write to formally object to Development Application D/2021/1415 in respect of the proposed development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo. This objection is made pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) and is grounded in substantive planning, environmental, and procedural deficiencies that render the application unsuitable for approval. When assessed against the statutory framework administered by the City of Sydney and overseen within the broader policy context of the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, the proposal fails to meet fundamental requirements and should be refused.
At the outset, the application does not demonstrate compliance with the applicable Local Environmental Plan, Development Control Plan, and relevant State Environmental Planning Policies. While the applicant may assert technical compliance with certain numerical controls, it is well established that compliance in form does not equate to compliance in substance. The proposal undermines the objectives of those controls, particularly in relation to built form, scale, amenity, and environmental performance. Any reliance on variations or departures is not supported by a rigorous or lawful justification and would fail to satisfy the established planning principles governing such departures. In this respect, the application is not merely marginally non-compliant; it reflects a fundamental misalignment with the strategic intent of the planning framework.
The proposed development constitutes a clear instance of overdevelopment. The bulk, scale, and massing of the buildings are excessive and produce an outcome that is visually dominant, overbearing, and incompatible with both the existing and desired future character of the Waterloo locality. The design fails to provide appropriate modulation or articulation to mitigate its apparent scale, and the transition to surrounding development is abrupt and unresolved. Rather than integrating with the urban fabric, the proposal imposes itself upon it. This is contrary to well-established urban design principles and to the objectives of the Development Control Plan, which seek to ensure that development contributes positively to the streetscape and the broader public domain.
The amenity impacts arising from the proposal are significant and unacceptable. The development will result in material loss of solar access to neighboring residential properties and to areas of the public domain, contrary to the objectives of preserving reasonable sunlight access. The extent of overshadowing has not been adequately mitigated and appears to be understated in the supporting documentation. In addition, the proposal will give rise to overlooking and privacy impacts that are inconsistent with acceptable residential standards. The cumulative effect of visual intrusion, loss of outlook, and increased density will materially diminish the amenity of adjoining properties. These impacts are not speculative; they are a direct and foreseeable consequence of the scale and configuration of the proposed development.
The traffic and transport assessment accompanying the application is deficient and cannot be relied upon. It is based on assumptions regarding modal shift and public transport usage that are not adequately substantiated and which appear overly optimistic. The analysis fails to properly account for cumulative impacts arising from other developments in the locality, thereby understating the true burden on the road network. The likely outcome is increased congestion, reduced safety, and a deterioration in the efficiency of local transport infrastructure. In the absence of a robust and credible assessment, the Consent Authority cannot be satisfied that the development will not have adverse impacts on the transport network, as required under section 4.15 of the Act.
Closely related to this is the failure of the application to demonstrate that existing infrastructure and services have the capacity to accommodate the proposed development. There is insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that transport systems, utilities, open space, and community facilities can absorb the additional demand generated by the project. Approval of development in the absence of such evidence is premature and inconsistent with the principles of orderly and sustainable planning. It effectively transfers risk from the applicant to the community, which is neither equitable nor acceptable.
The environmental aspects of the application are similarly inadequate. The documentation does not provide sufficient assurance that issues such as contamination, stormwater management, and environmental sustainability have been comprehensively addressed. In particular, the absence of a clearly defined and enforceable remediation strategy raises serious concerns regarding site suitability. The proposal also fails to demonstrate alignment with contemporary sustainability standards or to adequately address the urban heat island effect, which is of increasing relevance in high-density urban environments. These omissions are material and go directly to the question of whether the site is suitable for the proposed use.
The proposal further fails to adequately consider the character of the Waterloo precinct. Even in circumstances where formal heritage listings may not apply, the planning framework requires development to respond sensitively to its context. The application does not achieve this. Instead, it prioritizes yield and intensity at the expense of character and cohesion, resulting in a development that is discordant with its surroundings. This failure is compounded by the cumulative impact of similar developments in the area, which underscores the need for careful and contextually responsive planning rather than further escalation of scale.
There are also significant procedural deficiencies in the application that undermine its credibility. The supporting technical reports are, in several instances, incomplete, inconsistent, or reliant on assumptions that are not independently verified. Key methodologies are not transparently disclosed, limiting the ability of stakeholders to meaningfully assess the proposal. The planning justification lacks coherence and does not adequately reconcile the various impacts identified. These deficiencies are not merely technical; they go to the heart of the assessment process and render the application incapable of proper evaluation.
When considered in its entirety, the application is contrary to the public interest. It delivers substantial private benefit to the applicant while imposing disproportionate adverse impacts on the surrounding community. It does not provide a commensurate contribution to public amenity, infrastructure, or environmental outcomes. The imbalance between benefit and burden is stark and cannot be justified within the planning framework.
For these reasons, the Consent Authority cannot be satisfied that the application meets the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The proposal fails to achieve the objectives of the applicable planning controls, results in unacceptable impacts, and is supported by inadequate and deficient documentation. Approval in its current form would not only be contrary to sound planning principles but would also expose the decision to significant legal and merit-based challenge.
Accordingly, I respectfully submit that Development Application D/2021/1415 must be refused.

