I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo, currently under consideration by Council.

Our primary concerns relate to the significant and negative impacts this development is likely to have on traffic congestion, population density, and the capacity of existing local infrastructure.

Firstly, the proposal is likely to contribute to increased traffic congestion in the surrounding area. Local roads are already experiencing significant traffic volumes, particularly during peak hours. Public transport is similarly under strain; for example, it is often extremely difficult to board the 304 bus service during peak periods under current population levels. Additional residential and/or commercial activity would place further pressure on both road networks and bus services, potentially resulting in longer travel times, reduced safety for pedestrians and cyclists, and challenges for emergency vehicle access. While the new Waterloo Metro Station is a positive development, it is not centrally located for many residents, and a large proportion of the Waterloo community continues to rely heavily on bus services for travel to the CBD and Central Station.

Secondly, the scale of the development raises serious concerns about increased population density. The proposed density appears disproportionate to the character and capacity of the area. Such a substantial increase in residents will alter the amenity of the neighbourhood, placing pressure on public spaces and reducing overall livability for existing and future residents.

Finally, local infrastructure is already under considerable pressure and does not appear adequately equipped to support further expansion of this magnitude. Essential services such as public transport, schools, healthcare facilities, the local library, and green spaces are operating at or near capacity. While there has been a decision to convert part of the Moore Park Golf Course into public parkland, these green spaces remain relatively distant from Bourke Street Waterloo and are unlikely to meaningfully alleviate the existing shortfall of accessible open space within the immediate area. Without clear, detailed, and credible plans for substantial infrastructure upgrades, the proposed development risks placing additional strain on already constrained services and diminishing the overall quality, accessibility, and amenity available to the community.

In light of these concerns, I respectfully request that Council reconsider or reject the proposed development, or at the very least require substantial modifications to address these critical issues.

Thank you for considering this submission.

To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Attention: Chris Eldred, Contact Planner
Re: Objection to State Significant Development Application SSD-95997711— Waterloo Mixed Use Development, 903-921 Bourke Street

Dear Assessment Team,

I am a resident of Danks St, Waterloo, and I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the proposed mixed-use development at 903-921 Bourke Street (SSD-95997711). While I recognize the necessity of strategic urban densification to meet Sydney’s housing needs, such growth must be sympathetic to the existing local context. The current proposal represents a significant overdevelopment of the site that is fundamentally inconsistent with the established character and capacity of our neighbourhood.

1. Inappropriate height and scale
The proposed 36-storey skyscraper, reaching an elevation of roughly 125 metres, is entirely out of scale with the surrounding Waterloo precinct. Existing and under-construction buildings in this immediate area typically range from 4 to 13 storeys, making this tower more than double the height of its neighbours. This creates a jarring visual disconnect rather than a considered transition. A tower of this magnitude is typically reserved for major transit hubs and is unsuitable for a mid-block location on Bourke Street.

2. Unjustified planning uplift
A development approval already exists for this site under much more modest height and FSR controls. This new application seeks a radical increase in density, rising from a 29m height limit to 125m, and an FSR increase from 2.15:1 to 3.05:1, without offering a corresponding public benefit of equal value. The local community and property owners have made long-term decisions based on the existing planning framework. Allowing such a massive departure from the approved envelope compromises the transparency and predictability of the NSW planning system.

3. Precedent for future overdevelopment
Permitting a 36-storey structure on a site that lacks direct proximity to a major transport interchange sets an alarming precedent for the broader Waterloo area. If approved, other landholders will undoubtedly cite this development to justify similar out-of-scale rezoning requests. This piece-meal approach to significant upzoning undermines the principles of orderly and sustainable development as outlined in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

4. Strain on public transport infrastructure
Public transport in Waterloo is already stretched to its limits. The new Waterloo Metro is a considerable walk from this site and is better positioned to serve the Redfern end of the suburb. Local bus services, specifically the 304, 392, and 348, are frequently at capacity during rush hour. Introducing roughly 850 new dwellings without a confirmed and proportional increase in bus frequency or transport capacity will leave existing and future residents with a failing transit network. Furthermore, several concerns are as follows:
• Bus corridors are already opening within congested road environment
• There are no dedicated bus priority lanes on Bourke St
• No additional transport upgrades are proposed in connection with the uplift.
In addition to the above, increasing residential density in the absence of improved transport infrastructure risks further congestion, increased private vehicle reliance, and diminished amenity for existing residence.

