Amber Riethmuller
Object
Amber Riethmuller
Object
WATERLOO
,
New South Wales
Message
Dear Lord Mayor Clover Moore,
On behalf of the residents of 1 Danks Street, Waterloo, we are seeking your urgent assistance in protecting our small residential warehouse conversion from the significant impacts of a commercial Build-to-Rent (BTR) development proposal that seeks to exceed the established masterplan for our precinct.
Our building is one of the few residential communities within an area otherwise dominated by commercial uses, and we are deeply concerned that the proposed State Significant Development (SSD 80441462) does not properly account for the sensitive nature of our site or the planning expectations that were communicated to purchasers over many years.
When the precinct was rezoned and redeveloped, the masterplan clearly identified a 7-storey height limit for the sites surrounding us. This is still what is shown in materials held at the City of Sydney’s City Office.
However, after meeting with the developer, we were informed that only certain tiers would be altered—yet the current proposal now shows mass extended across the entire Young Street frontage, pushing height and bulk directly toward our homes and disregarding the existing residential interface.
Below is a summary of the key issues outlined in our formal submission:
1. Loss of Sunlight and Solar Access
The proposed height and massing will cause severe overshadowing of our building.
By 3:00pm in winter, no direct sunlight will reach our apartments, removing critical daylight access.
As our building was designed with west-facing living areas, the only reliable sunlight we receive is morning light into our east-facing bedrooms. The proposal would dramatically reduce even this limited solar access, contrary to the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) principles relating to daylight, cross-ventilation, and residential wellbeing.
2. Major Privacy Impacts — 19 Storeys Overlooking Low- to Mid-Rise Homes
The development introduces a 19-storey tower immediately adjacent to our low- and mid-rise residential homes.
Balconies and habitable rooms have been oriented to face directly into our apartments, causing constant overlooking, loss of privacy, and visual intrusion.
3. Excessive Massing and Inequitable Built Form
The proposal shifts the bulk of the building toward our boundary, seemingly to maintain greater distance from the new Dasco development on the opposite side.
This creates a disproportionate built form outcome that places the most significant impacts on the smallest and most vulnerable residential site in the precinct. The design lacks adequate setback transitions, height modulation, and scaling appropriate for a mixed-use neighbourhood.
4. Departure from the Original Masterplan
The proposal represents a substantial departure from the agreed and long-publicised masterplan that guided our decision to move into this community.
Residents reasonably relied on the understanding that the surrounding built form would be consistent with the established planning framework.
The current scheme undermines that masterplan, eroding trust in the planning process and creating uncertainty about future development controls.
5. Imbalance of Interests for a Small Residential Community
Our building is surrounded by commercial sites whose occupants are far less affected by issues such as overshadowing, privacy loss, and acoustic impacts.
The proposal does not appear to recognise this imbalance, and the unique needs of our residential community have not been adequately considered within the development’s design or justification.
6. Visual, Acoustic, and General Amenity Impacts
The expansion of the building footprint over Young Street places active balconies and living areas directly overlooking our homes.
This will lead to increased noise, loss of visual privacy, and a higher level of activity facing our windows and courtyards—impacts that have not been sufficiently mitigated or addressed.
Request for Assistance
Given the scale of the impacts described above, we respectfully request your support in advocating for:
Adherence to the original precinct masterplan
A reduction in height, bulk, and overshadowing impacts
Increased setbacks and more appropriate massing transitions
Removal of direct overlooking into existing homes
A design response that protects the amenity of the only residential community directly adjacent to the proposal
We appreciate your longstanding commitment to community wellbeing, equitable development, and design excellence within the City of Sydney. We hope you can support us in ensuring that this development proceeds in a way that respects both the planning framework and the rights of existing residents.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
We would welcome the opportunity to meet with your office to discuss these concerns further.
On behalf of the residents of 1 Danks Street, Waterloo, we are seeking your urgent assistance in protecting our small residential warehouse conversion from the significant impacts of a commercial Build-to-Rent (BTR) development proposal that seeks to exceed the established masterplan for our precinct.
Our building is one of the few residential communities within an area otherwise dominated by commercial uses, and we are deeply concerned that the proposed State Significant Development (SSD 80441462) does not properly account for the sensitive nature of our site or the planning expectations that were communicated to purchasers over many years.
When the precinct was rezoned and redeveloped, the masterplan clearly identified a 7-storey height limit for the sites surrounding us. This is still what is shown in materials held at the City of Sydney’s City Office.
However, after meeting with the developer, we were informed that only certain tiers would be altered—yet the current proposal now shows mass extended across the entire Young Street frontage, pushing height and bulk directly toward our homes and disregarding the existing residential interface.
Below is a summary of the key issues outlined in our formal submission:
1. Loss of Sunlight and Solar Access
The proposed height and massing will cause severe overshadowing of our building.
By 3:00pm in winter, no direct sunlight will reach our apartments, removing critical daylight access.
As our building was designed with west-facing living areas, the only reliable sunlight we receive is morning light into our east-facing bedrooms. The proposal would dramatically reduce even this limited solar access, contrary to the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) principles relating to daylight, cross-ventilation, and residential wellbeing.
2. Major Privacy Impacts — 19 Storeys Overlooking Low- to Mid-Rise Homes
The development introduces a 19-storey tower immediately adjacent to our low- and mid-rise residential homes.
Balconies and habitable rooms have been oriented to face directly into our apartments, causing constant overlooking, loss of privacy, and visual intrusion.
3. Excessive Massing and Inequitable Built Form
The proposal shifts the bulk of the building toward our boundary, seemingly to maintain greater distance from the new Dasco development on the opposite side.
This creates a disproportionate built form outcome that places the most significant impacts on the smallest and most vulnerable residential site in the precinct. The design lacks adequate setback transitions, height modulation, and scaling appropriate for a mixed-use neighbourhood.
