Dear Assessment Team,

I am a resident of Danks Street in Waterloo, NSW, and I am writing to formally submit my objection to SUB-117619490 in its current iteration. While I appreciate and support the necessity for well-planned densification within our inner-city suburbs, I believe this specific proposal is drastically out of step with the established and emerging character of the surrounding neighbourhood.

1. Unacceptable height and incompatibility with local character
The proposed 36-storey skyscraper, reaching an elevation of roughly 125 metres, is entirely disproportionate to the existing urban fabric of this precinct. Current developments in the immediate vicinity generally range between 4 and 13 storeys, meaning this tower would be more than double the height of its neighbours. Such an extreme increase in scale creates a visual disconnect and lacks the necessary transition to integrate with the streetscape. A building of this magnitude is perhaps appropriate for a regional transport hub, but it is fundamentally misplaced on a mid-block site along Bourke Street.

2. Unjustified deviation from established planning controls
This site is already subject to a prior development approval that was granted under significantly more modest height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) limits. This new application seeks a massive uplift, moving from a 29-metre limit to 125 metres and increasing the FSR from 2.15:1 to 3.05:1 without offering a proportional public benefit in return. As a local resident, I find it concerning that the predictability of the planning system is being undermined, as many of us made long-term decisions based on the previously approved building envelopes for this site.

3. Significant loss of solar access and natural light
I am deeply concerned about the reduction of sunlight to neighbouring residential properties caused by the height and positioning of these towers. Upon reviewing the proponent's Solar Access report, it appears there is a failure to assess the overshadowing impacts on several directly affected buildings, such as Cameo at 6 Lachlan Street and Aria at 4 Lachlan Street, as well as various west-facing homes on adjacent streets. This lack of comprehensive modelling is a major oversight in the Environmental Impact Statement.

4. Establishment of a detrimental planning precedent
If a 36-storey residential tower is approved in this location, which lacks immediate proximity to a major transport interchange and is surrounded by low-to-mid-rise buildings, it will set a dangerous precedent for the area. Other developers will inevitably use this approval to justify similar disproportionate rezonings and uplifts throughout Waterloo. This approach contradicts the principles of orderly and strategic development as outlined in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

5. Critical pressure on public transport infrastructure
Waterloo currently lacks a centrally located train station, and the upcoming Waterloo Metro is a 15-minute walk from this site, being closer to Redfern. Existing bus services, particularly the 304, 392, and 348, are already operating at peak capacity and frequently bypass commuters because they are full. Introducing approximately 850 new apartments to this corridor without a confirmed and significant upgrade to transport frequency will cause these essential services to fail entirely.

6. Increased traffic congestion and road safety concerns
The intersections at Bourke, Lachlan, Danks, and McEvoy Streets are already heavily burdened by traffic. As arterial routes become more congested, local residential streets are being used as shortcuts, which compromises the safety of pedestrians and the amenity of the area. The provided Traffic Impact Assessment does not seem to take into account the cumulative effect of this proposal alongside other major nearby projects, such as the Dasco development and the broader Waterloo Estate renewal.

7. Overburdening of essential local services
Local community infrastructure is already reaching a breaking point. Green Square Public School is at capacity, there is a distinct lack of nearby public high schools, and local medical practitioners are increasingly difficult to access. This proposal introduces a massive influx of new residents without providing any substantial commitment to the social infrastructure required to support such a population boom.

8. Inadequacy of proposed public open space
The central park included in the plans is touted as a public benefit, but in reality, it is a small area that will be overshadowed by towers ranging from 13 to 36 storeys. The space appears to have very limited recreational utility, lacking basic amenities like play equipment, functional lawn areas, or facilities for pets. It cannot realistically meet the needs of 850 new households while also serving the existing community.

9. Cumulative impacts of ongoing construction
Our precinct has been subject to continuous construction for years, leading to persistent issues with noise, dust, vibration, and heavy vehicle traffic. Adding a project of this scale will significantly worsen these disruptions. Should the Department move toward approval, it is vital that a transparent and enforceable Construction Management Plan be implemented to strictly regulate work hours, noise levels, and haulage routes in coordination with other active sites.

10. Exacerbation of wind tunnel effects
The sheer mass and height of the proposed towers are likely to intensify wind tunnel effects throughout the precinct. This will make outdoor areas, including balconies, the proposed park, and the surrounding footpaths, uncomfortable for residents and pedestrians. I do not believe the wind impacts have been sufficiently modelled or mitigated in the current application.

