I strongly object to the amendment to the development plans for 903-921 Bourke St. Waterloo, which is SSD-95997711. The amendment represents a substantial departure from the approved development, with building height increasing from 65m to 126 m and floor space ratio from 1.5:1 to 3.2:1, significantly altering the scale and intensity of the project. The local roads and public transport cannot support the added population, and the living quality will be significantly reduced. The increased height will cause overshadowing and loss of natural light. Infrastructure should be improved first, addressing existing issues such as narrow roads and parking shortages before any increase in density.

I am deeply concerned about this proposal - at how it will undoubtedly create conditions significantly lowering quality of life in the area because of congestion, overuse of infrastructure, increased local air and noise pollution, and increased danger for the elderly just walking the streets - it's bad enough as is. The proposed height of the development will be grotesquely out of proportion, an ugly growth casting shadows, blocking light and basically an eye sore. A Trump-like temple to greed, ego, stupidity and tastelessness. For god's sake, grow some spine and stop this careless egoism. Show care for quality of life and sustainability.

Subject: Objection to SSD-95997711 – 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am an owner-occupier living on Danks Street in Waterloo, where I have resided with my partner for approximately two years. I strongly object to the proposed amendments under SSD-95997711.

This proposal represents a substantial intensification of an already highly constrained area and will materially worsen existing issues that affect my daily life and the broader community.

1. Traffic congestion and unsafe road conditions
Traffic in this area is already under significant strain. The Lachlan Street / McEvoy Street dog-leg intersection at Bourke Street is a known bottleneck, with congestion frequently extending in multiple directions, including toward Green Square where traffic compresses from two lanes into one.

Local streets such as Danks Street, Broome Street, Crystal Street and Potter Street are narrow, have poor visibility, and are not designed to accommodate current traffic volumes, let alone a significant increase in residents. Large buses already struggle to navigate these streets, creating noise, delays, and safety concerns.

Illegal parking occurs daily on Broome Street and Danks Street, including vehicles blocking access and reducing already limited road capacity. This results in frequent aggressive honking, driver conflict, near misses, and unsafe conditions for both motorists and pedestrians. This occurs consistently during weekday peak hours (7–9am and 4–6pm) as well as on weekends.

I am also concerned that current conditions already constrain access for emergency and service vehicles, and that further congestion will increase this risk.

Adding a substantial number of additional residents with minimal parking provision will clearly exacerbate these existing and well-established problems.

2. Public transport is already inadequate
Despite the density of the area and proximity to the CBD, public transport access is poor. There are no efficient or direct connections to key transport hubs such as Waterloo Metro, Green Square Station, or Central Station.

Bus services are overcrowded, slow, and poorly connected, with too many stops to be a practical alternative to driving. As a result, I often choose to cycle instead of using public transport.

However, cycling infrastructure is also under strain. Both my partner and I have been involved in collisions with vehicles crossing the busy bike lanes on Bourke Street (north of Phillip Street). Bike lanes are increasingly congested and unsafe due to frequent vehicle crossings, inadequate signage and markings, and poor intersection design and visibility on surrounding streets.

Increasing the local population without meaningful transport upgrades will further degrade mobility and safety.

3. Overdevelopment and lack of supporting amenities
The area is already overburdened. Local parks and green spaces are heavily used, and in practice, the park adjacent to our building is already degraded and not functioning as a high-quality recreational space.

The small garden areas proposed within the development will be wholly insufficient to support the significant increase in residents. This will further reduce the quality and usability of already strained public spaces.

The broader area was not designed to support the level of density it currently has, and this proposal would push it well beyond reasonable limits.

4. Overshadowing and loss of amenity
Our apartment currently benefits from valuable north- and west-facing sunlight, which contributes significantly to our quality of life. The proposed tower heights will almost certainly reduce access to this sunlight, particularly in the afternoons and during winter months.

Loss of natural light is a serious and permanent impact on residential amenity.

5. Out-of-scale development and precedent concerns
The proposed building heights (up to 38 storeys) are entirely out of scale with the surrounding area.

For context, the prominent building at Green Square along Bourke Street is approximately 20 storeys and already dominates the streetscape. The proposed towers would be nearly double that height, representing a dramatic and unjustified escalation.

This is not consistent with the originally approved development and sets a concerning precedent for further overdevelopment in the area.

6. Reliance on original approval in purchase decisions
When purchasing our property, we relied on the planning framework and approved developments in place at the time. Had a development of this scale been proposed, we would not have chosen to buy in this location.

This proposal represents a fundamental shift in planning expectations and undermines confidence in the planning process.

Conclusion
This is not a minor amendment—it is a substantial and inappropriate increase in scale and density that will significantly worsen traffic, safety, amenity, and liveability in an already overburdened area.

I respectfully request that this amended proposal be refused.

I object to this proposed development amendment because the significant increase in height, density and number of apartments will place further pressure on our already stretched local infrastructure, roads, parking and public transport. Our community is already experiencing congestion and increasing demand on public amenities, and this proposal would worsen those issues without adequate supporting services. I urge the decision-makers to reject this proposal and prioritise balanced development that properly considers the needs of existing residents and the wider community.

I write to formally object to the proposed changes to the development plans for 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.

The proposed increase in overall development scale and building heights across the site raises significant concerns, as does the absence of appropriate, independent mechanisms to ensure design excellence for the built form, the inclusion of quality public open space, and the delivery of sufficient community infrastructure to support the increased density.

The revised proposal appears to bypass any requirement to contribute to community infrastructure. Allowing such an uplift without corresponding public benefit sets a deeply concerning precedent where private developments increase density through a State Significant Development process without providing improved public infrastructure or delivering any genuine amenity or benefit for the local community.