4. Departure from the Original Masterplan
The proposal represents a substantial departure from the agreed and long-publicised masterplan that guided our decision to move into this community.
Residents reasonably relied on the understanding that the surrounding built form would be consistent with the established planning framework.
The current scheme undermines that masterplan, eroding trust in the planning process and creating uncertainty about future development controls.
5. Imbalance of Interests for a Small Residential Community
Our building is surrounded by commercial sites whose occupants are far less affected by issues such as overshadowing, privacy loss, and acoustic impacts.
The proposal does not appear to recognise this imbalance, and the unique needs of our residential community have not been adequately considered within the development’s design or justification.
6. Visual, Acoustic, and General Amenity Impacts
The expansion of the building footprint over Young Street places active balconies and living areas directly overlooking our homes.
This will lead to increased noise, loss of visual privacy, and a higher level of activity facing our windows and courtyards—impacts that have not been sufficiently mitigated or addressed.
Request for Assistance
Given the scale of the impacts described above, we respectfully request your support in advocating for:
Adherence to the original precinct masterplan
A reduction in height, bulk, and overshadowing impacts
Increased setbacks and more appropriate massing transitions
Removal of direct overlooking into existing homes
A design response that protects the amenity of the only residential community directly adjacent to the proposal
We appreciate your longstanding commitment to community wellbeing, equitable development, and design excellence within the City of Sydney. We hope you can support us in ensuring that this development proceeds in a way that respects both the planning framework and the rights of existing residents.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
We would welcome the opportunity to meet with your office to discuss these concerns further.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Pyrmont
,
New South Wales
Message
Our building is one of the few residential communities within an area otherwise dominated by commercial uses, and we are deeply concerned that the proposed State Significant Development (SSD 80441462) does not properly account for the sensitive nature of our site or the planning expectations that were communicated to purchasers over many years.
When the precinct was rezoned and redeveloped, the masterplan clearly identified a 7-storey height limit for the sites surrounding us. This is still what is shown in materials held at the City of Sydney’s City Office.
However, after meeting with the developer, we were informed that only certain tiers would be altered—yet the current proposal now shows mass extended across the entire Young Street frontage, pushing height and bulk directly toward our homes and disregarding the existing residential interface.
Below is a summary of the key issues outlined in our formal submission:
1. Loss of Sunlight and Solar Access
The proposed height and massing will cause severe overshadowing of our building.
By 3:00pm in winter, no direct sunlight will reach our apartments, removing critical daylight access.
As our building was designed with west-facing living areas, the only reliable sunlight we receive is morning light into our east-facing bedrooms. The proposal would dramatically reduce even this limited solar access, contrary to the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) principles relating to daylight, cross-ventilation, and residential wellbeing.
2. Major Privacy Impacts — 19 Storeys Overlooking Low-Rise Homes
The development introduces a 19-storey tower immediately adjacent to our low-rise residential homes.
Balconies and habitable rooms have been oriented to face directly into our apartments, causing constant overlooking, loss of privacy, and visual intrusion.
3. Excessive Massing and Inequitable Built Form
The proposal shifts the bulk of the building toward our boundary, seemingly to maintain greater distance from the new Dasco development on the opposite side.
This creates a disproportionate built form outcome that places the most significant impacts on the smallest and most vulnerable residential site in the precinct. The design lacks adequate setback transitions, height modulation, and scaling appropriate for a mixed-use neighbourhood.
4. Departure from the Original Masterplan
The proposal represents a substantial departure from the agreed and long-publicised masterplan that guided our decision to move into this community.
Residents reasonably relied on the understanding that the surrounding built form would be consistent with the established planning framework.
The current scheme undermines that masterplan, eroding trust in the planning process and creating uncertainty about future development controls.
5. Imbalance of Interests for a Small Residential Community
Our building is surrounded by commercial sites whose occupants are far less affected by issues such as overshadowing, privacy loss, and acoustic impacts.
The proposal does not appear to recognise this imbalance, and the unique needs of our residential community have not been adequately considered within the development’s design or justification.
6. Visual, Acoustic, and General Amenity Impacts
The expansion of the building footprint over Young Street places active balconies and living areas directly overlooking our homes.
This will lead to increased noise, loss of visual privacy, and a higher level of activity facing our windows and courtyards—impacts that have not been sufficiently mitigated or addressed.
Thank you
Concerned resident
When the precinct was rezoned and redeveloped, the masterplan clearly identified a 7-storey height limit for the sites surrounding us. This is still what is shown in materials held at the City of Sydney’s City Office.
However, after meeting with the developer, we were informed that only certain tiers would be altered—yet the current proposal now shows mass extended across the entire Young Street frontage, pushing height and bulk directly toward our homes and disregarding the existing residential interface.
Below is a summary of the key issues outlined in our formal submission:
1. Loss of Sunlight and Solar Access
The proposed height and massing will cause severe overshadowing of our building.
By 3:00pm in winter, no direct sunlight will reach our apartments, removing critical daylight access.
As our building was designed with west-facing living areas, the only reliable sunlight we receive is morning light into our east-facing bedrooms. The proposal would dramatically reduce even this limited solar access, contrary to the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) principles relating to daylight, cross-ventilation, and residential wellbeing.
2. Major Privacy Impacts — 19 Storeys Overlooking Low-Rise Homes
The development introduces a 19-storey tower immediately adjacent to our low-rise residential homes.
Balconies and habitable rooms have been oriented to face directly into our apartments, causing constant overlooking, loss of privacy, and visual intrusion.
3. Excessive Massing and Inequitable Built Form
The proposal shifts the bulk of the building toward our boundary, seemingly to maintain greater distance from the new Dasco development on the opposite side.
This creates a disproportionate built form outcome that places the most significant impacts on the smallest and most vulnerable residential site in the precinct. The design lacks adequate setback transitions, height modulation, and scaling appropriate for a mixed-use neighbourhood.
