Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Waterloo
,
New South Wales
Message
To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Attention: Chris Eldred, Contact Planner
Re: Objection to State Significant Development Application SSD-80441462 — Waterloo Mixed Use Development, 881–885 Bourke Street
Dear Assessment Team,
I am a resident of Danks Street in Waterloo, and I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the current proposal for SSD-80441462.
While I accept the necessity of urban density in this part of Sydney, the scale and form of the new proposal are represents an overdevelopment of the site that will impact public transport, recreational facilities, and road congestion.
1. Disproportionate height and negative visual impact
The plan for a 36-storey tower standing at 125 metres is grossly out of scale with the surrounding precinct. Most contemporary developments in this immediate area range from 4 to 13 storeys, meaning the proposed structure would be more than double the height of its neighbours. A tower of this magnitude is well suited to a primary transport hub, but it is fundamentally inappropriate for a mid-block location on Bourke Street.
2. Significant pressure on public transport
The Waterloo Metro requires a walk up a hill - not great in Summer or the rain, and not adequately lit at night.
Green Square station there is a 20 min walk - hot in summer with little shade on the route.
On Bourke Street, the 304, 320 and 392 bus routes are at capacity during commuter hours. Cyclists - those riding to work or parents cycling their kids to Bourke Street Primary School - are forced onto footpaths, clashing with groups of commuters waiting at bus stops.
On Cleveland Street, bus route 352 to Bondi Junction is also at capacity at peak hour.
And the nearest buses to get to the beaches - bus 374 to Coogee and Bus 333 to Bondi Beach - are at capacity.
The introduction of approximately 850 new dwellings will lead to a surge in demand that the current transport network cannot sustain without confirmed and significant upgrades to service frequency.
4. Worsening traffic and safety concerns
The local road network, particularly key intersections at Lachlan, Danks, and McEvoy Streets, is congested. We are seeing more motorists and motorcyclists using residential side streets as shortcuts. The provided Traffic Impact Assessment appears to overlook the cumulative effect of this project when combined with other major works nearby, such as the Dasco development and the Waterloo Estate renewal, which will collectively overwhelm local road capacity.
5. Deficiency in local social infrastructure
Our local community facilities are struggling to cope with the existing population. There are only two pools in the area, tennis courts and other sporting facilities are at capacity. This proposal adds a significant volume of new residents without offering any tangible contributions toward the social infrastructure required to support a healthy and functional community.
6. Limitations of proposed public space
While the inclusion of a central park is mentioned as a benefit, the actual design is insufficient. Enclosed by buildings ranging from 13 to 36 storeys, this space will be shadowed for much of the winter and offers very little in the way of utility. Without dedicated play areas or versatile green space, it cannot meet the recreational requirements of 850 new households, let alone provide a meaningful amenity for the broader Waterloo community.
7. Increased competition for street parking
The scarcity of on-street parking is a major point of friction in this precinct. A residential project of this density will inevitably lead to increased competition for the few available spots, as visitor and overflow parking will wash into the surrounding streets. This will negatively impact the quality of life for long-term residents and limit accessibility for those wishing to patronize local businesses on Danks and Bourke Streets.
Requested outcome
I urge the Department to refuse this application or insist on fundamental changes to the scheme. Specifically, I request a substantial reduction in the maximum building height to align with the surrounding built environment and a transparent, updated solar access review. Furthermore, any approved works must be subject to a strict and enforceable Construction Management Plan. I wish to clarify that I do not oppose the principle of developing this site; however, I strongly oppose the current scale and form of the proposal, which sits outside the reasonable limits of the current planning framework.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Yours sincerely,
Elizabeth Warner
Danks Street, Waterloo NSW
Attention: Chris Eldred, Contact Planner
Re: Objection to State Significant Development Application SSD-80441462 — Waterloo Mixed Use Development, 881–885 Bourke Street
Dear Assessment Team,
I am a resident of Danks Street in Waterloo, and I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the current proposal for SSD-80441462.
While I accept the necessity of urban density in this part of Sydney, the scale and form of the new proposal are represents an overdevelopment of the site that will impact public transport, recreational facilities, and road congestion.
1. Disproportionate height and negative visual impact
The plan for a 36-storey tower standing at 125 metres is grossly out of scale with the surrounding precinct. Most contemporary developments in this immediate area range from 4 to 13 storeys, meaning the proposed structure would be more than double the height of its neighbours. A tower of this magnitude is well suited to a primary transport hub, but it is fundamentally inappropriate for a mid-block location on Bourke Street.
2. Significant pressure on public transport
The Waterloo Metro requires a walk up a hill - not great in Summer or the rain, and not adequately lit at night.
Green Square station there is a 20 min walk - hot in summer with little shade on the route.
On Bourke Street, the 304, 320 and 392 bus routes are at capacity during commuter hours. Cyclists - those riding to work or parents cycling their kids to Bourke Street Primary School - are forced onto footpaths, clashing with groups of commuters waiting at bus stops.