11. Threat to the neighbourhood atmosphere
The unique neighbourhood feel of Waterloo is at significant risk of being eroded by hyper-dense developments that ignore the human scale. Without a more sensitive approach to design and density, there is a real danger that this vibrant community will be transformed into an impersonal and sterile urban wasteland, devoid of the character that makes our suburb a desirable place to live.

Requested outcome

I request that the Department refuse the application in its current form or require major amendments. Specifically, there must be a significant reduction in the maximum building height to ensure it aligns with the existing built form of the precinct. Furthermore, I request a more transparent and comprehensive solar access assessment and a robust, enforceable Construction Management Plan. To be clear, I do not oppose the redevelopment of this site entirely; however, I strongly object to a development of this excessive scale and height under the current planning framework.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours sincerely,

Sandra Kontos
Danks Street, Waterloo NSW

I object to this project, as it sets a precedent for CBD high-rise office tower height apartment blocks in small residential suburbs, which will cause shadowing and unsightly big buildings as well as added congestion to already busy streets. Also, many people have bought apartments in surrounding suburbs and paid $100,000 plus for uninterrupted Sydney skyline views in high locations where it would be inconceivable that the view would ever be blocked due to their location/height, yet apartment towers at these extraordinary heights proposed here would never have been predicted, as their heights are only found in CBD locations such as Sydney, Parramatta, North Sydney, etc., not in residential Waterloo.

I object to the proposed development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.

As a long-term resident and a mother raising a young family in this community, I would like to express my deep concern regarding the scale and impact of this proposal.

Over the years, this neighbourhood has developed into a relatively low- to moderate-density residential area that supports a safe, family-friendly environment. This balance is extremely important for households like ours, where daily life depends on access to manageable, uncrowded, and safe surroundings.

1. Impact on safety and daily liveability
A development of this scale, with a very high number of additional residents, will inevitably increase congestion in already constrained local streets and public spaces.
As a parent, I am particularly concerned about:

• Increased traffic risks for children walking in the area
• Overcrowding in footpaths and shared spaces
• Reduced sense of safety in what is currently a relatively quiet and peaceful environment

These are not abstract concerns, but practical, day-to-day realities for families.

2. Overcrowding of essential family-oriented amenities
Facilities that families rely on are already under pressure. Playgrounds, parks, and open spaces are often crowded, especially during peak hours. It is common to see children waiting to use basic play equipment.

Similarly, access to everyday services such as healthcare, childcare, and local shops is becoming increasingly strained.

A significant population increase without meaningful expansion of these services will directly impact the wellbeing of families living in the area.

3. Disproportionate scale compared to community character
The proposed height and density are far beyond what has been established in this neighbourhood. Previous developments have generally been moderate and have respected the existing urban character.

This proposal introduces a level of density more comparable to a central business district, which is not appropriate for a neighbourhood that has evolved as a residential community.

4. Lack of supporting infrastructure and planning balance
It is particularly concerning that the proposal seeks flexibility around infrastructure requirements. Growth must be accompanied by proper planning and investment in supporting facilities.

Without this, the burden is shifted onto existing residents, reducing overall quality of life.

5. Long-term impact on community cohesion
One of the strengths of this area is its sense of community, where neighbours interact and families feel comfortable living long-term.

A sudden and significant increase in density risks undermining this balance and changing the nature of the community in a way that may not be reversible.

In conclusion, I respectfully submit that this proposal is excessive in scale, inconsistent with the needs of families, and unsupported by adequate infrastructure.

I strongly urge that the development be refused, or significantly redesigned to better reflect the character, capacity, and long-term liveability of the community.

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

The proposed increases in height, from 12 to 31 storeys on Bourke Street North and from 21 to 38 storeys on the Young Street Tower, represent a gross departure from the concept originally approved by the City of Sydney. These are not minor amendments. They fundamentally change the character and scale of what was agreed with the community.

My specific concerns are:

Infrastructure and transport. The area's infrastructure is already at capacity. The 304 and 343 buses and Green Square train services regularly run full during peak hours with 2 buses often passing before you can get on at Waterloo. Bourke Street and Lachlan Street are both already exceedingly busy at rush hour already with cars queued all the way along. Adding hundreds of new residents without meaningful transport and road infrastructure investment is not a planning decision, it is a deferral of a crisis.

Amenity and liveability. Public amenities including libraries, parks and community spaces are already under pressure. This development would make an already stretched situation significantly worse for existing residents.