4. Departure from the Original Masterplan
The proposal represents a substantial departure from the agreed and long-publicised masterplan that guided our decision to move into this community.
Residents reasonably relied on the understanding that the surrounding built form would be consistent with the established planning framework.
The current scheme undermines that masterplan, eroding trust in the planning process and creating uncertainty about future development controls.
5. Imbalance of Interests for a Small Residential Community
Our building is surrounded by commercial sites whose occupants are far less affected by issues such as overshadowing, privacy loss, and acoustic impacts.
The proposal does not appear to recognise this imbalance, and the unique needs of our residential community have not been adequately considered within the development’s design or justification.
6. Visual, Acoustic, and General Amenity Impacts
The expansion of the building footprint over Young Street places active balconies and living areas directly overlooking our homes.
This will lead to increased noise, loss of visual privacy, and a higher level of activity facing our windows and courtyards—impacts that have not been sufficiently mitigated or addressed.
Thank you
Concerned resident
Cameron Douglas
Object
Cameron Douglas
Object
Potts Point
,
New South Wales
Message
To whom it may concern,
I am writing as an owner in the building at 1 Danks Street, Waterloo, to raise my strong concerns about the proposed State Significant Development (SSD 80441462) at 881–885 Bourke Street.
Living in one of the very few residential buildings in a predominantly commercial precinct means that changes on neighbouring sites affect us in very immediate and personal ways. After reviewing the proposal, it’s evident that the development has not been designed with the realities of an established residential community in mind. The scale, placement, and orientation of the tower would have deep and lasting impacts on the people who live here.
My concerns relate to the following issues.
1) Height and massing that are fundamentally mismatched to the surroundings
The decision to place a 19-storey structure beside a low-rise residential building is disproportionate. The bulk of the building has been concentrated along the Young Street side, intensifying the impact on our homes while appearing to prioritise separation from the larger development across the site. This creates an imbalanced outcome for existing residents.
2) Departure from long-standing planning expectations
When I purchased my home, the publicly available masterplan for the precinct clearly indicated a height limit of around seven storeys for adjacent sites. This formed a reasonable expectation about how the area would evolve. A proposal that more than doubles that height undermines confidence in the planning process and disregards what has been communicated to residents for years.
3) Loss of privacy due to orientation and proximity
The orientation of balconies and habitable rooms towards our building would result in unavoidable and direct overlooking into private living areas. The limited setbacks offered in the design do little to mitigate this. For a building that sits immediately alongside homes, this represents a significant and ongoing intrusion.
4) Loss of natural light and overshadowing
The height and placement of the tower would substantially reduce sunlight to our building, especially during winter months. For residents who rely on the limited periods of natural light available, this would have a meaningful effect on everyday living conditions. The overshadowing outcomes appear inconsistent with principles set out in the Apartment Design Guide.
5) Insufficient response to the presence of an existing residential community
The proposal reads as though it was prepared for a site surrounded entirely by commercial buildings. The impacts on an established residential population—noise, visual dominance, increased activity, and general amenity loss—are not adequately addressed in the design.
6) Noise and general amenity impacts
Balconies and active spaces facing towards our building will significantly increase noise and overlook into our homes. The expansion of the building footprint along Young Street also brings more activity and movement to our windows and outdoor areas, without meaningful buffers or design measures to soften these effects.
Taken together, these issues suggest a development that is simply too tall, too close, and too intensive for a site immediately beside a long-standing residential building. I respectfully request that the Department require substantial amendments to the proposal—particularly reductions in height, a redistribution of massing, and design changes that meaningfully respond to the presence of an existing residential community.
I strongly oppose the approval of the development in its current form.
Yours sincerely,
Cameron Douglas
Owner, 1 Danks Street, Waterloo
I am writing as an owner in the building at 1 Danks Street, Waterloo, to raise my strong concerns about the proposed State Significant Development (SSD 80441462) at 881–885 Bourke Street.
Living in one of the very few residential buildings in a predominantly commercial precinct means that changes on neighbouring sites affect us in very immediate and personal ways. After reviewing the proposal, it’s evident that the development has not been designed with the realities of an established residential community in mind. The scale, placement, and orientation of the tower would have deep and lasting impacts on the people who live here.
My concerns relate to the following issues.
1) Height and massing that are fundamentally mismatched to the surroundings
The decision to place a 19-storey structure beside a low-rise residential building is disproportionate. The bulk of the building has been concentrated along the Young Street side, intensifying the impact on our homes while appearing to prioritise separation from the larger development across the site. This creates an imbalanced outcome for existing residents.
2) Departure from long-standing planning expectations
When I purchased my home, the publicly available masterplan for the precinct clearly indicated a height limit of around seven storeys for adjacent sites. This formed a reasonable expectation about how the area would evolve. A proposal that more than doubles that height undermines confidence in the planning process and disregards what has been communicated to residents for years.
3) Loss of privacy due to orientation and proximity
The orientation of balconies and habitable rooms towards our building would result in unavoidable and direct overlooking into private living areas. The limited setbacks offered in the design do little to mitigate this. For a building that sits immediately alongside homes, this represents a significant and ongoing intrusion.
4) Loss of natural light and overshadowing
The height and placement of the tower would substantially reduce sunlight to our building, especially during winter months. For residents who rely on the limited periods of natural light available, this would have a meaningful effect on everyday living conditions. The overshadowing outcomes appear inconsistent with principles set out in the Apartment Design Guide.
5) Insufficient response to the presence of an existing residential community
The proposal reads as though it was prepared for a site surrounded entirely by commercial buildings. The impacts on an established residential population—noise, visual dominance, increased activity, and general amenity loss—are not adequately addressed in the design.
6) Noise and general amenity impacts
Balconies and active spaces facing towards our building will significantly increase noise and overlook into our homes. The expansion of the building footprint along Young Street also brings more activity and movement to our windows and outdoor areas, without meaningful buffers or design measures to soften these effects.