5. Road safety and traffic congestion
The intersections at Bourke, Danks, Lachlan, and McEvoy Streets are already notorious for heavy congestion. As arterial roads reach a standstill, more drivers are using quiet residential streets as shortcuts, which creates safety risks and ruins local amenity. I am concerned that the Traffic Impact Assessment fails to account for the combined pressure of this project alongside the nearby Waterloo Metro precinct and the massive Waterloo Estate redevelopment. Furthermore, several concerns are as follows:
• Intensify pedestrian movement
• Increase vehicle and delivery activity
• Heighten safety risk for cyclists and pedestrians

6. Deficiencies in public open space
The central park included in the proposal is insufficient as a meaningful public amenity. Enclosed by buildings ranging from 13 to 36 storeys, the space will be overshadowed and lack winter sun. Furthermore, it appears to lack essential recreational features such as play areas or dog-friendly zones. It is unrealistic to expect this small, overshadowed patch of land to meet the needs of 850 new households while also serving the existing community.

7. Loss of privacy and overlooking
The orientation of the tower’s balconies and primary living windows will result in direct lines of sight into the private rooms and outdoor spaces of existing low-rise residences. The proposal lacks the necessary setbacks or sophisticated screening measures required to protect the privacy of current neighbours, leading to an unacceptable level of visual intrusion.

8. Unacceptable cumulative construction burden
Our precinct has been subject to years of continuous construction, leading to persistent noise, dust, and heavy vehicle traffic. Adding a project of this immense scale will further degrade the quality of life for residents. Should this proceed, there must be a strictly enforceable Construction Management Plan that coordinates with nearby active sites to manage cumulative noise and haulage impacts in a transparent manner.

9. Adverse wind conditions
The height and bulk of the proposed structures are likely to create or exacerbate wind tunnel effects at the street level. This can make the public domain, including the proposed park and pedestrian footpaths, uncomfortable and uninviting. I do not believe the wind impacts on the surrounding microclimate have been sufficiently analysed or mitigated in the current application.

10. Escalating parking competition
The scarcity of on-street parking is a major issue for current Waterloo residents and businesses. A development of this magnitude will inevitably lead to an overflow of parking demand into the surrounding residential streets. This competition for limited spaces will significantly disadvantage existing residents who rely on local street parking. Density uplift without corresponding transport infrastructure or parking strategy risks transferring the burden from development site to the surrounding community.

11. Impacts on deliveries and logistics
The current congestion on our streets has reached a point where it is extremely difficult for delivery vehicles to find adequate space to park or unload. This creates significant delays and safety hazards for couriers and service providers. This development will only worsen the existing lack of curb side capacity, making basic logistical access for the neighbourhood almost impossible.
Requested outcome
I request that the Department refuse this application in its current form. Any approval for this site should be contingent on substantial amendments, including a major reduction in the maximum building height to align with the surrounding 4–13 storey context. Furthermore, a transparent solar access study and a robust, enforceable Construction Management Plan are essential. I wish to reiterate that I do not oppose the development of this site in principle, but I strongly object to a proposal of this excessive scale and height under the current planning framework.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours sincerely,

Name Withheld
Danks St, Waterloo NSW

As a Waterloo resident, I formally object to SSD-95997711 for alterations and additions to the approved mixed-use development at 903–921 Bourke Street and 3 McEvoy Street, Waterloo.

I am concerned that the applicant consistently understates the real-world amenity and transport impacts of the proposal. In particular, the wind, shadow and transport assessments rely on technical framing that does not reflect how the development will actually affect nearby residents and public spaces.

1) Wind impacts

Whilst the Wind Report prepared by MEL Consultants (Appendix 33, February 2026 addendum) concludes that the proposal meets the pedestrian safety criterion at all ground-level test locations, I remain concerned about pedestrian comfort and the practical usability of key outdoor areas.

At test location 23, which corresponds to the Nathan Road Cantonese Restaurant at 832 Bourke Street, the assessment indicates only walking comfort. That suggests the proposal may reduce the amenity of outdoor dining in that location.