On Cleveland Street, bus route 352 to Bondi Junction is also at capacity at peak hour.
And the nearest buses to get to the beaches - bus 374 to Coogee and Bus 333 to Bondi Beach - are at capacity.
The introduction of approximately 850 new dwellings will lead to a surge in demand that the current transport network cannot sustain without confirmed and significant upgrades to service frequency.
4. Worsening traffic and safety concerns
The local road network, particularly key intersections at Lachlan, Danks, and McEvoy Streets, is congested. We are seeing more motorists and motorcyclists using residential side streets as shortcuts. The provided Traffic Impact Assessment appears to overlook the cumulative effect of this project when combined with other major works nearby, such as the Dasco development and the Waterloo Estate renewal, which will collectively overwhelm local road capacity.
5. Deficiency in local social infrastructure
Our local community facilities are struggling to cope with the existing population. There are only two pools in the area, tennis courts and other sporting facilities are at capacity. This proposal adds a significant volume of new residents without offering any tangible contributions toward the social infrastructure required to support a healthy and functional community.
6. Limitations of proposed public space
While the inclusion of a central park is mentioned as a benefit, the actual design is insufficient. Enclosed by buildings ranging from 13 to 36 storeys, this space will be shadowed for much of the winter and offers very little in the way of utility. Without dedicated play areas or versatile green space, it cannot meet the recreational requirements of 850 new households, let alone provide a meaningful amenity for the broader Waterloo community.
7. Increased competition for street parking
The scarcity of on-street parking is a major point of friction in this precinct. A residential project of this density will inevitably lead to increased competition for the few available spots, as visitor and overflow parking will wash into the surrounding streets. This will negatively impact the quality of life for long-term residents and limit accessibility for those wishing to patronize local businesses on Danks and Bourke Streets.
Requested outcome
I urge the Department to refuse this application or insist on fundamental changes to the scheme. Specifically, I request a substantial reduction in the maximum building height to align with the surrounding built environment and a transparent, updated solar access review. Furthermore, any approved works must be subject to a strict and enforceable Construction Management Plan. I wish to clarify that I do not oppose the principle of developing this site; however, I strongly oppose the current scale and form of the proposal, which sits outside the reasonable limits of the current planning framework.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Yours sincerely,
Elizabeth Warner
Danks Street, Waterloo NSW
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
WATERLOO
,
New South Wales
Message
Dear City Council and the Environment Planning Department,
I object to the proposed development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.
I have been a resident and property owner in the One Lachlan community for over 8 years. Since settling here, I have lived in this neighbourhood continuously and have personally witnessed its gradual evolution from a relatively low-density area into a modest residential community. My family, including my young child, calls this area home, and we deeply value the peaceful, low-density character and strong sense of community that has been established over time. This is the first time that I initiated a submission in my life but I feel it is important to do so.
This proposal represents a significant and abrupt departure from the existing planning character of the area.
1. Excessive height and density inconsistent with local context
The proposed increase in height (up to approximately 126m, 38 storeys, another property building for up to 31 storeys) and density (around 580 apartments) is disproportionate to the established urban fabric. Surrounding developments have generally maintained moderate scale and density, contributing to a balanced and liveable environment. This proposal instead reflects a CBD-level intensity, which is not appropriate for this location.
2. Adverse impact on amenity (sunlight, views, privacy)
Given the scale and proximity of the development, it will have a substantial negative impact on neighbouring properties, including reduced solar access, loss of views, and decreased privacy. These impacts will directly affect the quality of life of existing residents.
3. Infrastructure and capacity constraints
The local area is not equipped to accommodate such a significant population increase. Streets in this precinct are relatively narrow, with limited capacity for increased traffic flow. Pedestrian pathways, local roads, and existing transport infrastructure are already constrained.
Adding hundreds of additional dwellings without corresponding infrastructure upgrades will place unsustainable pressure on:
Traffic and road networks
Public transport capacity
Waste and sewage systems
Public open space and community facilities
The proposal to waive or reduce infrastructure contributions is particularly concerning, as it shifts the burden onto the existing community.
4. Cumulative impact and planning precedent
Approving a development of this scale risks setting a precedent for further overdevelopment in the Waterloo precinct. This could fundamentally alter the character of the area, transforming it from a balanced residential community into an over-densified environment without adequate planning support.
5. Established community character and social impact
Over the past decade, this neighbourhood has developed into a cohesive, family-friendly community with a relatively low-density character. This has supported a high level of liveability, safety, and neighbourly interaction.
A sudden and substantial increase in density of this magnitude risks undermining these qualities and diminishing the overall residential experience.
6. Existing local services and community facilities are already at capacity
Beyond physical infrastructure, it is important to highlight that everyday community facilities and services in this area are already experiencing noticeable strain during peak periods.