Built form and neighbourhood character. The proposed towers are between five and ten times the height of existing apartment buildings nearby. The visual impact, compounded by other proposals in the area, would be severe and permanent, creating a development completely out of character with the surrounding streetscape.

Overshadowing. The cumulative overshadowing impact of this proposal, together with the adjacent Coronation development at 881-885 Bourke Street, would affect a large area of nearby homes and public open space, particularly during winter months.

The cumulative effect of this and other approved developments already represents an estimated 4,000 new apartments and up to 8,000 new residents in this precinct. That is an extraordinary concentration of density. This proposal adds to that burden with only 20 additional parking spaces, which is inadequate and frankly insulting to existing residents.

There is also a serious process concern here. This proposal follows a pattern where a developer secures initial approval through community consultation, delays construction long enough to sell the approved apartments, and then applies to nearly double the height of the development, leaving residents minimal time to respond and offering nothing in return by way of additional infrastructure or amenity. That is a pattern the NSW Government should refuse to reward.

These developments are not addressing housing affordability. A two-bedroom apartment at the nearby Dank Street District starts at $1,450,000. These projects are targeting wealthy investors, not the ordinary Sydneysiders who live and work in this area.
Housing affordability is a genuine crisis, and as a renter I feel that acutely. But the answer is not to approve overpriced 40-storey tower blocks that will be snapped up by investors, built without the infrastructure to support them, and pushed through in defiance of existing planning approvals.

Sydney's appeal is inseparable from its character, its neighbourhoods, its streetscapes and its liveability. That is not a small thing to sacrifice. Once it is gone, it does not come back. Towers of this scale are not a housing solution for ordinary Sydneysiders. They are a windfall for developers, dressed up as progress.

I strongly urge the NSW Government to decline this modification and uphold the planning controls agreed through proper community process. We can do better than this.

Summary of Objection
I vehemently object to the proposed increase in building heights at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo, for an additional 250 dwellings (from 367 to 617). The proposal to increase one building from 12 to 30 storeys and another from 21 to 37 storeys is excessive and inconsistent with the adopted LEP height limit of approximately 71.5 m. This scale of development will exacerbate existing wind tunnel effects, significantly increase traffic congestion at known pinch points, and further strain local infrastructure and public roads already affected by construction. Combined with other high-density developments in adjoining blocks, the proposal represents unsustainable overdevelopment in the precinct and is contrary to the strategic planning intent for Waterloo and Green Square.
________________________________________
As a long-term resident of the Waterloo precinct since 2007, I write to strongly object to the proposed increase in building heights at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo, specifically the proposed increase from 12 to 30 storeys on Bourke Street and from 21 to 37 storeys for Young Street.
The scale of these proposed increases represents a staggering departure from the established planning framework applying to the site. Under the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 (as amended), the mapped maximum height for the tallest portion of the site is approximately 71.5 metres. A 30-storey building is likely to reach approximately 90–100 metres, and a 37-storey building approximately 110–120 metres, depending on floor-to-floor heights. This would constitute an exceedance of approximately 20–40 metres above the adopted planning control.
The existing height controls were the product of a strategic planning process that balanced density, infrastructure capacity, heritage considerations, public domain outcomes and amenity impacts. A proposal of this magnitude fundamentally alters that planning balance and cannot reasonably be characterised as a minor or technical variation. It represents a wholesale change in scale and urban form out of proportion to the size of the lot in comparison to developments as close as the Green Square precinct.
Wind Impacts and Pedestrian Amenity
There are already severe wind tunnel effects in the surrounding area, particularly around the Meriton and Divercity complex directly across 903-921 Bourke Street (particularly the corner of Bourke and Potter Street), which consists of substantially smaller towers than those now proposed. Pedestrian comfort in parts of Bourke Street and surrounding streets is already compromised during periods of strong wind. The common areas located at the top of the neighbouring buildings, as well as balconies on higher floors, are already compromised by the strong wind and can be unsafe during these periods. Increasing building heights to 30 and 37 storeys is likely to materially intensify downdraft and ground-level wind acceleration effects to the point of compromising safety. The cumulative wind impacts of taller buildings in this location require careful assessment, particularly given the established pedestrian activity along Bourke Street and connections to Green Square.
Traffic and Transport Constraints
The surrounding road network already experiences significant congestion and pressure. Known pinch points include:
• The intersection of Bourke Street and McEvoy Street (continuing from Lachlan Street)
• Lachlan Street approaching the Eastern Distributor
• The intersection of McEvoy Street and Elizabeth Street
• Bourke Street and Phillip Street
• McEvoy and Elizabeth Street
These locations experience peak-hour queuing, merging delays and constrained turning movements. A substantial increase in dwelling numbers associated with 30- and 37-storey towers will add to traffic generation and service vehicle movements in an already stressed network. The newly built apartments on 890 Bourke Street and the planned apartments for 935 Bourke Street, will further worsen traffic congestion.
Additionally, ongoing construction on Bourke Street has already caused visible road damage immediately in front of 903 Bourke Street. Further intensification at this scale is likely to exacerbate these impacts, particularly during construction phases. Access to public transport during peak times is already difficult and would be further compromised by the proposed increase.
Cumulative Impact of Adjoining Developments
It is also important to note that there are current or proposed plans for adjoining blocks and estates in the Waterloo South and Green Square precinct, some of which also involve additional towers and high-density residential developments. Any approval for this complex must be considered in the context of the cumulative demand on road infrastructure, public transport, open space, and community facilities. Taken together, these proposals will result in a density that exceeds the capacity of existing and planned infrastructure and public domain, creating significant adverse impacts on amenity, traffic, pedestrian safety, the quality of life and community character of the precinct.
Strategic Planning Integrity
The integrity of the planning system relies on consistency with adopted controls. Any proposal to exceed the mapped height by this magnitude must clearly demonstrate why the established height limit is unreasonable or unnecessary. In the absence of such justification, the proposal risks undermining the certainty, transparency and strategic intent of the planning framework for this precinct, as well as compromising the welfare of the current community.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