At test location 27, which relates to a pedestrian crossing point, the assessment also indicates only walking comfort. Given the busy intersection environment, this may create an uncomfortable waiting space for pedestrians, particularly during peak periods.

The future park achieves only sitting comfort in one test location (location 63). That appears inconsistent with SDRP’s requirement in its letter of 18 December 2025, which called for a generous area for sitting and gathering to support the increased population.

2) Shadow impacts

Section 7.4.6 of the EI&RS, in the 830–840 Bourke Street (Divercity) summary, states that the proposed uplift ensures there is no reduction in the number of apartments achieving at least two hours of sunlight in mid-winter. In my view, this should more accurately be stated as no reduction in the percentage of apartments achieving at least two hours of sunlight in mid-winter.

The summary also states that although some additional overshadowing affects 10 units, those units still receive at least 2 hours of solar access to the living areas. However, the corresponding diagram in Appendix 9E, Design Report Appendix B Solar Access (in Figure 1 attached), indicates that the 10 units will receive less than two hours of sunlight.

Accordingly, the statement that the shadow impact does not alter the overall performance of adjacent buildings with respect to the percentage of apartments receiving at least 2 hours solar access appears inconsistent with the diagram and should be reconsidered.

3) Transport impacts

The proposed SSD adds 233 apartments to the approved yield, which will materially increase resident demand, yet the proposal adds only 30 additional parking spaces. In my view, the Transport Impact Assessment overstates the ease with which the site can be absorbed by the surrounding transport network.

The TIA states that the site is well serviced by public transport, but that does not match the day-to-day experience of many residents who rely on bus services and cannot always walk long distances to rail or metro. In my case, I rely on the 343 bus for home-bound travel from Waterloo Metro to Bourke Street, and cancelled or unreliable services can leave me feeling stranded and unsafe after dark.

The TIA identifies Green Square station as approximately 1,000 metres from the site and Waterloo Metro as approximately 900 metres away. That may be acceptable in theory, but it is not a convenient walk for everyone, especially at night, in bad weather, or for people with mobility limitations.

I am also concerned that the public transport section relies on route information that should be checked against current TfNSW services before any conclusions are drawn:
• M20 route no longer exists.
• 301 route no longer goes through Waterloo.
• 302 route no longer exists.
• 303 route no longer goes through Waterloo.
• 343 route now only goes from Elizabeth St to Circular Quay

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department give serious weight to the cumulative amenity and transport impacts of the proposal and preserve the original development parameters.

I strongly object to application SSD-95997711. My detailed objection, including material planning considerations relating to scale, heritage impact, transport, community infrastructure protections, and incomplete technical assessments, is set out in the attached letter. I respectfully request that the Department refuse the amended application and allow D/2021/1415 to proceed as approved.

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, Waterloo, and I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the proposed mixed-use development at 881–885 Bourke Street (SSD-80441462). While I recognise the necessity of increasing housing density in inner-city Sydney, such growth must be managed through sensitive and well-integrated planning. The current proposal represents an extreme departure from the established character of our neighbourhood and fails to address the significant strain it will place on local infrastructure and the amenity of existing residents.

1. Excessive building height and character misalignment
The submission of a 36-storey tower reaching approximately 125 metres is entirely out of scale with the surrounding built environment. Currently, the precinct is defined by buildings ranging from 4 to 13 storeys, making this proposal more than double the height of any nearby structure. Such a massive vertical increase creates a jarring visual transition and lacks the appropriate modulation required for a mid-block site on Bourke Street. Heights of this magnitude should be reserved for major transit hubs rather than nestled within an established medium-density residential corridor.

2. Unreasonable departure from established planning controls
This site is already subject to a development approval based on significantly lower height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) limits. The applicant is now seeking a massive uplift—increasing height from roughly 29 metres to 125 metres and FSR from 2.15:1 to 3.05:1—without offering a proportional public benefit. Local residents purchased property and made long-term life decisions based on the predictability of the existing planning framework. Allowing such a drastic variation undermines the integrity of the planning system and the community’s trust in established controls.

