposed amendment represents a substantial intensification beyond the originally approved development, without sufficient justification or corresponding public benefit.

I respectfully request that the Department:

Reject the proposed increases in height and density; or

Require a significant redesign that aligns with existing planning controls and ensures appropriate community benefit.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Kind regards