Hello

Please consider my strong objection to this proposal. It is excessive and totally egregious compared to the original plan, and will turn an already over populated area into a less safe and enjoyable place to live. The number of apartments and scale of the plan is too large for the area, and the number of parking spots planned is completely inadequate. Our family lives in Waterloo and this would materially impact us. I look forward to a common sense approach returning to this planning process.

I write to formally object to Development Application D/2021/1415 in respect of the proposed development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo. This objection is made pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) and is grounded in substantive planning, environmental, and procedural deficiencies that render the application unsuitable for approval. When assessed against the statutory framework administered by the City of Sydney and within the broader policy context of the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, the proposal fails to meet fundamental requirements and should be refused.
At the outset, the application does not demonstrate compliance with the applicable Local Environmental Plan, Development Control Plan, and relevant State Environmental Planning Policies. While the applicant may assert technical compliance with certain numerical controls, it is well established that compliance in form does not equate to compliance in substance. The proposal undermines the objectives of those controls, particularly in relation to built form, scale, amenity, environmental performance, and the orderly development of land. Any reliance on variations or departures is not supported by a rigorous or lawful justification and would fail to satisfy the established planning principles governing such departures, including the requirement to demonstrate that strict compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention. In this respect, the application reflects not a marginal inconsistency but a fundamental misalignment with the strategic intent of the planning framework.
The proposed development constitutes a clear instance of overdevelopment. The bulk, scale, and massing of the buildings are excessive and produce an outcome that is visually dominant, overbearing, and incompatible with both the existing and desired future character of the Waterloo locality. The design fails to provide appropriate modulation or articulation to mitigate its apparent scale, and the transition to surrounding development is abrupt, unresolved, and discordant. Rather than integrating with the established urban fabric, the proposal imposes itself upon it in a manner that is inconsistent with good urban design and contrary to the objectives of the Development Control Plan. The cumulative effect is a built form that erodes streetscape quality and diminishes the public domain, rather than enhancing it.
The amenity impacts arising from the proposal are significant, material, and unacceptable. The development will result in substantial loss of solar access to neighboring residential properties and to areas of the public domain, contrary to the objectives of preserving reasonable sunlight access and ensuring livable urban environments. The extent of overshadowing appears to be understated in the supporting documentation and has not been satisfactorily mitigated. In addition, the proposal will give rise to overlooking and privacy impacts that are inconsistent with acceptable residential standards, particularly in a high-density context where such impacts must be carefully managed. The cumulative effect of visual intrusion, loss of outlook, increased density, and potential noise impacts will materially diminish the amenity of adjoining properties. These impacts are foreseeable, direct, and consequential, and they weigh heavily against approval.
The traffic and transport assessment accompanying the application is deficient, incomplete, and unreliable. It is predicated on assumptions regarding modal shift and public transport usage that are not adequately substantiated and which appear overly optimistic given prevailing travel patterns. The analysis fails to properly account for cumulative impacts arising from other developments in the locality and does not adequately assess peak period conditions or network resilience. The likely outcome is increased congestion, reduced safety, and a measurable deterioration in the performance of the local transport network. In these circumstances, the Consent Authority cannot be satisfied that the proposal will not have adverse transport impacts, and approval would be inconsistent with the statutory obligation to consider such matters.