In daily life, residents are increasingly facing congestion and long wait times for basic needs, including:
• Local medical centres and GP clinics
• Cafés, casual dining venues, and takeaway shops
• Supermarkets and essential retail
• Public open spaces and parks
Nearby parks and recreational areas, including playgrounds for children (such as swings, slides, and climbing structures), are frequently overcrowded, particularly during afternoons and weekends. Families often need to wait to access basic play equipment.
In addition, pet-related activities (such as dog walking areas and open green spaces) are already approaching saturation, reflecting the limited capacity of existing public space relative to current population levels.
These are not theoretical concerns, but observable day-to-day realities experienced by residents.
A substantial increase in population, without a corresponding and meaningful expansion of community infrastructure and public amenities, will further intensify these pressures and significantly reduce overall liveability in the area.
This reinforces the concern that the scale of the proposed development is not aligned with the current or planned capacity of the local community.
In summary, while I support thoughtful and appropriate urban development, this proposal is excessive in scale, inconsistent with the local context, and unsupported by adequate infrastructure planning.
I respectfully request that this proposal be refused, or significantly revised to better align with the established character, capacity, and long-term sustainability of the Waterloo community.
Kind regards,
A small local family that lived here over the past decade
I object to the proposed development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.
I have been a resident and property owner in the One Lachlan community for over 8 years. Since settling here, I have lived in this neighbourhood continuously and have personally witnessed its gradual evolution from a relatively low-density area into a modest residential community. My family, including my young child, calls this area home, and we deeply value the peaceful, low-density character and strong sense of community that has been established over time. This is the first time that I initiated a submission in my life but I feel it is important to do so.
This proposal represents a significant and abrupt departure from the existing planning character of the area.
1. Excessive height and density inconsistent with local context
The proposed increase in height (up to approximately 126m, 38 storeys, another property building for up to 31 storeys) and density (around 580 apartments) is disproportionate to the established urban fabric. Surrounding developments have generally maintained moderate scale and density, contributing to a balanced and liveable environment. This proposal instead reflects a CBD-level intensity, which is not appropriate for this location.
2. Adverse impact on amenity (sunlight, views, privacy)
Given the scale and proximity of the development, it will have a substantial negative impact on neighbouring properties, including reduced solar access, loss of views, and decreased privacy. These impacts will directly affect the quality of life of existing residents.
3. Infrastructure and capacity constraints
The local area is not equipped to accommodate such a significant population increase. Streets in this precinct are relatively narrow, with limited capacity for increased traffic flow. Pedestrian pathways, local roads, and existing transport infrastructure are already constrained.
Adding hundreds of additional dwellings without corresponding infrastructure upgrades will place unsustainable pressure on:
Traffic and road networks
Public transport capacity
Waste and sewage systems
Public open space and community facilities
The proposal to waive or reduce infrastructure contributions is particularly concerning, as it shifts the burden onto the existing community.
4. Cumulative impact and planning precedent
Approving a development of this scale risks setting a precedent for further overdevelopment in the Waterloo precinct. This could fundamentally alter the character of the area, transforming it from a balanced residential community into an over-densified environment without adequate planning support.
5. Established community character and social impact
Over the past decade, this neighbourhood has developed into a cohesive, family-friendly community with a relatively low-density character. This has supported a high level of liveability, safety, and neighbourly interaction.
A sudden and substantial increase in density of this magnitude risks undermining these qualities and diminishing the overall residential experience.
6. Existing local services and community facilities are already at capacity
Beyond physical infrastructure, it is important to highlight that everyday community facilities and services in this area are already experiencing noticeable strain during peak periods.
In daily life, residents are increasingly facing congestion and long wait times for basic needs, including:
• Local medical centres and GP clinics
• Cafés, casual dining venues, and takeaway shops
• Supermarkets and essential retail
• Public open spaces and parks
Nearby parks and recreational areas, including playgrounds for children (such as swings, slides, and climbing structures), are frequently overcrowded, particularly during afternoons and weekends. Families often need to wait to access basic play equipment.
In addition, pet-related activities (such as dog walking areas and open green spaces) are already approaching saturation, reflecting the limited capacity of existing public space relative to current population levels.
These are not theoretical concerns, but observable day-to-day realities experienced by residents.
A substantial increase in population, without a corresponding and meaningful expansion of community infrastructure and public amenities, will further intensify these pressures and significantly reduce overall liveability in the area.
This reinforces the concern that the scale of the proposed development is not aligned with the current or planned capacity of the local community.
In summary, while I support thoughtful and appropriate urban development, this proposal is excessive in scale, inconsistent with the local context, and unsupported by adequate infrastructure planning.
I respectfully request that this proposal be refused, or significantly revised to better align with the established character, capacity, and long-term sustainability of the Waterloo community.
