The proposal is way too big for the area. Will cause strain on infrastructure such as the (non-existent) public transport will be an eyesore on Bourke Street. We need more green space, not more ugly tall towers that cause wind tunnels and overshadowing.

Waterloo is already the most densely populated suburb in Australia, it does not need more mega towers.

Subject: Submission – SSD-95997711 (903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo)

I am writing to provide my submission regarding the proposed amendment to the development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.

As a resident of the Tiara building facing Bourke Street, I will be directly impacted by this proposal. Given the building’s orientation (West facing to Bourke Street) and close proximity to the site, these impacts are not limited to my dwelling but are likely to affect multiple residences within the building.

While I acknowledge the need for additional housing, I have significant concerns regarding the proposed increase in building height and density.

The increase in height (up to 126m) will introduce a much larger built form directly opposite existing residences. This will result in substantial overshadowing, particularly affecting west-facing apartments in the Tiara building. The loss of natural light will be material and will directly reduce the amenity and liveability of these homes.

In addition, Bourke Street in this section is relatively narrow and already experiences consistent traffic. Introducing a development of this scale in such close proximity will:
- Create a noticeably darker streetscape due to increased building bulk and reduced light penetration
- Increase noise levels for existing residents
- Further intensify traffic congestion as a result of the significant increase in the number of apartments and residents

These impacts are cumulative and will significantly affect the quality of life of current residents in the surrounding area.

In its current form, the proposed amendment is not appropriate for the existing urban context and places a disproportionate burden on neighbouring properties. I respectfully request that the scale of the proposal be reconsidered, with a reduction in height and density to better balance the need for development with the preservation of residential amenity.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission.

Kind regards,
Nicolas Van De Walle
113/804 Bourke Street Waterloo,
2017 NSW

I wish to formally object to the proposed modifications to the approved residential development, specifically the increase in building height. The revised proposal introduces excessive height and density that is inconsistent with the surrounding character and exceeds what was originally deemed appropriate.
The increased scale will place undue strain on already limited local infrastructure, including transport, schools, healthcare services, and public amenities, which are not equipped to support the intensified population.
Furthermore, the proposal fails to adequately address the imbalance between development and community needs, resulting in diminished amenity, overcrowding, and a reduced quality of life for existing residents.
For these reasons, I strongly oppose the proposed changes and request that the original approved parameters be maintained.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed amendments for the development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.

The requested changes represent a substantial and disproportionate increase in building height, with one structure rising from 21 to 38 storeys and another from 12 to 31 storeys. This escalation goes far beyond a minor modification and fundamentally alters the scale, character, and impact of the original proposal.

Such significant increases raise serious concerns:

- Overdevelopment and scale: The proposed heights are excessive for the area and are inconsistent with the existing and planned urban character of Waterloo. This risks setting an undesirable precedent for future developments.
- Overshadowing and loss of amenity: The additional height will likely result in increased overshadowing of surrounding residential areas, reducing natural light, privacy, and overall liveability for current residents.
- Infrastructure strain: A development of this intensified scale will place additional pressure on local infrastructure, including traffic, public transport, schools, and community services, which may already be operating near capacity.
- Wind, visual, and environmental impacts: Taller buildings can create adverse wind tunnels, visual bulk, and broader environmental impacts that have not been adequately justified in the amendment.

The magnitude of these changes suggests a departure from the original planning intent and warrants careful reconsideration. Approving such a substantial increase without clear, demonstrated community benefit undermines confidence in the planning process.

For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposed amendments and request that they be rejected, or at minimum, subjected to a more rigorous review with genuine community consultation.

Sincerely,
Fatih Gurcaglar

Good afternoon,

I am a resident living nearby who is concerned about the proposed increase in the number of apartments (to 38 storeys!).

I am not a NIMBY. I don't oppose an increase, but the size of this increase is concerning because the surrounding infrastructure is already at capacity. Buses go past without picking up passengers because they are full. There is no parking (and the proposal is only providing an extra 20 spots). It would be different if there was a metro nearby, but the Waterloo metro isn't within walking distance.
For this to be approved, it needs to be accompanied by an actual increase in infrastructure - transport in particular, but also parkland, schools, another library and aquatic centre (the ones at Green Square are at capacity).

Housing increases like this need infrastructure. Please work together with TfNSW and the Department of Education to ensure that no increase is approved without accompanying facilities, and require the developers to put in another park or playground - the one that's currently part of the proposal won't be enough.

Thank you,

Strong objection to the proposed major changes to the proposed modifications to the development plans for 903-921 Bourke St Waterloo SSD95997711.
The proposed increase in height and density is excessive and a departure from the originally approve concept
This is going to put major stress on existing roads and infrastructure for all residents in the area.