Taken together, these issues suggest a development that is simply too tall, too close, and too intensive for a site immediately beside a long-standing residential building. I respectfully request that the Department require substantial amendments to the proposal—particularly reductions in height, a redistribution of massing, and design changes that meaningfully respond to the presence of an existing residential community.
I strongly oppose the approval of the development in its current form.
Yours sincerely,
Cameron Douglas
Owner, 1 Danks Street, Waterloo
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
WATERLOO
,
New South Wales
Message
Dear NSW Department of Planning, Housing & Infrastructure,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed mixed residential development at 881-885 Bourke St, WATERLOO. While I understand the need for responsible urban growth, this proposal raises several serious concerns that will negatively impact the surrounding community and broader precinct.
1. Excessive Density and Incompatibility with the Local Character: The development’s scale and density are grossly disproportionate to the established built form of the area. The oversized tower will dominate the skyline and stand out as an intrusive visual landmark, undermining the existing aesthetic and overall feel of the precinct. Current residential buildings are generally low to medium rise, and this proposal is inconsistent with the planning intent and character of the neighbourhood.
2. Increased Traffic and Congestion: The area already suffers from significant traffic issues, especially during peak hours. A development of this size will substantially increase vehicle movements, further exacerbating congestion on local streets and arterial roads. The proposal does not adequately address how this additional traffic will be managed or mitigated. Many residential streets are now being used as a "rat-run" to avoid traffic jams. This creates safety issues for residents and pedestrians.
3. Insufficient Provision of Parking: The proposed number of parking spaces is inadequate for the anticipated number of residents and visitors. This shortfall will inevitably spill onto surrounding streets, worsening resident parking availability and creating unsafe parking behaviours, particularly in areas already under strain.
4. Strain on Local Roads and Infrastructure: Our existing road network is already in a poor state and has not kept pace with population growth in the area. Adding a high-density development will accelerate deterioration and increase maintenance demands. Public services—including waste management, street cleaning, utilities, and emergency services—are already struggling to meet current needs, and this development will compound those challenges.
5. Lack of Alignment with Long-Term Community Planning: There is no clear evidence that this proposal aligns with a coordinated approach to growth in the precinct. Sustainable development should complement existing amenities, preserve the neighbourhood’s character, and consider future population needs holistically. This project appears driven by density rather than thoughtful and balanced urban planning.
6. Public Transport (Buses): are already overloaded. Green Square Train Station and the Light Rail are not closely connected to be able to cope with any overflow.
For these reasons, I respectfully object to the current proposal or require substantial amendments to ensure it is sympathetic to the existing community, infrastructure capacity, and the long-term vision of the precinct.
I am writing to formally object to the proposed mixed residential development at 881-885 Bourke St, WATERLOO. While I understand the need for responsible urban growth, this proposal raises several serious concerns that will negatively impact the surrounding community and broader precinct.
1. Excessive Density and Incompatibility with the Local Character: The development’s scale and density are grossly disproportionate to the established built form of the area. The oversized tower will dominate the skyline and stand out as an intrusive visual landmark, undermining the existing aesthetic and overall feel of the precinct. Current residential buildings are generally low to medium rise, and this proposal is inconsistent with the planning intent and character of the neighbourhood.
2. Increased Traffic and Congestion: The area already suffers from significant traffic issues, especially during peak hours. A development of this size will substantially increase vehicle movements, further exacerbating congestion on local streets and arterial roads. The proposal does not adequately address how this additional traffic will be managed or mitigated. Many residential streets are now being used as a "rat-run" to avoid traffic jams. This creates safety issues for residents and pedestrians.
3. Insufficient Provision of Parking: The proposed number of parking spaces is inadequate for the anticipated number of residents and visitors. This shortfall will inevitably spill onto surrounding streets, worsening resident parking availability and creating unsafe parking behaviours, particularly in areas already under strain.
4. Strain on Local Roads and Infrastructure: Our existing road network is already in a poor state and has not kept pace with population growth in the area. Adding a high-density development will accelerate deterioration and increase maintenance demands. Public services—including waste management, street cleaning, utilities, and emergency services—are already struggling to meet current needs, and this development will compound those challenges.
5. Lack of Alignment with Long-Term Community Planning: There is no clear evidence that this proposal aligns with a coordinated approach to growth in the precinct. Sustainable development should complement existing amenities, preserve the neighbourhood’s character, and consider future population needs holistically. This project appears driven by density rather than thoughtful and balanced urban planning.
6. Public Transport (Buses): are already overloaded. Green Square Train Station and the Light Rail are not closely connected to be able to cope with any overflow.
For these reasons, I respectfully object to the current proposal or require substantial amendments to ensure it is sympathetic to the existing community, infrastructure capacity, and the long-term vision of the precinct.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
WATERLOO
,
New South Wales
Message
I am writing to formally object to the proposed Waterloo Mixed Use Development at 881–888 Bourke Street. While I acknowledge the need for thoughtful urban growth, this proposal—in its current form—raises significant concerns regarding height, density, and the cumulative strain it will impose on an already congested local infrastructure.
1. Excessive Building Height
The proposed building height is inconsistent with the prevailing character of the surrounding area. The development would overshadow existing residences, reduce access to natural light, and create an imposing built form out of scale with the neighbourhood. The height intensifies the development’s impacts, amplifying issues relating to traffic, congestion, and infrastructure strain.
2. Overdevelopment and Apartment Density
The number of apartments proposed far exceeds what the immediate infrastructure can reasonably support. Waterloo and the broader Green Square precinct are already experiencing rapid densification, and any further intensification without corresponding investment in public infrastructure is unsustainable. The proposed density risks compromising liveability for both current residents and future occupants.