Kind regards,
A small local family that lived here over the past decade
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Waterloo
,
New South Wales
Message
I strongly object to the proposed modifications for 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SSD-95997711).
I live on Archibald Avenue, about 280 metres from the site. I chose this area to raise my child and remain long-term in a connected, walkable community. This proposal undermines that.
I support additional housing. I do not support this scale or process.
The height increase from ~65m to 126m is excessive—nearly double—and wholly out of scale with Waterloo. It overrides established planning controls without any clear alternative vision. This is not strategic planning; it is ad hoc intensification and is in stark contradiction to the City of Sydney’s careful and considered approach about densification and its impacts.
This proposal sets a serious precedent. Approving a tower of this magnitude will weaken planning controls across the precinct. Impacts are obvious: overshadowing, wind, and a shift toward an overbearing CBD-style built form.
The housing offer does not justify this. The mix is dominated by small units, with only 20 three-bedroom units, and prices reportedly starting near $985,000. This does not support families, key workers, or a balanced community.
The affordable housing claim is not credible. It is not binding and can be paid out as cash. This development may deliver no affordable housing at all.
Key safeguards are being removed. The proposal seeks to bypass independent design review and infrastructure contributions despite a 55% increase in yield. Public benefit does not match private gain.
There are unresolved issues:
• Incomplete contamination assessment for new basements
• Wind modelling reliant on an unapproved development
Infrastructure impacts are understated. 233 extra dwellings are added with only 20 extra car spaces, shifting pressure to already strained public transport, as we experience in our daily commute to work. No cumulative assessment has been provided.
The State Significant Development pathway here appears to reduce scrutiny while enabling a more extreme outcome, undermining confidence in the planning system.
I request the following:
• Full contamination and wind revised assessments
• Independent design review
• Infrastructure contribution requirements review
• Cumulative transport assessment across all developments in the precinct
• Renegotiation of the VPA to reflect scale
• Secure binding, on-site affordable housing
This is an excessive, poorly justified proposal that prioritises short-term yield over long-term liveability and planning integrity.
Put simply, it should be refused.
Sincerely,
A very concerned local resident.
I live on Archibald Avenue, about 280 metres from the site. I chose this area to raise my child and remain long-term in a connected, walkable community. This proposal undermines that.
I support additional housing. I do not support this scale or process.
The height increase from ~65m to 126m is excessive—nearly double—and wholly out of scale with Waterloo. It overrides established planning controls without any clear alternative vision. This is not strategic planning; it is ad hoc intensification and is in stark contradiction to the City of Sydney’s careful and considered approach about densification and its impacts.
This proposal sets a serious precedent. Approving a tower of this magnitude will weaken planning controls across the precinct. Impacts are obvious: overshadowing, wind, and a shift toward an overbearing CBD-style built form.
The housing offer does not justify this. The mix is dominated by small units, with only 20 three-bedroom units, and prices reportedly starting near $985,000. This does not support families, key workers, or a balanced community.
The affordable housing claim is not credible. It is not binding and can be paid out as cash. This development may deliver no affordable housing at all.
Key safeguards are being removed. The proposal seeks to bypass independent design review and infrastructure contributions despite a 55% increase in yield. Public benefit does not match private gain.
There are unresolved issues:
• Incomplete contamination assessment for new basements
• Wind modelling reliant on an unapproved development
Infrastructure impacts are understated. 233 extra dwellings are added with only 20 extra car spaces, shifting pressure to already strained public transport, as we experience in our daily commute to work. No cumulative assessment has been provided.
The State Significant Development pathway here appears to reduce scrutiny while enabling a more extreme outcome, undermining confidence in the planning system.
I request the following:
• Full contamination and wind revised assessments
• Independent design review
• Infrastructure contribution requirements review
• Cumulative transport assessment across all developments in the precinct
• Renegotiation of the VPA to reflect scale
• Secure binding, on-site affordable housing
This is an excessive, poorly justified proposal that prioritises short-term yield over long-term liveability and planning integrity.
Put simply, it should be refused.
Sincerely,
A very concerned local resident.
Attachments
Lynette Preston
Object
Lynette Preston
Object
REDFERN
,
New South Wales
Message
For clarity - I am a supporter of higher density housing and have enjoyed engaging with the concept development for this location previously with the City of Sydney. The development as planned was well considered and commendable.
The concerns raised at the community consultation online meeting over the proposed modifications in my view were largely reasonable and real. The revised plans are not minor modifications, they comprise a just under 70% increase in density. That is massive! I understand and support the urgency for more housing but object to this 70% increase as I believe it is excessive for this site on the following grounds:
1. Public transport.
This block (together with the increased numbers approved for the adjoining development) will all pour out into Bourke St to utilise the bus network as it is at its doorstep. They will not use the Waterloo Metro as it’s a 20 minute walk away. No other options are close enough to consider. The Bourke Street stop is already at capacity at peak hour even before buses arrive at this stop. The likely demographic of the proposed additional cohort will be added to this queue. It’s unworkable.