As a resident and owner at 1 Danks Street, Waterloo, I wish to register a clear objection to the revised Development Application for 903–921 Bourke Street.
From the outset, those of us living at 1 Danks Street have understood that local planning controls were established to protect the scale and character of this area—particularly by preventing excessive building heights where new developments meet low-rise housing. That principle appears to be eroding.
Even in its approved form, the Bourke Street development already rises significantly above our three-storey building. The newly submitted amendments push this disparity much further. The most concerning change is the proposed increase of the Young Street tower from 21 to 38 storeys—an escalation that nearly doubles its height. Such a dramatic shift feels entirely out of step with the surrounding neighbourhood and sits uneasily alongside claims in the Design Report that the project is sensitive to its context.
It is also difficult to reconcile the current proposal with the feedback process that preceded it. At an earlier community consultation hosted by Dasco, residents expressed strong opposition to the increased scale. Despite this, the revised plans show little evidence that these concerns have shaped the outcome. The consultation appears to have functioned more as a formality than a genuine attempt to engage with or respond to the community.
Of particular concern is how the expanded bulk of the development is arranged. While the design rationale suggests concentrating height toward the centre of the site, in practice this shifts substantial mass closer to the lower-scale homes along Danks Street. The use of the term “Danks Street District” in project branding only heightens this tension—borrowing the identity of the street while introducing a development that fundamentally alters its character.
The implications for residents are significant. A tower of this height, positioned nearby, will lead to pronounced overlooking and a loss of privacy. Daily living conditions will be affected by increased visual intrusion, reduced access to natural light, and greater overshadowing. These are not minor changes but meaningful degradations to residential amenity.
Additionally, the justification for increased height appears to lean on a separate proposal by Coronation Property for 881–885 Bourke Street—a development that remains unapproved and is itself contentious. It is inappropriate to use an unresolved neighbouring application as a basis for intensifying this project.
Taken as a whole, the proposal introduces an excessive scale of development at the boundary of a low-rise residential area. Rather than stepping down to meet its context, it amplifies height and density at precisely the point where sensitivity is most needed. This places undue strain on key aspects of local amenity, including privacy, sunlight, outlook, and the established streetscape.
In essence, these changes undermine the intent of the planning controls that were meant to safeguard this community. The cumulative impacts—on light, privacy, noise, and overall quality of life—are considerable, and in this setting, they are simply not acceptable.