3. Significant Strain on Existing Infrastructure
Local infrastructure is already under considerable pressure, and this development would exacerbate several critical issues:
Roads and traffic congestion: The road network around Bourke Street and surrounding intersections is heavily congested, particularly during peak hours. Adding hundreds of new residents and associated vehicle movements will worsen bottlenecks, reduce pedestrian safety, and increase travel times. The poor state of our roads in and around this area currently cannot cope with traffic movement and will continue to get worse with additional load and no plan to address or keep up with our deteriorating roads.
Public transport capacity: Bus services and nearby train stations are already at or near capacity, especially during commuting periods. The proposal does not address how increased demand will be accommodated.
Parking impacts: On-street parking in the precinct is scarce. A development of this scale will intensify parking competition and spillover into neighbouring streets, affecting residents and local businesses.
Schools and child-care services: Local educational facilities are overstretched, with long waitlists and limited capacity. Additional population influx cannot be supported without new or expanded schools.
Community services and open space: Community centres, recreational facilities, and open spaces are already struggling to meet current demand. The development does not provide adequate additional community infrastructure to offset its impact.
4. Cumulative Impact on Liveability
This precinct has undergone continuous large-scale redevelopment over the past decade. Many of the promised infrastructure upgrades to support this growth have lagged behind. Approving further high-density development without ensuring the delivery of essential infrastructure will diminish community wellbeing, undermine local amenity, and erode the area’s liveability.
Conclusion
Given the concerns outlined above, I respectfully request that the proposal be rejected in its current form. Any future redevelopment at this site must be scaled appropriately, aligned with local character, and supported by committed infrastructure investment to ensure that growth is sustainable and responsible.
1. Excessive Building Height
The proposed building height is inconsistent with the prevailing character of the surrounding area. The development would overshadow existing residences, reduce access to natural light, and create an imposing built form out of scale with the neighbourhood. The height intensifies the development’s impacts, amplifying issues relating to traffic, congestion, and infrastructure strain.
2. Overdevelopment and Apartment Density
The number of apartments proposed far exceeds what the immediate infrastructure can reasonably support. Waterloo and the broader Green Square precinct are already experiencing rapid densification, and any further intensification without corresponding investment in public infrastructure is unsustainable. The proposed density risks compromising liveability for both current residents and future occupants.
3. Significant Strain on Existing Infrastructure
Local infrastructure is already under considerable pressure, and this development would exacerbate several critical issues:
Roads and traffic congestion: The road network around Bourke Street and surrounding intersections is heavily congested, particularly during peak hours. Adding hundreds of new residents and associated vehicle movements will worsen bottlenecks, reduce pedestrian safety, and increase travel times. The poor state of our roads in and around this area currently cannot cope with traffic movement and will continue to get worse with additional load and no plan to address or keep up with our deteriorating roads.
Public transport capacity: Bus services and nearby train stations are already at or near capacity, especially during commuting periods. The proposal does not address how increased demand will be accommodated.
Parking impacts: On-street parking in the precinct is scarce. A development of this scale will intensify parking competition and spillover into neighbouring streets, affecting residents and local businesses.
Schools and child-care services: Local educational facilities are overstretched, with long waitlists and limited capacity. Additional population influx cannot be supported without new or expanded schools.
Community services and open space: Community centres, recreational facilities, and open spaces are already struggling to meet current demand. The development does not provide adequate additional community infrastructure to offset its impact.
4. Cumulative Impact on Liveability
This precinct has undergone continuous large-scale redevelopment over the past decade. Many of the promised infrastructure upgrades to support this growth have lagged behind. Approving further high-density development without ensuring the delivery of essential infrastructure will diminish community wellbeing, undermine local amenity, and erode the area’s liveability.
Conclusion
Given the concerns outlined above, I respectfully request that the proposal be rejected in its current form. Any future redevelopment at this site must be scaled appropriately, aligned with local character, and supported by committed infrastructure investment to ensure that growth is sustainable and responsible.
Catherine Weiss
Object
Catherine Weiss
Object
WATERLOO
,
New South Wales
Message
A key concern is the ongoing inability for residents to clean their windows, necessitating the implementation of clear and effective measures to ensure proper maintenance and safety.
Additionally, the proposed development would cause a significant and unacceptable reduction in natural light to both residential and commercial areas. This loss of daylight is expected to increase reliance on artificial lighting, leading to higher electricity consumption and associated costs, as well as reduced environmental efficiency.
Multiple submissions from the building have already raised these concerns.
Additionally, the proposed development would cause a significant and unacceptable reduction in natural light to both residential and commercial areas. This loss of daylight is expected to increase reliance on artificial lighting, leading to higher electricity consumption and associated costs, as well as reduced environmental efficiency.
Multiple submissions from the building have already raised these concerns.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Potts Point
,
New South Wales
Message
To whom it may concern,
I write as co-owners of Unit 21, 1 Danks Street, Waterloo, to lodge a strong objection to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD 80441462) at 881–885 Bourke Street.
Our building is one of the few residential communities in an area otherwise dominated by commercial uses, yet the proposed development shows a clear disregard for the sensitive residential interface and the planning expectations that have governed this precinct for years. The scale and placement of the 19-storey tower on Young Street are wholly inappropriate for a site immediately adjacent to low-rise homes and will produce unacceptable and irreversible impacts on our property.
Our principal concerns are as follows:
1. Severe loss of sunlight
The overshadowing caused by the proposed height and massing would remove almost all remaining sunlight from our building by mid-afternoon in winter. As Unit 21 has west-facing living areas and relies on limited morning light from our east-facing bedrooms, this loss is particularly damaging. The outcome is clearly inconsistent with the Apartment Design Guide and represents an unreasonable and harmful reduction in residential amenity.
2. Major invasion of privacy
Positioning a 19-storey tower directly alongside a small, low-rise residential building is inappropriate. Balconies and habitable rooms have been deliberately oriented toward our windows, resulting in direct and constant overlooking into our home. The proposal fails to provide any meaningful setback or screening to mitigate this unacceptable loss of privacy.