The proposed development would result in the following unacceptable impacts:
Infrastructure strain — The influx of additional residents would impose unsustainable pressure on local roads and public transport, which are already operating beyond comfortable capacity. Services such as the 304 bus and peak-hour trains from Green Square are routinely overcrowded, with buses frequently unable to stop due to being full. Increasing residential density without corresponding infrastructure upgrades is irresponsible and short-sighted.
Inadequate public amenities — Existing community facilities are already under significant pressure and are not equipped to absorb further demand. Even at present, it is often difficult to secure seating or workspace at the local library. This development would further erode access to essential public amenities and diminish overall community amenity.
Overbearing and out-of-character built form — The proposed height and bulk are excessive and inconsistent with the established character of the neighbourhood. The scale of the towers would dominate the surrounding streetscape, resulting in an oppressive visual presence and a clear departure from the area’s existing built form.
Unacceptable overshadowing — The two oversized towers proposed at 903–921 Bourke Street, when combined with the tower proposed at 881–885 Bourke Street, would create substantial cumulative overshadowing during the winter months. This would significantly reduce sunlight access to nearby homes, streets, and public open spaces, negatively affecting residential amenity and public enjoyment.
Adverse wind impacts — The height and massing of the towers are likely to generate wind tunnel effects at street level, undermining pedestrian comfort and reducing the usability and appeal of the public domain.
Severe parking shortfall — The proposal seeks to introduce 233 additional apartments while providing only 20 extra parking spaces. This is clearly inadequate and would inevitably push more vehicles onto already congested local streets. The result would be intensified parking competition, increased traffic congestion, and further strain on an area already experiencing substantial development pressure.

Hello,
To my understanding, the proposal is to go from:
- Bourke Street North – increasing from 12 storeys (approved) to 31 storeys (proposed).
- Young Street Tower - increasing from 21 storeys (approved) to 38 storeys (proposed).
This is an addition of 233 apartments with only an addition of 20 parking spaces which will inevitably lead to cars being parked anywhere (legal or not). This is going to lead to a severe shortage of parking.

The considerably taller buildings (basically double the height) will lead to shadowing for most of the day surrounding buildings and potentially some wind tunnelling effects though the latter is less certain and more of a guess.

Public transport is already at or over capacity in the area. It is common for busses like 304 to not stop a the McEvoy with Elisabeth street intersection at around 8 AM and for would be passengers to have to wait for followup 304 busses which may still have spare capacity. The new metro station designated as "Waterloo" was a slap in the face for the residents of Waterloo and Zetland as that station is practically "Red Fern station" and only if you squint really hard at the map of Waterloo do you see that it fits in the most top left corner of the Waterloo suburb. So in terms of public transport this area is not seeing any improvement. The train station at Green Square is already at capacity which is baffling in terms of city planning that a station was built in an area which was going to see very significant development on the vertical which such little capacity (escalators, stairs and concourse area).

Last but not least, such tall buildings will be out of place with the surroundings and with what people understood this area would be like as it develops further. This is not fighting progress or the necessities of housing but surely instead of doing 31 or 38 storeys buildings we can keep building ones between 8 to 12 storeys to match the surroundings. We should be in the extremes of "only houses" or 38 story high rise. There is a middle path of reason to be walked and we can take plenty of inspiration from European cities which had to deal with growth pains roughly a 100 years ago and they didn't go with +30 storeys buildings but generally with 8 storeys.

Regards,
Alexandru Ionica

The concerns outlined below relate specifically to the proposed increase in height and floor levels beyond the originally approved development.

The additional floors will introduce further population density, placing increased strain on already overburdened infrastructure. Local roads, parking, and public transport are currently operating at or near capacity.
The uplift in density will exacerbate these existing issues.

The proposed increase in building height is also excessive in the context of the approved development and the surrounding area. The additional levels significantly amplify the visual bulk and will result in a more dominant and overbearing presence within the streetscape, beyond what was originally contemplated.

Importantly, the cumulative impact of the additional height across the proposed towers will result in increased overshadowing, particularly during the winter solstice. The uplift in scale directly contributes to a broader and more prolonged shadow impact on nearby residences and public open space.

Finally, the increased height raises further concerns regarding wind impacts at street level. Taller buildings intensify downdraft and wind tunnelling effects, which may adversely affect pedestrian comfort and safety.

In summary, it is the increase in height and density beyond the approved development that gives rise to these additional and compounding impacts, and this uplift is not supported.

While I recognise issues raised by others including Waterloo Action Group Sydney does need more housing and consequently I support this despite potentially being negatively impacted. That said I do agree with concerns of others and agree that we do need more infrastructure in the area in particular in my experience Green Square station needs additional trains.