Furthermore, developer‑led self‑assessment of design excellence is entirely inadequate for a proposal of this magnitude—particularly given its close proximity to a heritage conservation area. Such an approach risks producing outcomes that are architecturally inconsistent with the existing character of the heritage conservation area.

I understand the need for more homes and the government’s commitment to this; however, the site appears to have no provisions for any social or affordable housing and instead appears to consist of market dwellings—the proceeds from which will go into developers’ pockets without any consideration of community return. In addition, there appears to be little regard for the impacts this proposal will have on the community, neighbouring residences, and future development in the local area.

Requested Matters to Be Addressed

1. Built Form and Design Excellence

The proposal should be subject to an independent design excellence process.

Built form must be sympathetic to the character and scale of adjacent heritage areas. Street‑level activation needs to be incorporated to connect the development with the surrounding area.

Building design must ensure proper solar access to residences across the site and minimise overshadowing of neighbouring development and planned open space. Impacts on solar access should have regard for existing neighbouring development and must not compromise plans for future development on adjacent sites.

Light pollution and impacts on neighbouring areas should also be considered and minimised where feasible.

Open space must demonstrate high‑quality amenity and usability for future residents and the surrounding community.

Pedestrian and vehicle access to and around the site requires careful consideration given local environmental conditions.

2. Complementary Planning

An independent traffic and transport impact assessment needs to be undertaken, as the current developer‑commissioned study appears to underestimate vehicle generation relative to the scale of development. This assessment should confirm that local public transport capacity is sufficient for work and recreational travel and should consider the likely demographic of future occupants, including prospective reliance on ride‑share services such as Uber rather than public transport, given the altering socio‑economic composition of the area.

Pedestrian and road safety provisions must be addressed at key intersections, including:

Bourke and McEvoy Streets

McEvoy and Morehead Streets

Lachlan and McEvoy Streets

This is particularly important given current issues with traffic and pedestrian visibility, which are exacerbated during wet weather and storm events. Increasing the volume of vehicle and pedestrian movements requires additional provisions to maintain safety.

3. Local Context and Environmental Impacts

The wind impact assessment relies on assumptions about neighbouring development that remains undetermined and should instead be modelled on confirmed conditions. The area is already a high‑wind environment, and it is important to mitigate the formation of wind tunnels through the site.

Flood mitigation measures must be strengthened. Flooding is already a recurring issue at:

Young and Danks Streets (southbound)

Morehead and McEvoy Streets (southbound)

These present ongoing risks to both vehicular and pedestrian safety. The proposal needs to specify how stormwater drainage impacts will be addressed as part of planning provisions for the development.

Waste management planning must respond to issues experienced in the broader Waterloo and Zetland areas to prevent kerbside waste accumulation and illegal dumping.

4. Open Space Amenity and Public Safety

Safe and legible connections to adjoining streets and open areas must be detailed, ensuring open spaces are secure, functional, and inclusive for people and pets.

There needs to be a clear strategy for maintaining open space amenity, aligned with the local context and the needs of future residents of Waterloo.

Design of public space and the street level must have regard for local patterns of anti‑social behaviour and crime and be designed to mitigate the impact of such events.

I request that these concerns be carefully considered before any approval for greater density is granted, and that adequate independent review processes are followed, with non‑negotiable community benefits required as conditions of consent.

I also request that this proposal be subject to review by the Independent Planning Commission to allow for technical inputs that are independent of the developer’s own studies, providing assurance to the community that the impacts of this development are appropriately considered and that all potential adverse outcomes are reviewed and addressed prior to granting consent.

I’m writing to formally object to the proposed major changes to the development at 903 to 921 Bourke Street in Waterloo.
I have lived in this area for over 10 years and have seen firsthand how much Waterloo has changed over that time. Growth and development are part of that, and I understand that the area will continue to evolve. But the expansion of the original proposal feels like a step too far and not something I can reasonably support. This is a significant expansion of what was originally proposed, and it’s quite concerning to see how much bigger the new proposal is. The height of the new buildings, and the number of additional apartments in particular feels completely out of scale for the area. Waterloo has already been changing rapidly, but this proposal pushes it to a point where it will start to feel overbuilt and crowded. The buildings as proposed will stand out in a way that feels more like an eyesore than something that complements the neighbourhood.
One of my biggest concerns is how this will impact daily life. Traffic in the area is already difficult, especially on weekends. Bourke Street and the surrounding roads regularly get congested, and adding a large number of new residents is only going to make that worse. Some weekends it can take me 20 mins to drive from the corner of Bourke st, down Lachlan St to get to South Dowling St, which is ridiculous considering it's only a 3 minute walk. It is hard to see how the current road infrastructure can handle this increase.
Public transport is another issue. While Waterloo has improved in recent years, it still feels like the system is catching up with the growth that has already happened. Buses are often crowded, and I don’t believe the current capacity can realistically support the additional influx of people from a development of this size.
The overall density also feels excessive. This extension of the original proposal no longer feels like thoughtful urban growth and is beginning to feel like overdevelopment and purely as a profit driver for the developers. It raises real concerns about overcrowding, pressure on local amenities, and a loss of the character of the area.
After living here for over a decade and seeing the gradual changes, this is the first time a proposal has felt this overwhelming. Development should be balanced and considerate of the people who already live here, and in its current form, this new proposal does not strike that balance.
I strongly urge you to reconsider the scale, height, and density of this development and hope you do not approve of the changes.

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

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 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.