3. Disproportionate and inequitable massing
The bulk of the building has been pushed toward our boundary rather than distributed across the site. This appears to be an attempt to maintain greater separation from the new Dasco development on the other side, at the expense of our community. It results in an inequitable outcome that places the most intensive impacts on the smallest residential parcel in the precinct.
4. Clear departure from the established masterplan
The publicly available masterplan clearly identified a 7-storey height limit for the surrounding sites. This planning control was communicated consistently by Council and through precinct redevelopment materials. The current proposal, which more than doubles this height, contradicts the planning expectations long communicated to residents and undermines confidence in the City’s strategic planning process.
5. Failure to recognise the needs of an existing residential community
Our building is uniquely vulnerable within this largely commercial area. Overshadowing, privacy loss, noise, and visual intrusion have far more severe consequences for residents than for commercial occupiers. The proposal does not adequately acknowledge or address this imbalance and appears to prioritise yield over responsible urban design.
6. Visual, acoustic, and general amenity impacts
Expanding the building footprint toward Young Street and directing balconies and active spaces toward our homes will significantly increase noise and activity facing our windows, courtyards, and living areas. The design does not incorporate measures to soften, buffer, or mitigate these effects.
In its current form, the proposal overreaches in height, massing, and orientation, and demonstrates a disregard for the residential context immediately adjacent to the site. We urge the Department to require substantial redesign, including significant reductions in height and massing along the Young Street frontage, before the application is progressed any further.
I strongly oppose approval of the development in its current state.
Yours sincerely,
Simon Meilak
Co-owners, Unit 21
1 Danks Street, Waterloo
I write as co-owners of Unit 21, 1 Danks Street, Waterloo, to lodge a strong objection to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD 80441462) at 881–885 Bourke Street.
Our building is one of the few residential communities in an area otherwise dominated by commercial uses, yet the proposed development shows a clear disregard for the sensitive residential interface and the planning expectations that have governed this precinct for years. The scale and placement of the 19-storey tower on Young Street are wholly inappropriate for a site immediately adjacent to low-rise homes and will produce unacceptable and irreversible impacts on our property.
Our principal concerns are as follows:
1. Severe loss of sunlight
The overshadowing caused by the proposed height and massing would remove almost all remaining sunlight from our building by mid-afternoon in winter. As Unit 21 has west-facing living areas and relies on limited morning light from our east-facing bedrooms, this loss is particularly damaging. The outcome is clearly inconsistent with the Apartment Design Guide and represents an unreasonable and harmful reduction in residential amenity.
2. Major invasion of privacy
Positioning a 19-storey tower directly alongside a small, low-rise residential building is inappropriate. Balconies and habitable rooms have been deliberately oriented toward our windows, resulting in direct and constant overlooking into our home. The proposal fails to provide any meaningful setback or screening to mitigate this unacceptable loss of privacy.
3. Disproportionate and inequitable massing
The bulk of the building has been pushed toward our boundary rather than distributed across the site. This appears to be an attempt to maintain greater separation from the new Dasco development on the other side, at the expense of our community. It results in an inequitable outcome that places the most intensive impacts on the smallest residential parcel in the precinct.
4. Clear departure from the established masterplan
The publicly available masterplan clearly identified a 7-storey height limit for the surrounding sites. This planning control was communicated consistently by Council and through precinct redevelopment materials. The current proposal, which more than doubles this height, contradicts the planning expectations long communicated to residents and undermines confidence in the City’s strategic planning process.
5. Failure to recognise the needs of an existing residential community
Our building is uniquely vulnerable within this largely commercial area. Overshadowing, privacy loss, noise, and visual intrusion have far more severe consequences for residents than for commercial occupiers. The proposal does not adequately acknowledge or address this imbalance and appears to prioritise yield over responsible urban design.
6. Visual, acoustic, and general amenity impacts
Expanding the building footprint toward Young Street and directing balconies and active spaces toward our homes will significantly increase noise and activity facing our windows, courtyards, and living areas. The design does not incorporate measures to soften, buffer, or mitigate these effects.
In its current form, the proposal overreaches in height, massing, and orientation, and demonstrates a disregard for the residential context immediately adjacent to the site. We urge the Department to require substantial redesign, including significant reductions in height and massing along the Young Street frontage, before the application is progressed any further.
I strongly oppose approval of the development in its current state.
Yours sincerely,
Simon Meilak
Co-owners, Unit 21
1 Danks Street, Waterloo
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
WATERLOO
,
New South Wales
Message
Submission to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Application No: SSD-80441462 – Waterloo Mixed Use Development (881–885 Bourke Street)
From: An Owner-Occupier of a 6th-Floor Unit within The Finery (Strata Plan 97459), located approximately 150 metres from the proposed development site.
FORMAL OBJECTION SUBMISSION
We are the owner-occupiers of a 6th-floor residential unit within The Finery (SP 97459), located approximately 150 metres from the proposed Waterloo Mixed Use Development.
We submit this formal objection on the grounds that the proposal, in its current form, would cause significant, measurable, and irreversible harm to both our residential amenity and the market value of our property.
1. Destruction of View Amenity and Measurable Asset Devaluation
1.1 Complete Loss of a Significant, Identifiable View Corridor
Our 6th-floor unit currently benefits from an open north-western outlook that includes the Redfern skyline and its night-time luminance.
The proposed 125-metre tower sits directly within this sightline and would entirely eliminate this identifiable view amenity.
Under established NSW planning principles (Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004]), this constitutes a “high-value, specific and identifiable” loss, which carries substantial material weight.
1.2 Objective Visual Obstruction – VOA 34.3°
A geometric analysis based on a 6th-floor elevation (approx. 18 m) and a development height of 120–125 m at 150 m horizontal distance demonstrates that the proposal creates a
Vertical Obstruction Angle (VOA) of approximately 34.3°.