The report states a breezy “ the state government plans additional services to deal with this”. And that’s that? We kick the can down the road with one Hail Mary line, washing of hands and let’s move on? It’s poor planning to jam 70% more occupants on a block without the demonstrable ability for the infrastructure to deal with it. The developer won’t care - but our State Govt planners should. The impact is not “moderate” as stated - it’s severe.
2. Additional vehicles on the roads.
The social impact report stated a view that few of the demographic will likely be car owners. That is not what I’ve perceived to be the reality so far in the Green Square area. Even if 50% are car users this is not insignificant. The existing roadways are at capacity, and this reality cannot be massaged away with a breezy comment.
3. Open space
The revised proposal suggests additional outdoor amenity has been provided for this 70% increase. The addition of an ad hoc patchwork of outdoor areas, many positioned on small wind blown areas at high level, or landlocked with no solar access at ground do not credibly supply the amenity promised. Poor amenity does not a happy community make. My concern is the lack of adequate external areas for this number of planned residents will degrade its attractiveness and usage in the mid to long term. Impacting on the block and the neighbourhood.
Closing, I understand and support the urgency for more housing but we want good outcomes now and into the future. The addition of 70% more housing to this location is excessive. It will add to the overwhelming the local transport network. It does not provide additional quality outdoor recreational space which will impact on this community and its surrounds.
The % increase needs to be reduced & open space rethought.
Sincerely,
Lynette Preston
The concerns raised at the community consultation online meeting over the proposed modifications in my view were largely reasonable and real. The revised plans are not minor modifications, they comprise a just under 70% increase in density. That is massive! I understand and support the urgency for more housing but object to this 70% increase as I believe it is excessive for this site on the following grounds:
1. Public transport.
This block (together with the increased numbers approved for the adjoining development) will all pour out into Bourke St to utilise the bus network as it is at its doorstep. They will not use the Waterloo Metro as it’s a 20 minute walk away. No other options are close enough to consider. The Bourke Street stop is already at capacity at peak hour even before buses arrive at this stop. The likely demographic of the proposed additional cohort will be added to this queue. It’s unworkable.
The report states a breezy “ the state government plans additional services to deal with this”. And that’s that? We kick the can down the road with one Hail Mary line, washing of hands and let’s move on? It’s poor planning to jam 70% more occupants on a block without the demonstrable ability for the infrastructure to deal with it. The developer won’t care - but our State Govt planners should. The impact is not “moderate” as stated - it’s severe.
2. Additional vehicles on the roads.
The social impact report stated a view that few of the demographic will likely be car owners. That is not what I’ve perceived to be the reality so far in the Green Square area. Even if 50% are car users this is not insignificant. The existing roadways are at capacity, and this reality cannot be massaged away with a breezy comment.
3. Open space
The revised proposal suggests additional outdoor amenity has been provided for this 70% increase. The addition of an ad hoc patchwork of outdoor areas, many positioned on small wind blown areas at high level, or landlocked with no solar access at ground do not credibly supply the amenity promised. Poor amenity does not a happy community make. My concern is the lack of adequate external areas for this number of planned residents will degrade its attractiveness and usage in the mid to long term. Impacting on the block and the neighbourhood.
Closing, I understand and support the urgency for more housing but we want good outcomes now and into the future. The addition of 70% more housing to this location is excessive. It will add to the overwhelming the local transport network. It does not provide additional quality outdoor recreational space which will impact on this community and its surrounds.
The % increase needs to be reduced & open space rethought.
Sincerely,
Lynette Preston
Kenelm Winslow
Object
Kenelm Winslow
Object
WATERLOO
,
New South Wales
Message
I object to increase the number of levels in this (and the developement next to it) in this project. The near doubling of levels is going to create a massive burden on the local infrastructure. The council had previously approved the developments whilst taking into account a variety of aspects (including infrastructure) and this should be honoured. The application provides for no further green space and public amenities dispite the near doubling of levels and inferring residents. It is also out of character for the area. 31-38 levels is rediculus. Most buildings around us a under 20, with only a few just above.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
WATERLOO
,
New South Wales
Message
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed amendment to the above building project.
Based on the submitted plans and supporting documents, including the architectural drawings provided, it is evident that the amendment seeks to introduce an additional 204 units, primarily concentrated within a high-rise structure. This represents a significant increase in density and is further reflected in the substantial change to the floor space ratio.
My concerns are as follows:
1. Departure from established planning principles
I do not support amendments that effectively grant exceptions or special treatment that appear to benefit a single developer, particularly where this diverges from the intent of existing planning controls. Developments should remain consistent with the framework under which the land was acquired and assessed.