3. Significant reduction in solar access
The substantial massing and height of the proposed towers will result in a daylight deficit for many neighbouring residential properties. I am concerned that the proponent’s Solar Access report fails to provide a comprehensive analysis of the overshadowing impacts on key buildings such as Cameo (6 Lachlan Street) and Aria (4 Lachlan Street), as well as various west-facing homes nearby. This lack of transparency regarding the loss of winter sunlight for existing residents is a major flaw in the Environmental Impact Statement.

4. Establishment of a detrimental planning precedent
If a 36-storey tower is approved on a site that is not adjacent to a major transport interchange, it will set a dangerous precedent for future development throughout Waterloo. Other developers will inevitably cite this approval to justify similar disproportionate uplifts on their own land. This piece-meal approach to high-rise development is inconsistent with the orderly development objectives mandated by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

5. Insufficient public transport capacity
The development at 881–885 Bourke Street is not adequately serviced by high-capacity transit. The Waterloo Metro is a 15-minute walk away—closer to Redfern than this precinct—and the area currently relies on bus services such as the 304, 392, and 348. These routes already operate at or near maximum capacity during peak hours. Introducing roughly 850 new apartments without a confirmed and significant upgrade to transport frequency will cause existing services to fail.

6. Escalation of traffic congestion and road safety issues
Local intersections at Bourke Street’s junctions with Lachlan, Danks, and McEvoy Streets are already heavily burdened. Residential streets are frequently used by motorists attempting to bypass arterial bottlenecks, which directly impacts the safety and quietude of our neighbourhood. The Traffic Impact Assessment provided does not sufficiently account for the cumulative pressure caused by this project in conjunction with the adjacent Dasco site, the Metro precinct, and the Waterloo Estate renewal.

7. Pressure on overstretched local services
Social infrastructure in Waterloo is struggling to keep pace with recent population growth. Green Square Public School is at capacity, a local public high school is lacking, and primary healthcare providers are under immense strain. This proposal brings an enormous number of new residents to the area but offers no meaningful contribution to the community services required to support them.

8. Shortcomings in public open space provision
The central park included in the plans is inadequate as a public benefit. Being enclosed by towers ranging from 13 to 36 storeys, the space will be overshadowed and lack meaningful recreational utility, such as play equipment or lawn areas for dogs. It is too small to serve the needs of 850 new households while also catering to the existing local population.

9. Privacy and overlooking concerns
The tower has been designed with balconies and habitable rooms that look directly into the private spaces of existing low-rise dwellings. This creates a permanent loss of privacy and a sense of visual intrusion for long-term residents. The application provides insufficient setbacks or architectural screening to properly mitigate these overlooking impacts.

10. Cumulative construction disruptions
Our community is currently enduring prolonged construction activity across various sites, resulting in constant noise, dust, and heavy vehicle movements. The scale of this project will intensify these disruptions for years. Should any approval be granted, it must be conditioned upon a transparent and enforceable Construction Management Plan that strictly regulates haulage routes, operating hours, and noise limits in coordination with other active sites.

11. Worsening of wind tunnel effects
The sheer height and volume of the proposed towers are likely to exacerbate wind tunnel effects at street level. This will make outdoor spaces, balconies, and the proposed public park significantly less comfortable for pedestrians and residents. I do not believe the wind impacts have been modelled with sufficient rigour in the current application.

12. Impact on on-street parking availability
Parking is a scarce resource in Waterloo, and the high-density nature of this proposal will inevitably increase competition for on-street spaces. This overflow demand will negatively affect local businesses and make it increasingly difficult for current residents to park near their homes.

13. Personal loss of amenity and solar access
As a resident of a ground-floor apartment, the proposed scale of this development is particularly distressing. My home would be deprived of almost all natural light, transforming it into a dark and uninviting living space. I believe this project would be a major blow to our community, causing a severe negative impact on our immediate surroundings, transport networks, and local infrastructure. I am strongly opposed to the development in its current form.