A VOA of this magnitude represents:
Extreme visual bulk
Overwhelming looming presence
Full loss of distant view corridors
A degree of encroachment well above widely accepted amenity thresholds
In practical terms, this means the tower would function as a dominant wall-like mass, visually overwhelming existing dwellings.
1.3 Quantified Market Impact: 7%–15% Value Loss
Based on comparative case studies from Sydney mid-rise residential markets, the combined loss of:
skyline view amenity
open-sky exposure
visual bulk increase (34.3°)
is expected to result in a 7%–15% reduction in market value for affected 6th-floor units in The Finery.
This is an imposed financial detriment caused solely by the design of the development.
2. Severe Detriment to Liveability and Solar Access
2.1 Loss of Afternoon Sunlight – Winter Solstice Shadowing
The Environmental Impact Statement confirms that the tower casts a shadow exceeding 300 metres at 3:00 PM during the Winter Solstice (329 m).
This distance directly reaches 6th-floor elevations within The Finery.
As a result, our unit will experience:
Loss of 1:00 PM–4:00 PM direct sunlight (approx. 2+ hours)
Reduced natural illumination (−45% to −65%)
Increased reliance on artificial lighting and heating
This represents a major decline in liveability and environmental performance, contrary to the intent of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) and SEPP 65 principles.
2.2 Excessive Height and FSR Intensification – Liveability Impact
The proposed FSR of 3.05:1 and 125-metre height will require:
multi-year heavy construction
severe dust, vibration, and noise impacts
prolonged loss of outdoor amenity
This is completely inconsistent with the existing neighbourhood character and over-intensifies the site relative to its urban context.
3. Request for Rejection or Mandatory Design Modification
Given the significant and measurable adverse impacts outlined above, we respectfully request that the Consent Authority:
3.1 Reject the proposal in its current form
particularly the height (125 m) and FSR (3.05:1), which are neither contextually appropriate nor compliant with amenity protection standards.
3.2 Alternatively, impose the following mandatory design modifications:
Height reduction to below 80–100 metres
Increased northern setback to reduce VOA, overshadowing, and visual bulk
Protection of existing residents’ specific and identifiable view corridors, consistent with Tenacity principles
These adjustments are necessary to prevent the complete elimination of a significant view asset and to protect the residential amenity of affected dwellings, including 6th-floor units within The Finery.
Thank you for considering this submission.
We request that our concerns be fully evaluated in the assessment process.
Sincerely,
Owner-Occupier
6th-Floor Unit, The Finery (SP 97459)
Application No: SSD-80441462 – Waterloo Mixed Use Development (881–885 Bourke Street)
From: An Owner-Occupier of a 6th-Floor Unit within The Finery (Strata Plan 97459), located approximately 150 metres from the proposed development site.
FORMAL OBJECTION SUBMISSION
We are the owner-occupiers of a 6th-floor residential unit within The Finery (SP 97459), located approximately 150 metres from the proposed Waterloo Mixed Use Development.
We submit this formal objection on the grounds that the proposal, in its current form, would cause significant, measurable, and irreversible harm to both our residential amenity and the market value of our property.
1. Destruction of View Amenity and Measurable Asset Devaluation
1.1 Complete Loss of a Significant, Identifiable View Corridor
Our 6th-floor unit currently benefits from an open north-western outlook that includes the Redfern skyline and its night-time luminance.
The proposed 125-metre tower sits directly within this sightline and would entirely eliminate this identifiable view amenity.
Under established NSW planning principles (Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004]), this constitutes a “high-value, specific and identifiable” loss, which carries substantial material weight.
1.2 Objective Visual Obstruction – VOA 34.3°
A geometric analysis based on a 6th-floor elevation (approx. 18 m) and a development height of 120–125 m at 150 m horizontal distance demonstrates that the proposal creates a
Vertical Obstruction Angle (VOA) of approximately 34.3°.
A VOA of this magnitude represents:
Extreme visual bulk
Overwhelming looming presence
Full loss of distant view corridors
A degree of encroachment well above widely accepted amenity thresholds
In practical terms, this means the tower would function as a dominant wall-like mass, visually overwhelming existing dwellings.
1.3 Quantified Market Impact: 7%–15% Value Loss
Based on comparative case studies from Sydney mid-rise residential markets, the combined loss of:
skyline view amenity
open-sky exposure
visual bulk increase (34.3°)
is expected to result in a 7%–15% reduction in market value for affected 6th-floor units in The Finery.
This is an imposed financial detriment caused solely by the design of the development.
2. Severe Detriment to Liveability and Solar Access
2.1 Loss of Afternoon Sunlight – Winter Solstice Shadowing
The Environmental Impact Statement confirms that the tower casts a shadow exceeding 300 metres at 3:00 PM during the Winter Solstice (329 m).
This distance directly reaches 6th-floor elevations within The Finery.
As a result, our unit will experience:
Loss of 1:00 PM–4:00 PM direct sunlight (approx. 2+ hours)
Reduced natural illumination (−45% to −65%)
Increased reliance on artificial lighting and heating
This represents a major decline in liveability and environmental performance, contrary to the intent of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) and SEPP 65 principles.
2.2 Excessive Height and FSR Intensification – Liveability Impact
The proposed FSR of 3.05:1 and 125-metre height will require:
multi-year heavy construction
severe dust, vibration, and noise impacts
prolonged loss of outdoor amenity
This is completely inconsistent with the existing neighbourhood character and over-intensifies the site relative to its urban context.
3. Request for Rejection or Mandatory Design Modification
Given the significant and measurable adverse impacts outlined above, we respectfully request that the Consent Authority:
3.1 Reject the proposal in its current form
particularly the height (125 m) and FSR (3.05:1), which are neither contextually appropriate nor compliant with amenity protection standards.