2. Increased population density and community impact
The proposed increase in density raises concerns about cumulative pressure on local infrastructure and services. This includes schools, childcare, recreational facilities, and general community amenities. There is no clear indication within the proposal of corresponding upgrades or expansions to support the additional population.
3. Transport and accessibility
The documentation does not demonstrate sufficient improvements to public transport or traffic management to accommodate the expected increase in residents. Without meaningful enhancements—such as expanded public transport options or traffic mitigation measures—the surrounding area is likely to experience increased congestion.
4. Local traffic and neighbourhood character
An increase in residents will inevitably lead to higher vehicle usage, particularly during peak hours. This is likely to impact the safety, accessibility, and overall character of currently quieter residential streets.
5. Environmental and amenity impacts
The scale and proximity of the proposed high-rise raise legitimate concerns regarding potential impacts such as overshadowing, wind effects, waste management, and pressure on existing infrastructure systems. These factors may negatively affect the amenity of nearby residences.
While I acknowledge the potential benefits associated with additional commercial activity in the area, I do not consider that these outweigh the broader impacts of the proposed increase in residential density under the current amendment.
In summary, I do not support the introduction of significantly taller buildings or increased density in this neighbourhood without comprehensive and clearly demonstrated infrastructure, transport, and community planning to support it.
Thank you for considering my submission.
I am writing to formally object to the proposed amendment to the above building project.
Based on the submitted plans and supporting documents, including the architectural drawings provided, it is evident that the amendment seeks to introduce an additional 204 units, primarily concentrated within a high-rise structure. This represents a significant increase in density and is further reflected in the substantial change to the floor space ratio.
My concerns are as follows:
1. Departure from established planning principles
I do not support amendments that effectively grant exceptions or special treatment that appear to benefit a single developer, particularly where this diverges from the intent of existing planning controls. Developments should remain consistent with the framework under which the land was acquired and assessed.
2. Increased population density and community impact
The proposed increase in density raises concerns about cumulative pressure on local infrastructure and services. This includes schools, childcare, recreational facilities, and general community amenities. There is no clear indication within the proposal of corresponding upgrades or expansions to support the additional population.
3. Transport and accessibility
The documentation does not demonstrate sufficient improvements to public transport or traffic management to accommodate the expected increase in residents. Without meaningful enhancements—such as expanded public transport options or traffic mitigation measures—the surrounding area is likely to experience increased congestion.
4. Local traffic and neighbourhood character
An increase in residents will inevitably lead to higher vehicle usage, particularly during peak hours. This is likely to impact the safety, accessibility, and overall character of currently quieter residential streets.
5. Environmental and amenity impacts
The scale and proximity of the proposed high-rise raise legitimate concerns regarding potential impacts such as overshadowing, wind effects, waste management, and pressure on existing infrastructure systems. These factors may negatively affect the amenity of nearby residences.
While I acknowledge the potential benefits associated with additional commercial activity in the area, I do not consider that these outweigh the broader impacts of the proposed increase in residential density under the current amendment.
In summary, I do not support the introduction of significantly taller buildings or increased density in this neighbourhood without comprehensive and clearly demonstrated infrastructure, transport, and community planning to support it.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
WATERLOO
,
New South Wales
Message
Formal Submission of Strong Objection to SSD-95997711 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.
I am a resident of Waterloo and I strongly object to the proposed major amendments to the approved development at 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SSD-95997711).
This proposal seeks to dramatically increase the height and density of the development: from 12 to 31 storeys on Bourke Street North, and from 21 to 38 storeys on the Young Street Tower, adding 233 apartments beyond what was originally approved by the City of Sydney. This represents a radical and unacceptable departure from the approved concept.
My objections are based on direct impact this will have on my daily life as a resident:
Our suburb is already overpopulated and under-resourced. The Waterloo/Zetland area is already struggling to accommodate its existing population. According to official ABS-derived estimates, the Waterloo–Zetland area already has a population density of approximately 16,308 persons per square kilometre, compared to just 8,892 per square kilometre across the broader City of Sydney LGA. Adding hundreds more apartments, on top of the many other approved developments already in the pipeline, into one of most crowded neighbourhoods, with no meaningful uplift in infrastructure or services, is reckless planning.
Public transport is already overwhelmed. The newly opened Waterloo Metro station is already overcrowded under its current, partial line operation. It is deeply irresponsible to approve a massive increase in residential density.
The area is already experiencing a clear shortage of basic services and amenities. We do not even have a local post office! I need to go to Strawberry Hills to collect parcels.Libraries and community spaces are already overcrowded. This development will add hundreds more residents to an area that already cannot provide for the people who live here. High-density development must be accompanied by meaningful investment in open space and public amenities, which this proposal fails to provide.