Closely related to this is the failure of the application to demonstrate that existing infrastructure and services have the capacity to accommodate the proposed development. There is insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that transport infrastructure, utilities, open space, health services, educational facilities, and broader community infrastructure can absorb the additional demand generated by the project. The absence of a coordinated infrastructure response suggests that the development is being advanced ahead of the capacity required to support it. Approval in such circumstances would be premature and contrary to the principles of orderly and sustainable planning, effectively externalizing infrastructure costs onto the community.
The environmental aspects of the application are similarly inadequate and give rise to serious concern. The documentation does not provide sufficient assurance that issues such as contamination, stormwater management, water quality, and environmental sustainability have been comprehensively addressed. In particular, the absence of a clearly defined, enforceable, and independently verified remediation strategy raises questions as to whether the site is suitable for the proposed use. The proposal also fails to demonstrate alignment with best-practice sustainability benchmarks, including energy efficiency, water reuse, and climate resilience. The lack of meaningful measures to address urban heat island effects further underscores the inadequacy of the environmental response.
The proposal also fails to adequately consider the character and evolving identity of the Waterloo precinct. Even where formal heritage listings do not directly apply, the planning framework requires development to respond sensitively to its context and contribute positively to the urban environment. The application does not achieve this outcome. Instead, it prioritizes density and yield at the expense of coherence and character, resulting in a development that is discordant, visually intrusive, and inconsistent with the broader planning vision for the area. The incremental erosion of local character through developments of this nature is a matter of legitimate planning concern and must be given due weight.
There are also significant procedural deficiencies that further undermine the integrity of the application. The supporting technical reports are, in several instances, incomplete, internally inconsistent, or reliant on assumptions that are not independently verified. Key methodologies are insufficiently disclosed, limiting transparency and preventing meaningful scrutiny. The planning justification is fragmented and fails to reconcile the various impacts identified across disciplines. These deficiencies materially prejudice the assessment process and prevent the Consent Authority from being properly satisfied as to the merits of the proposal.
When considered holistically, the application is contrary to the public interest. It confers substantial private benefit while imposing disproportionate and inadequately mitigated impacts on the surrounding community. It does not deliver a commensurate public benefit in terms of infrastructure, amenity, or environmental performance. The imbalance between private gain and public burden is pronounced and unacceptable within the context of the planning framework.
For these reasons, the Consent Authority cannot be satisfied that the application meets the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The proposal fails to achieve the objectives of the applicable planning controls, results in unacceptable impacts, and is supported by inadequate and unreliable documentation. Approval in its current form would be inconsistent with sound planning practice and would expose the decision to a high risk of successful challenge on both merit and legal grounds.
Accordingly, I respectfully submit that Development Application D/2021/1415 must be refused.

I am seriously concerned about the increase in height of the project. A significant increase in height and overall numbers of apartments will impact other buildings in the area, overall changing their (our) aspect. This will have ramifications by dominating the current aspect and blocking the afternoon sun, particularly for apartments that current have this aspect. The increase is VERY significant, being more than double the previously approved height.
The increase in numbers will add a huge burden to an already stretched public transport system, being primarily buses, at peak times of the day. Please consider rejecting this and returning to the originally approved project.

I am a registered architect with over 12 years of experience in practice, and I am strongly in support of increased housing supply and density done well.
However I do not believe the project should be approved in its current form for a number of reasons.

Reviewing the documents, the increase in scale of the new proposal is a major deviation from the previous approval and is not merited on design grounds. It sets a concerning precedent if developments can be accelerated by achieving less design quality, as demonstrated by the City of Sydney Design Excellence Competition.