3.2 Alternatively, impose the following mandatory design modifications:
Height reduction to below 80–100 metres
Increased northern setback to reduce VOA, overshadowing, and visual bulk
Protection of existing residents’ specific and identifiable view corridors, consistent with Tenacity principles
These adjustments are necessary to prevent the complete elimination of a significant view asset and to protect the residential amenity of affected dwellings, including 6th-floor units within The Finery.
Thank you for considering this submission.
We request that our concerns be fully evaluated in the assessment process.
Sincerely,
Owner-Occupier
6th-Floor Unit, The Finery (SP 97459)
Attachments
WILLIAM KANE
Object
WILLIAM KANE
Object
Waterloo
,
New South Wales
Message
Our building is one of the few residential communities within an area otherwise dominated by commercial uses, and we are deeply concerned that the proposed State Significant Development (SSD 80441462) does not properly account for the sensitive nature of our site or the planning expectations that were communicated to purchasers over many years.
When the precinct was rezoned and redeveloped, the masterplan clearly identified a 7-storey height limit for the sites surrounding us. This is still what is shown in materials held at the City of Sydney’s City Office.
However, after meeting with the developer, we were informed that only certain tiers would be altered—yet the current proposal now shows mass extended across the entire Young Street frontage, pushing height and bulk directly toward our homes and disregarding the existing residential interface.
Below is a summary of the key issues outlined in our formal submission:
________________________________________
1. Loss of Sunlight and Solar Access
The proposed height and massing will cause severe overshadowing of our building.
By 3:00pm in winter, no direct sunlight will reach our apartments, removing critical daylight access.
As our building was designed with west-facing living areas, the only reliable sunlight we receive is morning light into our east-facing bedrooms. The proposal would dramatically reduce even this limited solar access, contrary to the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) principles relating to daylight, cross-ventilation, and residential wellbeing.
________________________________________
2. Major Privacy Impacts — 19 Storeys Overlooking Low-Rise Homes
The development introduces a 19-storey tower immediately adjacent to our low-rise residential homes.
Balconies and habitable rooms have been oriented to face directly into our apartments, causing constant overlooking, loss of privacy, and visual intrusion.
________________________________________
3. Excessive Massing and Inequitable Built Form
The proposal shifts the bulk of the building toward our boundary, seemingly to maintain greater distance from the new Dasco development on the opposite side.
This creates a disproportionate built form outcome that places the most significant impacts on the smallest and most vulnerable residential site in the precinct. The design lacks adequate setback transitions, height modulation, and scaling appropriate for a mixed-use neighbourhood.
________________________________________
4. Departure from the Original Masterplan
The proposal represents a substantial departure from the agreed and long-publicised masterplan that guided our decision to move into this community.
Residents reasonably relied on the understanding that the surrounding built form would be consistent with the established planning framework.
The current scheme undermines that masterplan, eroding trust in the planning process and creating uncertainty about future development controls.
________________________________________
5. Imbalance of Interests for a Small Residential Community
Our building is surrounded by commercial sites whose occupants are far less affected by issues such as overshadowing, privacy loss, and acoustic impacts.
The proposal does not appear to recognise this imbalance, and the unique needs of our residential community have not been adequately considered within the development’s design or justification.
________________________________________
6. Visual, Acoustic, and General Amenity Impacts
The expansion of the building footprint over Young Street places active balconies and living areas directly overlooking our homes.
This will lead to increased noise, loss of visual privacy, and a higher level of activity facing our windows and courtyards—impacts that have not been sufficiently mitigated or addressed.
When the precinct was rezoned and redeveloped, the masterplan clearly identified a 7-storey height limit for the sites surrounding us. This is still what is shown in materials held at the City of Sydney’s City Office.
However, after meeting with the developer, we were informed that only certain tiers would be altered—yet the current proposal now shows mass extended across the entire Young Street frontage, pushing height and bulk directly toward our homes and disregarding the existing residential interface.
Below is a summary of the key issues outlined in our formal submission:
________________________________________
1. Loss of Sunlight and Solar Access
The proposed height and massing will cause severe overshadowing of our building.
By 3:00pm in winter, no direct sunlight will reach our apartments, removing critical daylight access.
As our building was designed with west-facing living areas, the only reliable sunlight we receive is morning light into our east-facing bedrooms. The proposal would dramatically reduce even this limited solar access, contrary to the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) principles relating to daylight, cross-ventilation, and residential wellbeing.
________________________________________
2. Major Privacy Impacts — 19 Storeys Overlooking Low-Rise Homes
The development introduces a 19-storey tower immediately adjacent to our low-rise residential homes.
Balconies and habitable rooms have been oriented to face directly into our apartments, causing constant overlooking, loss of privacy, and visual intrusion.
________________________________________
3. Excessive Massing and Inequitable Built Form
The proposal shifts the bulk of the building toward our boundary, seemingly to maintain greater distance from the new Dasco development on the opposite side.
This creates a disproportionate built form outcome that places the most significant impacts on the smallest and most vulnerable residential site in the precinct. The design lacks adequate setback transitions, height modulation, and scaling appropriate for a mixed-use neighbourhood.
________________________________________
4. Departure from the Original Masterplan
The proposal represents a substantial departure from the agreed and long-publicised masterplan that guided our decision to move into this community.
Residents reasonably relied on the understanding that the surrounding built form would be consistent with the established planning framework.
The current scheme undermines that masterplan, eroding trust in the planning process and creating uncertainty about future development controls.
________________________________________
5. Imbalance of Interests for a Small Residential Community
Our building is surrounded by commercial sites whose occupants are far less affected by issues such as overshadowing, privacy loss, and acoustic impacts.
The proposal does not appear to recognise this imbalance, and the unique needs of our residential community have not been adequately considered within the development’s design or justification.
________________________________________
6. Visual, Acoustic, and General Amenity Impacts
The expansion of the building footprint over Young Street places active balconies and living areas directly overlooking our homes.
This will lead to increased noise, loss of visual privacy, and a higher level of activity facing our windows and courtyards—impacts that have not been sufficiently mitigated or addressed.