As the owner-occupier of a residential unit at 1 Danks Street, Waterloo, I strongly object to the amended Development Application for 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.
Our understanding as residents of 1 Danks Street has always been that this area is governed by a planning framework intended to limit building heights adjacent to low-rise residential properties and maintain the character of this long-established community.
The already approved scheme for 903–921 Bourke Street already sits well above our three-storey building. The current proposal to further increase building heights is therefore deeply alarming. The revised application proposes extreme height increases, most notably the Young Street tower, which is proposed to rise from 21 storeys to 38 storeys. This is almost double the approved height. This scale is unprecedented in the immediate locality and it is almost impossible to reconcile with the Design Report’s claims that the development responds to local character.
At a previous community information session, the developer Dasco presented the proposed increase in scale and sought community feedback. The feedback at that time was overwhelmingly negative. Despite this, the current submission appears to retain the same height outcomes with no meaningful response to community concerns. The consultation process gives the impression of being a procedural ‘box-ticking’ exercise rather than genuine community engagement, with little evidence that local input has had any influence on the outcome.
My primary concern is the impact of the proposed scale on existing residential amenity. Concentrating the tallest built form toward the centre of the site is presented as a design response, however it results in significant bulk being positioned closer to the low-rise dwellings along Danks Street. The so-called “Danks Street District” branding appears to appropriate our street name for development marketing purposes while simultaneously overwhelming the existing small-scale residential context.
Privacy impacts are a major issue. A 38-storey tower in close proximity to low-rise housing will result in direct overlooking and ongoing visual intrusion. This will materially reduce residential privacy and significantly alter day-to-day living conditions. There will also be substantial loss of daylight and increased overshadowing, with corresponding impacts on the liveability of existing dwellings.
The application also suggests that increased height is justified by a separate and currently unapproved development lodged by Coronation Property for the neighbouring 881–885 Bourke Street site. It is not appropriate to rely on a proposed neighbouring development to justify additional height in this application, particularly where that proposal has not yet been determined and has itself attracted significant community concern.
Overall, the proposed scale places disproportionate built form on the edge of a low-rise residential precinct. It does not provide a meaningful transition to surrounding homes and instead intensifies height and density at the interface with established residential buildings. This will increase pressure on local amenity, including privacy, sunlight access, outlook and streetscape character.
In summary, the proposal significantly increases the burden on a residential area that was intended to be protected by a considered planning framework. The impacts on privacy, overshadowing, noise and overall liveability are substantial and, in my view, unacceptable in the context of the existing built environment at Danks Street.

I object to this proposal on multiple grounds as a longstanding resident of Waterloo since 2012. The proposal seeks to drastically alter the original plans approved by the City of Sydney to increase 1 tower from 12 to 31 storeys and another from 21 to 38 storeys to add ~200 apartments with only 20 car spaces. This combined with other substantial developments puts additional strain on the densest suburb in the city which is already under pressure.
Infrastructure:
The extra residents will place unnacceptable pressure on local roads, parking and public transport, all of which are already stretched. the 304 and 343 are the only two bus routes within walking distance that go into the city. They are both full during peak periods and the services can't keep up. Green square station is already over capacity and with planned developments - will not be able to meet the forecasted demand. The Metro is too far for walking distance - there are hills to navigate and the 392 bus adds extra cost to a commute to the city (it's cheaper to take the 343 or 304 hence why both are over capacity). To begin considering this development, the state needs to commit to high density travel options such as dedicated metro lines, light rail and/or more efficient public transport to handle the strain of the planned developments in the area.

Amenities:
These are also already under pressure. Local doctors are limiting new patients, RPA (hospital) is stretched, green square public school is already over-subscribed and Alex Park High school is the same. The proposed school on Young st was declined - the state needs to seriously consider funding a dedicated high school for the increase in residents.

Liveability
The propose height changes are out of character with the existing neighbourhood and surroundings, undermining the current character of the area. The City of Sydney had rightly already approved a mix of low rise and medium rise in keeping with the current community - balancing housing needs and making the area a place where residents can have quality of living standards. Further, combined with the proposed 38 storey tower at the adjacent 881-885 Bourke street site - this development would create significant cumulative overshadowing that hasn't been modelled in the proposal. This would affect nearby homes and public open space that would be affected during the winter months, driving up heating costs for impacted residents. I firmly support developments that deliver quality, liveable housing - this change request is not in keeping with that and is not the solution to alleviate the housing shortage in Sydney - especially adding more density to the densest suburb in the city as it stands today.

This development modification request is an excessive, gross departure from the original plans approved by the City of Sydney. I implore the state to decline this amendment in the best interests of local residents who live in a suburb which has already done its fair share of the work to improve housing accessibility in NSW.