Requested outcome
I request that the Department refuse this application or insist on fundamental changes to the scheme. These must include a substantial reduction in building height to align with the surrounding 4–13 storey context, a more transparent and thorough solar access assessment that accounts for all neighbouring residents, and a robust Construction Management Plan. While I do not object to the redevelopment of this site in principle, I cannot support a proposal of this excessive scale and height under the current planning framework.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours sincerely,

Billie browning
Danks st, Waterloo NSW

I object to the change in height for the development on 903-921 Bourke St Waterloo (SSD-95997711) based on the following:
a. Infrastructure- buses and trains are already over stretched. Loss of bus lines that has occurred over the past years has meant more people trying to use public transport which has less seating room. There is the issue of less local facilities or at the very least local facilities are already at stretching point and with the influx of a ‘small town’ can only get worse. Already, peak time trains from Green Square are at capacity, even with the Waterloo Station open.
b. Amenities- the small park areas to be built around the buildings do not provide enough open space. Whilst they look good for architects, they are not practicable in number and/or to be of use, especially for families. With the visual crowding in by these mega structures this would make the ‘green spaces’ around them feel confined adding to mental health issues and unusability. By increasing the population of the area, the spaces will soon be at capacity.
c. Visual impact- these buildings are out of keeping with the area and its historical importance. Plus, of course is the related issue of overshadowing. The impact of lack of sun will just add to the ‘ghetto’ like feeling which is apparent even in its present design.
d. Wind tunnels- this is again related to well-being of residents. Empty garden areas, people pushed inside due to poor outdoor conditions will only further create isolated communities of people with resultant mental issues and possibly physical injury in high wind areas. The higher the building the more likely here will be more lack of sunshine and light as well as greater wind tunnel effect.
e. Cost factor- the higher the building is, the more expensive it is to build and the higher the prices being paid to live in them. So much for creating a community of people who come from all walks of life. Is the aim to create a ‘gated’ community and thus lead to greater social inequality in an area that already has severe social inequalities?
f. I would also question the environmental impact of the buildings. High rise buildings are not energy efficient with some studies citing that they use almost twice as much energy as a mid-rise structure. So, it stands to reason that the higher these buildings become the less energy efficient they will be. I am also concerned about safety in these buildings. The higher the building the more difficult it is to control fire and evacuate in emergencies.
g. However, my greatest objection is based on community well-being. It is not that long ago that the high-rise buildings in Surrey Hills/Redfern (community housing) were referred to as ‘Suicide Towers’. The ‘Three Sisters’ as they were also known became a mecca for drugs, suicide and crime. So now, the State Government in its wisdom wants to create a new potentially similar area.
This development already will have a significant impact on the mental health and wellbeing of the entire community that will live in it and near it; however, the increase in height will only exacerbate the potential mental health issues. Issues that will be exacerbated range from feelings of isolation, depression and anxiety. By increasing the height controls there will be a larger group of people potentially having their well-being impacted.
With the increased population as a result of the height increase, there is also the issue of providing educational facilities in an area already at breaking point. There is a distinct lack of childminding and schools large enough to take in the anticipated increase in population. This coupled with poor transport infrastructure is a recipe for disaster. Any government or political representative who fails to see the political impact of such an increase in population has not read the local mood well enough.
I am most concerned for children. High rise living is not ideal for them in any situation but having buildings that are above five floors is certainly child abuse. The argument is that people are free to choose to live in the buildings; however, is the aim to create a conclave for certain socio-economic groups? For those who do have children, high rise living is not ideal; however, by increasing the height level there is the potential for more families occupying the buildings and thus more social concerns and child related physical and mental health issues. It is common knowledge that a lack of open spaces often results in inhibiting the social and physical development of children. By increasing the height there will be greater pressure on providing adequate, healthy and appropriate child friendly spaces which will allow for the physical and emotional development of children. The provision of the present ‘green spaces’ around the buildings is not adequate and as they will be wind tunnels and lack sunlight, unusable.
By allowing these buildings to increase their height, we are not creating community but adding a larger number of people to become socially, emotionally and physically isolated. High rises, in any case restrict people’s participation in use of local areas and thus propinquity- creating isolation silos; however, by increasing the height of these buildings will only add a greater number of people into an already crowded area in which its infrastructure and facilities are already overburdened.

Submission: Objection to SSD-95997711
Mixed Use Development – 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo

To: Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Application Number: SSD-95997711
Location: 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo
Position: Objection

I am a resident and property owner at 806 19–21 Dunkerley Place, Waterloo, located in close proximity to the proposed development, and I write to formally object to this State Significant Development application.