Traffic in this area is already a serious problem. The intersection of McEvoy Street, Bourke Street and South Dowling Street is heavily congested throughout the day — dangerous and frustrating for drivers and pedestrians alike. A significant increase in the local population will make an already difficult situation far worse. A trip to the supermarket currently means either waiting through two traffic lights for 15 minutes each way to travel three blocks, or hauling heavy bags on foot a few times a week. This is the reality of living here now, before any further development.
Green space is virtually non-existent for local residents. The area has only very small local parks that is entirely inadequate not only for the current population but even for the walking dogs. Proponents of high-density development in this area often point to Moore Park as nearby open space, but this is not entirely correct as the overwhelming majority of Moore Park's land is occupied by a golf course.
Good planning requires alignment between density, infrastructure, transport capacity, and amenity. This proposal prioritises density uplift without delivering the necessary supporting infrastructure, resulting in an unbalanced and unsustainable outcome.
For these reasons I urge the NSW Government to reject this application in its entirety. The proposed scale increase is excessive, out of character with the neighbourhood, and will cause real harm to the quality of life of existing residents.
I am a resident of Waterloo and I strongly object to the proposed major amendments to the approved development at 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SSD-95997711).
This proposal seeks to dramatically increase the height and density of the development: from 12 to 31 storeys on Bourke Street North, and from 21 to 38 storeys on the Young Street Tower, adding 233 apartments beyond what was originally approved by the City of Sydney. This represents a radical and unacceptable departure from the approved concept.
My objections are based on direct impact this will have on my daily life as a resident:
Our suburb is already overpopulated and under-resourced. The Waterloo/Zetland area is already struggling to accommodate its existing population. According to official ABS-derived estimates, the Waterloo–Zetland area already has a population density of approximately 16,308 persons per square kilometre, compared to just 8,892 per square kilometre across the broader City of Sydney LGA. Adding hundreds more apartments, on top of the many other approved developments already in the pipeline, into one of most crowded neighbourhoods, with no meaningful uplift in infrastructure or services, is reckless planning.
Public transport is already overwhelmed. The newly opened Waterloo Metro station is already overcrowded under its current, partial line operation. It is deeply irresponsible to approve a massive increase in residential density.
The area is already experiencing a clear shortage of basic services and amenities. We do not even have a local post office! I need to go to Strawberry Hills to collect parcels.Libraries and community spaces are already overcrowded. This development will add hundreds more residents to an area that already cannot provide for the people who live here. High-density development must be accompanied by meaningful investment in open space and public amenities, which this proposal fails to provide.
Traffic in this area is already a serious problem. The intersection of McEvoy Street, Bourke Street and South Dowling Street is heavily congested throughout the day — dangerous and frustrating for drivers and pedestrians alike. A significant increase in the local population will make an already difficult situation far worse. A trip to the supermarket currently means either waiting through two traffic lights for 15 minutes each way to travel three blocks, or hauling heavy bags on foot a few times a week. This is the reality of living here now, before any further development.
Green space is virtually non-existent for local residents. The area has only very small local parks that is entirely inadequate not only for the current population but even for the walking dogs. Proponents of high-density development in this area often point to Moore Park as nearby open space, but this is not entirely correct as the overwhelming majority of Moore Park's land is occupied by a golf course.
Good planning requires alignment between density, infrastructure, transport capacity, and amenity. This proposal prioritises density uplift without delivering the necessary supporting infrastructure, resulting in an unbalanced and unsustainable outcome.
For these reasons I urge the NSW Government to reject this application in its entirety. The proposed scale increase is excessive, out of character with the neighbourhood, and will cause real harm to the quality of life of existing residents.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
WATERLOO
,
New South Wales
Message
Submission of Strong Objection
Project: 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SSD-95997711)
Objector Role: Resident of NO.1 Lachlan (Directly Affected Party)
To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,
I am a resident of NO.1 Lachlan, located in close proximity to the proposed development at 903-921 Bourke Street. I am writing to formally lodge my strong objection to the SSDA modification submitted by DASCO. This proposal is not a minor adjustment; it is a radical departure from the approved planning framework that will cause immediate harm to the residential amenity of existing neighbours and the planning integrity of the Green Square precinct.
My objection is based on the following grounds:
1. Severe and Unacceptable Impact on Solar Access and Outlook The proposed height increase from 65m to a maximum of 126m represents an unprecedented 94% increase in scale. Specifically, the modification seeks to raise the Young St North (YSN) tower to 38 storeys and the Young St South (YSS) tower to 31 storeys.
Direct Overshadowing: The applicant’s own shadow diagrams (specifically for 21 June, 12pm–3pm) confirm that the proposed scheme results in significant additional overshadowing to NO.1 Lachlan compared to the approved envelope.
Loss of Winter Solar Access: During the critical midday period, when many apartments in our building currently receive vital direct sunlight, the shadows will now extend across our building. The drawings indicate that many apartments would receive less than 2 hours of solar access under this scenario.
Loss of Sky View: The scale of the proposed massing will result in a tangible loss of sky view and open outlook, which are essential components of our daily liveability and wellbeing.