To: NSW Department of Planning and Environment
Re: Submission of Objection – SSD-95997711 (903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo)
To the Planning Officer,
I am writing to formally lodge my strong objection to the proposed modifications for the residential development at 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SSD-95997711).
As a resident living directly across the road from this site, the proposed amendments represent a gross departure from the originally approved plans and will have a direct, detrimental impact on my daily life and the broader Waterloo community.
My objections are based on the following critical concerns:
1. Significant Loss of Solar Access
Living directly opposite the site, I am highly concerned by the proposal to increase the Bourke Street North building from 12 to 31 storeys, and the Young Street Tower from 21 to 38 storeys. This massive increase in height will result in severe overshadowing of my home and the surrounding public spaces. The cumulative effect of these towers, alongside the adjacent proposal at 881-885 Bourke Street, will drastically reduce natural light during the winter solstice, affecting both my well-being and the energy efficiency of my residence.
2. Traffic Congestion and Parking Shortfall
The proposal adds 233 additional apartments over the approved plan (a total of 580 units) yet provides only 20 extra parking spaces. The local streets, particularly the intersection of Bourke and McEvoy, are already heavily congested. Adding thousands of new residents without adequate parking or road infrastructure will create a permanent traffic gridlock, making it increasingly difficult for local residents to navigate the area or find parking for essential services.
3. Infrastructure and Amenity Strain
Our local services are already at a breaking point. I frequently observe the 304 bus and Green Square trains operating at full capacity, often passing by commuters because there is no room. Adding "a small country town's worth of residents" to this specific block without a proportional increase in public transport and amenities—such as library space and seating—is unsustainable and will significantly diminish the quality of life for current residents.
4. Overbearing Scale and Wind Impacts
The proposed height is visually overbearing and entirely out of character with the existing streetscape. Furthermore, the creation of 30+ storey "walls" along these corridors poses a high risk of severe wind tunnel effects. As a pedestrian who uses these footpaths daily, I am concerned that the street-level environment will become hostile and potentially unsafe due to these downdrafts.
Conclusion
While I support sensible, sustainable growth in Waterloo, this specific proposal is excessive. The leap from 12 storeys to 31 is not a minor modification; it is a complete reimagining of the site that ignores the local context and the constraints of our infrastructure.
I urge the Department to reject these amendments and hold the developer to the scale originally approved by the City of Sydney.
Sincerely, Grant

I am writing to firmly oppose the amended development. I live near the site, and I invested in this neighbourhood to build a stable, long‑term home for my family. This proposal, as it stands, undermines the liveability and sustainability of the area for current and future residents.
My objection is not to additional housing — it is to the wrong kind of housing. What is being proposed is 580 high‑priced apartments starting at nearly $1 million for a one‑bedroom unit. That does nothing for families, essential workers, or long‑term residents who need housing they can actually remain in as their circumstances change. This is density without community benefit.
My concerns fall into four key areas:
1. Critical evidence gaps
The contamination assessment is incomplete. Two new basements are proposed in areas with known vapour risks, yet final floor levels and full modelling are missing. Approving a project of this scale without complete contamination data is irresponsible.
The wind assessment relies on shielding from a neighbouring development that is not approved. If that project does not proceed, the modelling collapses. A revised assessment based only on approved developments is required.
2. Removal of community protections
The proposal seeks to bypass both the competitive design process and the community infrastructure levy — obligations that existed for good reason. The building is now nearly double the approved height, yet the developer wants to self‑assess design excellence. That is unacceptable for a 126‑metre tower on a heritage‑sensitive site.
The VPA was negotiated for a much smaller development. The public is being offered the same infrastructure despite a 55% increase in apartments. That is not a fair or reasonable exchange.
3. Affordable housing that may deliver nothing
The so‑called 12% affordable housing contribution is not binding. The applicant openly states they are not subject to the policy from which that figure is drawn. Without a binding VPA, the entire contribution can be paid out as cash, resulting in zero affordable dwellings on site.
This community needs actual homes — not financial offsets — for families, older residents, and essential workers who keep this area functioning.
4. No cumulative transport assessment
The proposal shifts transport pressure onto public infrastructure without assessing the combined impact of multiple major developments in the precinct. This is a significant oversight and must be addressed before any approval is considered.
I ask the Department to:
Require complete contamination assessments and vapour modelling
Require a revised wind assessment based only on approved developments
Reject the removal of Clause 6.21D and require independent design review
Reject the removal of Clause 6.14 or secure an equivalent binding contribution
Renegotiate the VPA to reflect the increased yield
Require affordable housing as actual on‑site dwellings, secured in perpetuity
Require a cumulative transport assessment
Hold a public hearing
This decision will determine whether Waterloo remains a mixed, inclusive community or becomes a precinct only accessible to those who can afford premium apartments. I urge the Department to act in the long‑term interests of the neighbourhood.
Sincerely,
Sean Brown