While I support the ongoing growth and renewal of the Green Square precinct, this proposal represents an excessive increase in scale that will have a direct and unreasonable impact on the amenity of surrounding properties—particularly through the loss of views, increased visual bulk, and diminished residential enjoyment.

⸻

1. Significant loss of views and visual amenity

A primary concern is the substantial impact this development will have on outlook from my property.

The proposed increase in building height to 126 metres will introduce a dominant built form that will materially obstruct existing views currently enjoyed from my residence, including from key living areas and my outdoor space, including my pool area.

This loss of outlook is not minor or incidental—it represents a permanent and meaningful reduction in amenity. Open views, natural outlook, and a sense of space are integral to the enjoyment of a property and are key considerations in residential planning.

The scale of this proposal will replace that openness with an imposing vertical structure, significantly altering the character of the surrounding environment.

⸻

2. Overbearing scale and lack of appropriate transition

The proposal more than doubles the permissible building height and significantly increases density.

Such a dramatic uplift fails to provide an appropriate transition to the existing built environment, particularly for nearby residential properties such as mine. The result will be an overbearing presence that dominates the skyline and diminishes the sense of openness currently experienced in the area.

This level of intensification is inconsistent with reasonable expectations of neighbouring amenity and sets a concerning precedent for further overdevelopment.

⸻

3. Impact on property value and enjoyment

The loss of views, increased density, and visual dominance of the proposed development will have a direct impact on the liveability and value of surrounding properties, including my own.

While planning decisions are not solely determined by property value impacts, the erosion of amenity—particularly loss of outlook and increased bulk—is widely recognised as a factor that affects both enjoyment and market perception of residential property.

⸻

4. Infrastructure strain and cumulative overdevelopment

The proposed increase in dwellings from 376 to 580 apartments will place additional pressure on an area already experiencing infrastructure constraints.

Residents in the Green Square and Waterloo precinct are already dealing with:

* Congestion in transport and public spaces
* Limited access to community infrastructure
* Insufficient open space relative to population growth

Approving further density without clear infrastructure upgrades will exacerbate these challenges and reduce overall quality of life for existing and future residents.

⸻

5. Lack of confidence in ground-level activation

Recent developments in the surrounding area have consistently delivered poor retail outcomes, characterised by:

* Repetitive takeaway food outlets
* Limited diversity in retail and dining experiences
* A lack of community-oriented or destination venues

There is little in this proposal that provides confidence this pattern will change. Without stronger planning requirements, this development risks contributing further to an already uninspiring and homogeneous streetscape.

⸻

6. Requested actions

I respectfully request that the Department:

1. Refuse or significantly reduce the scale of the development, particularly building height, to minimise impacts on surrounding properties.
2. Undertake a more rigorous assessment of view loss and visual impact on neighbouring residences, including those at 19–21 Dunkerley Place.
3. Ensure that any approved development includes:
* Appropriate height transitions
* Reduced bulk and improved setbacks
* Measures to protect neighbouring amenity where possible
4. Require stronger commitments around infrastructure contributions and delivery.
5. Introduce clearer planning controls to ensure meaningful and diverse retail and community uses at ground level.

⸻

7. Conclusion

This proposal, in its current form, prioritises density and yield over the amenity of existing residents and the long-term quality of the built environment.

For residents such as myself at 19–21 Dunkerley Place, the development will result in a substantial and permanent loss of views, increased visual bulk, and reduced enjoyment of our property.

For these reasons, I strongly object to the application.

Yours faithfully,
John Foley
806 19–21 Dunkerley Place
Waterloo NSW

Infrastructure strain — the extra residents would place unacceptable pressure on local roads, parking and public transport, all of which are already stretched. Services such as the 304 bus and peak-hour trains from Green Square are already at or near capacity, and buses often pass by because they’re full.
Overshadowing impacts - The two oversized towers proposed at 903-921 Bourke Street, together with the tower proposed at 881-885 Bourke Street, would create significant cumulative overshadowing during the winter solstice, affecting a large area of nearby homes and public open space.
Risk of severe wind tunnel effects at street level, that could impact pedestrian safety