2. Gross Overdevelopment and Excessive Density The request to more than double the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 1.5:1 to 3.2:1 (to accommodate approximately 580 apartments) represents an unjustified intensification. This level of density prioritises developer yield over the residential amenity of the surrounding community and significantly exceeds what the surrounding urban context can reasonably accommodate.
3. Avoidance of Critical Infrastructure Obligations (Clause 6.14) I strongly object to the proposed exclusion of Clause 6.14 (Community Infrastructure floor space at Green Square). The additional population generated by this development will place massive demand on local roads, public transport, and wastewater systems. It is inequitable to allow a developer to double their yield while seeking to bypass the infrastructure contributions required to mitigate these impacts on the existing community.
4. Undermining Design Quality and Planning Controls (Clause 6.21D) The proposal seeks to bypass the Competitive Design Process, which is a key mechanism in the City of Sydney for ensuring architectural excellence. For towers of this height (126m), avoiding this process undermines public confidence in the final built form and weakens the planning governance intended to protect the visual amenity of our neighbourhood.
5. Negative Planning Precedent Approving such a fundamental redesign and departure from established controls would set a dangerous precedent for the Waterloo / Green Square precinct, effectively signalling that strategic planning controls and solar rights can be bypassed for commercial gain.
Conclusion
This proposal represents an excessive intensification that will have clear and lasting negative impacts on the residents of NO.1 Lachlan, specifically through the loss of solar access and increased pressure on local infrastructure.
I respectfully request that the Department refuse this application. At a minimum, the project should be restricted to the originally approved scale and required to fully comply with all infrastructure contributions and design review processes.
Sincerely,
Resident of NO.1 Lachlan - 2 Thread Lane, Waterloo
Project: 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SSD-95997711)
Objector Role: Resident of NO.1 Lachlan (Directly Affected Party)
To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,
I am a resident of NO.1 Lachlan, located in close proximity to the proposed development at 903-921 Bourke Street. I am writing to formally lodge my strong objection to the SSDA modification submitted by DASCO. This proposal is not a minor adjustment; it is a radical departure from the approved planning framework that will cause immediate harm to the residential amenity of existing neighbours and the planning integrity of the Green Square precinct.
My objection is based on the following grounds:
1. Severe and Unacceptable Impact on Solar Access and Outlook The proposed height increase from 65m to a maximum of 126m represents an unprecedented 94% increase in scale. Specifically, the modification seeks to raise the Young St North (YSN) tower to 38 storeys and the Young St South (YSS) tower to 31 storeys.
Direct Overshadowing: The applicant’s own shadow diagrams (specifically for 21 June, 12pm–3pm) confirm that the proposed scheme results in significant additional overshadowing to NO.1 Lachlan compared to the approved envelope.
Loss of Winter Solar Access: During the critical midday period, when many apartments in our building currently receive vital direct sunlight, the shadows will now extend across our building. The drawings indicate that many apartments would receive less than 2 hours of solar access under this scenario.
Loss of Sky View: The scale of the proposed massing will result in a tangible loss of sky view and open outlook, which are essential components of our daily liveability and wellbeing.
2. Gross Overdevelopment and Excessive Density The request to more than double the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 1.5:1 to 3.2:1 (to accommodate approximately 580 apartments) represents an unjustified intensification. This level of density prioritises developer yield over the residential amenity of the surrounding community and significantly exceeds what the surrounding urban context can reasonably accommodate.
3. Avoidance of Critical Infrastructure Obligations (Clause 6.14) I strongly object to the proposed exclusion of Clause 6.14 (Community Infrastructure floor space at Green Square). The additional population generated by this development will place massive demand on local roads, public transport, and wastewater systems. It is inequitable to allow a developer to double their yield while seeking to bypass the infrastructure contributions required to mitigate these impacts on the existing community.
4. Undermining Design Quality and Planning Controls (Clause 6.21D) The proposal seeks to bypass the Competitive Design Process, which is a key mechanism in the City of Sydney for ensuring architectural excellence. For towers of this height (126m), avoiding this process undermines public confidence in the final built form and weakens the planning governance intended to protect the visual amenity of our neighbourhood.
5. Negative Planning Precedent Approving such a fundamental redesign and departure from established controls would set a dangerous precedent for the Waterloo / Green Square precinct, effectively signalling that strategic planning controls and solar rights can be bypassed for commercial gain.
Conclusion
This proposal represents an excessive intensification that will have clear and lasting negative impacts on the residents of NO.1 Lachlan, specifically through the loss of solar access and increased pressure on local infrastructure.
I respectfully request that the Department refuse this application. At a minimum, the project should be restricted to the originally approved scale and required to fully comply with all infrastructure contributions and design review processes.
Sincerely,
Resident of NO.1 Lachlan - 2 Thread Lane, Waterloo