The number of dwellings in the proposed development has increased drastically, from 347 to 580 dwellings (67% increase). While consultant reports have been prepared to justify this density is well supported by local infrastructure, as a resident in the area I can attest this is not the case. The proposed development is not required to submit a VPA and there is no evidence of infrastructure upgrades to accompany the proposal.

The increased height of the development cannot be substantiated on design grounds or from a quality perspective.
The apartments do not meet the Apartment Design Guide controls for Solar Access, caused by the central tower which is overshadowing the neighbouring sites. i.e.. Bourke Street North where only 60% of units achieve the minimum 2hrs required solar access in mid winter. This could be increased if the central tower did not block its access, which was the subject of previous urban design reports. Many years of urban planning and design reports have been discarded for this proposed outcome which reduces the quality and amenity of the previously approved development. Providing increased housing supply should not be used as a precedent for developers to expect they can build lower quality designs. This is not the intent of the Apartment Design Guide as set out in the SEPP. Furthermore, the increased scale of the towers will have a detrimental effect on the amenity of local parks (Kensington Street Reserve, Morehead Street Reserve) and the communal open space of nearby residential buildings which will now be in shadow for long periods making them unattractive spaces for daily use.

Main Tower: 21 storeys approved / 39 storeys proposed (+18 storeys)
Bourke Street North: 12 storeys approved / 28 storeys proposed (+16 storeys)
Bourke Street South: 7 storeys approved / 11 storeys proposed (+4 storeys)
Young Street North: 7 storeys approved / 8 storeys proposed (+1 storeys)
Young Street South: 7 storeys approved / 8 storeys proposed (+1 storeys)

Furthermore, the proposal will generate significant traffic safety concerns on what is already a very congested corner. The local bus routes are already at capacity; buses frequently are overfull at peak times and do not pick up passengers. The new Metro station alleviates this however it is a 20-minute walk from the site, so it is not expected that all residents will use this as their primary form of transport.
The spaces within development leave a lot to be desired, previously conceived courtyards will now be in complete shadow due to the increase in scale, and the photomontages do not accurately portray the quality of these spaces. Proposed biodiversity benefits of the scheme going upward are ridiculous and not supported by any real evidence. Adding roof terraces next to AC plants exhausting hot air will not attract a community of native bird species and bees.

There is no additional school infrastructure which is a concern for the many young couples living in the area who plan to have families and raise kids in the area.

For the reasons above I strongly believe the development should not proceed as proposed.
Any increase in scale and density should be delivered without the reduction in amenity to residents or surrounding properties.

I strongly object to the proposed modifications for 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SSD-95997711).

My objection is not to housing or renewal in principle. I understand that Waterloo is changing and that more housing is needed. My objection is to the extraordinary scale of this proposal, the lack of any clear planning logic behind it, and the way it appears to override the carefully developed planning framework for this area without offering any credible alternative.

The most alarming aspect of this application is the sheer increase in height. Increasing the development from around 65 metres to 126 metres is not a minor adjustment. It is almost a doubling of the approved height and creates a building far beyond the scale of its surroundings. That kind of jump does not feel like considered urban planning. It feels excessive, out of proportion, and completely at odds with the existing character and planning intent for the area.

My core concern is simple: what is the plan? If the State Government is willing to override the considered planning framework of the City of Sydney for one of the densest urban areas in Australia, then what is the alternative vision? Is there one? The local planning controls exist for a reason. They are meant to balance density with transport capacity, open space, schools, design quality, neighbourhood character and liveability. If those controls are being pushed aside, the community deserves to know what broader strategy is replacing them. Otherwise, this looks like developer-led planning rather than proper planning, and that is a disastrous way to shape a neighbourhood.

This proposal would also set a dangerous precedent. Once a building of this scale is approved, it becomes much harder to resist similar proposals nearby. That matters because Waterloo and the surrounding areas are already under enormous development pressure. Approving something of this height and density sends the message that the limits and safeguards built into the planning system can simply be brushed aside. That undermines confidence in the entire planning process.

There are also obvious amenity impacts that come with a building of this size. A development this tall will create overshadowing and wind tunnel effects, and it will change the feel of the area at street level. It pushes the neighbourhood further toward a CBD-style built form and ambience, which is not what this part of Waterloo has been planned for. There is a major difference between thoughtful urban density and an overbearing tower that dominates everything around it.

I am also very concerned about the housing mix being proposed. If this development is being justified on the basis that more housing is needed, then it is fair to ask what kind of housing is actually being delivered. The overwhelming majority of the apartments appear to be studios, one-bedroom and two-bedroom units, with only 20 three-bedroom apartments in the entire complex (which appear to be the penthouses only). That does very little to support families who want to live in the inner city. A short-term boost in dwelling numbers does not justify a long-term planning outcome that fails to create a balanced and sustainable community.

Transport and infrastructure impacts are another major concern. The proposal adds 233 extra dwellings but only 20 additional car spaces. That mismatch is extraordinary. Buses regularly pass by full in peak hour. Local schools are at capacity. Adding this level of density without a serious and visible plan for transport, roads, schools, open space and community infrastructure is irresponsible.

I am also deeply concerned that the State Significant Development pathway appears to bypass many of the safeguards that would normally apply through local planning controls, including environmental, social, design quality and open space protections. The larger the proposal, the greater the scrutiny should be. Instead, this process appears to allow a much more extreme outcome while avoiding many of the normal checks and balances.

This is not a sensible example of long-term city-making. It is a short-term housing numbers gain that risks creating a long-term planning disaster. The proposal is excessive in height and density, poorly justified, inconsistent with the planning framework for the area, and likely to have major impacts on residents and the wider community.

I strongly object to the proposed modifications and ask that this application be refused.

Given the significance of the changes proposed and the precedent this could set for future developments, I also ask that a public hearing be held so the community has a proper opportunity to be heard.

I object to the proposed development uplift being requested by the developers as a state significant development.
I've been a City of Sydney resident and ratepayer for nearly 25 years.
In that time the City of Sydney has carefully balanced the existing residential and commercial needs with those to provide more residential supply and uplift housing.
It's a tribute to the City of Sydney how well they've done the Green Square development and indeed the Dank St. East precinct (otherwise known as the Meriton development). There is a scale to those developments that makes them still incredibly livable.
Where I live, on Danks street west off Bourke, the development limit is four to five floors. I live on the 4th floor of a building that's about 10 years old it's on the northern side of the block of dank St. to the north (and bounded on the South by McAvoy St).
Within this envelope the mixed-use development at 903-921 Burke St. as proposed I didn't object to the original height and scale of the development.
The developer seeks the state government and its ability to declare a site “state significant” and to bypass the quite good planning lens of the City of Sydney. Now of course we're in an insidious position where the development we thought we were getting now looks like it's to be tripled in size at the stroke of a pen by a committee of three.
That’s hardly looking out for the community. My objections to this development are the
1: proposed new height,
2: the overall increase in scale of the development and
3: the overall negative impact this will have on livability of the suburbs.
4: there is no mention of transport solutions and the impact of the extra residents
5: the additional noise of a prolonged construction period.
6: the obvious overshadowing of the new height and the overlooking of the new height on existing 4-5 story buildings.
6: there appears to be no new community infrastructure provided by this quadrupling (it's like 3 times to four times the original scale of the development!)
Surely you could see that the City of Sydney has done more than its part of lifting to add in more residential homes. I'm not anti-development. I agree with the original proposal, not this current proposal for additional uplift and scale. The project should be undeclared as state significant and returned to City of Sydney capable hands.
No offense but they are better at it than NSW Dept of Planning.
I always feel somewhat defeated even as I make this submission because of course my guess is no one on the approval panel or the minister lives in this part of town.
My guess is they have a view that it doesn't matter, it's an independently held seat at a local government level, so we don't have to bow and cow and tow to a sitting labour member to appease their constituency, you do forget who we might vote for at a state level.
Please leave the original proposal to stand and reject this amended one on grounds of greed, inappropriate scale and not needed. They were able to make a profit with their original proposal and that’s what should stand.

Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for providing details of this proposal to amend the development consent. I write to submit my objection to the amended DA mixed use development at 903-921 Bourke St and 3 McEvoy Street Waterloo on the following grounds.
1. I object to this proposal that is seeking to increase the height of Bourke Street north building from 12 storeys to 31 storeys and Young St Tower from 21 storeys to 38 storeys as this increase in units will put further strain on the already strained infrastructure in Waterloo. This will significantly increase the amount of vehicle movements on the surrounding roads that are already overloaded with traffic. Whilst living in Waterloo the roads have not seen any improvement with the increase in unit development. This development will add to the traffic congestion.
2. This development will I believe add to the already over loaded public transport in the area. As a user of public transport the buses are now unable to keep up with the number of people in the area. Buses in peak times quite often pass the stop as they are full. Green Square station is I believe already at capacity and this development will increase the numbers of users at the station. The development does not take into account that the current public transport is inadequate for the current residents Waterloo.
3. The increase in apartments also does not address the extra strain that will be placed on the environment and rubbish produced by the increase in units. Waterloo is unfortunately an area that has issues with litter in the streets and ongoing discarding of rubbish items in the street. Eg household furniture. There appears to be no plan in place to deal with the increase in rubbish produced.
4. The increase in units will also place strain on the use of water and sewerage. From reading the development documents I can see no indication of how much extra water will be consumed and sewerage produced from this development.
5. With an increase in height this development is an over development of the site. The increase in height is too large for the area and I believe will increase shading and detract from the area.
6. Waterloo is already a noisy location day and night with traffic. This development will add to the already heavy traffic and noise generated in the area.
7. The development is requesting an additional 233 apartments and 20 extra parking spaces. This increase in apartments will increase the demand for parking in the surrounding streets that are already at capacity due to the increase in unit development in the recent years.
8. I believe the density of this development will increase the demand on NSW Fire to attend such a dense site in the event of a fire.
9. If this development is approved I am concerned that it will open the way for other developments of a similar size to be approved and further detract from our local area.

Thank you for reading my submission.
Kind regards
Stuart McKinlay

I am writing to you to express my strong objection to SSD-95997711 located at 903-921 Bourke Street Waterloo NSW 2017. My objection is based on the following:
• Solar impact due to increase heights across neighbouring buildings is not acceptable, particularly in winter months with shadowing on the solar report indicating that residential buildings will be impacted from 1pm onwards.
• The proposed additional heights are not in line with the current existing waterloo character and to be blunt, will stick out like the proverbial “Dogs…..”. This will degrade the feel and nature of Waterloo that already struggles with high density.
• I struggle to see how this alleviates the “Affordability” question the current government is looking to address. Please note, that due to the high density classification (which this project is pushing up further) Major banks and Mortgage providers will only lend a 50% LVR, meaning buyers need a 50% deposit – given the numbers quoted by Dasco – even for a 1 bedroom unit on lower floors would then need a $500K deposit – no first home buyer will have $500K in their pocket. Will someone please explain how this assists affordability???
• The current infrastructure is already not sufficient to cater for population – how will an additional residents be accommodated – I invite you directly to catch a 304 bus to the city between 8am and 9am Mon to Friday! It is an extremely unpleasant experience, and as a 58yr old, standing the whole way is somewhat of a strain. The Metro is as far as the Redfern station so please stop stating it is close – it is now, and furthermore the surrounding area is not safe post sunset.
• Wind tunnelling has resulted in outdoor areas in units becoming un-usable – this is not the intent – why have an outside area if the wind is cyclonic 90% of the time – any further tall buildings are going to result in more of the same!
• In summary, Waterloo has done its bit for housing affordability and providing new dwellings – at a cost already in terms of what residents now face into – overshadowing, construction noise, density, degradation of safety due to social housing, and so on, please consider large parcels of land such as those on McEvoy and John street as potential sites for redevelopment.