Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Waterloo
,
New South Wales
Message
I am writing to formally object to the proposed modification of the mixed-use development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.
This proposal represents a substantial and unacceptable increase in scale from what was originally approved. The height increase from approximately 65 metres to around 125 metres effectively doubles the development mid-process. This is not a minor amendment but a fundamental change that significantly alters the impact on the surrounding community.
Residents engaged with and accepted the original proposal on the basis of its approved scale. Doubling the height after approval undermines community trust in the planning process and raises serious concerns about transparency and procedural fairness.
The revised proposal will have several adverse impacts:
1. Increased congestion and infrastructure strain
The local area is already experiencing significant congestion, particularly along Bourke Street and surrounding roads. A development of this increased scale will exacerbate traffic, parking shortages, and pressure on already stretched public transport and local infrastructure.
2. Overshadowing and loss of amenity
The substantial increase in height will result in greater overshadowing of neighbouring residential buildings and public spaces. It will also lead to a loss of views and reduced natural light, negatively affecting residents’ quality of life.
3. Inadequate community consultation
For a change of this magnitude, there appears to have been limited meaningful consultation with local residents. Many in the community are unaware that the development has effectively doubled in size. This lack of engagement is deeply concerning.
4. Precedent and planning integrity
Allowing such a significant increase post-approval sets a troubling precedent. It signals that developers can secure approval at a lower scale and later seek major uplifts, bypassing the level of scrutiny that a proposal of this size would ordinarily require.
Given the extent of these impacts, I strongly urge the consent authority to reject this modification application.
At a minimum, any proposal of this revised scale should be subject to a fresh assessment process with comprehensive community consultation, rather than being treated as a modification to an existing approval.
This proposal, in its current form, is inconsistent with the expectations of the local community and fails to adequately consider the cumulative impacts on amenity, infrastructure, and planning integrity.
I respectfully request that this modification be refused.
This proposal represents a substantial and unacceptable increase in scale from what was originally approved. The height increase from approximately 65 metres to around 125 metres effectively doubles the development mid-process. This is not a minor amendment but a fundamental change that significantly alters the impact on the surrounding community.
Residents engaged with and accepted the original proposal on the basis of its approved scale. Doubling the height after approval undermines community trust in the planning process and raises serious concerns about transparency and procedural fairness.
The revised proposal will have several adverse impacts:
1. Increased congestion and infrastructure strain
The local area is already experiencing significant congestion, particularly along Bourke Street and surrounding roads. A development of this increased scale will exacerbate traffic, parking shortages, and pressure on already stretched public transport and local infrastructure.
2. Overshadowing and loss of amenity
The substantial increase in height will result in greater overshadowing of neighbouring residential buildings and public spaces. It will also lead to a loss of views and reduced natural light, negatively affecting residents’ quality of life.
3. Inadequate community consultation
For a change of this magnitude, there appears to have been limited meaningful consultation with local residents. Many in the community are unaware that the development has effectively doubled in size. This lack of engagement is deeply concerning.
4. Precedent and planning integrity
Allowing such a significant increase post-approval sets a troubling precedent. It signals that developers can secure approval at a lower scale and later seek major uplifts, bypassing the level of scrutiny that a proposal of this size would ordinarily require.
Given the extent of these impacts, I strongly urge the consent authority to reject this modification application.
At a minimum, any proposal of this revised scale should be subject to a fresh assessment process with comprehensive community consultation, rather than being treated as a modification to an existing approval.
This proposal, in its current form, is inconsistent with the expectations of the local community and fails to adequately consider the cumulative impacts on amenity, infrastructure, and planning integrity.
I respectfully request that this modification be refused.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Waterloo
,
New South Wales
Message
I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.
While I acknowledge the need for urban growth and renewal, I have serious concerns about the cumulative impact this proposal may have on the surrounding area—particularly in relation to traffic conditions, increased population density, and the ability of existing infrastructure to support further demand.
Traffic and transport in this areas are already under considerable strain. Roads in and around Bourke Street regularly experience congestion, especially during peak periods. Public transport is also heavily relied upon, yet services such as the 304 bus are frequently overcrowded, making it difficult for residents to access reliable transport. An increase in residents and activity from this development is likely to exacerbate these existing issues, placing additional pressure on both road networks and bus services. Although the Waterloo Metro Station is a welcome addition, its location does not adequately serve all parts of Waterloo, particular for those residents on Bourke Street and Lachlan Street sides, and many residents will continue to depend on bus connections for daily commuting.
In addition, the proposed scale of the development raises concerns about over-concentration of population within an already dense area. The intensity of the development appears inconsistent with the existing character and capacity of the neighbourhood. A significant increase in population is likely to place further strain on shared spaces and local amenities, potentially diminishing the overall quality of life for residents.
There are also broader concerns regarding infrastructure capacity. Key services—including public transport, schools, healthcare facilities, the local library, and accessible green spaces—are already operating close to their limits. While the planned conversion of part of Moore Park Golf Course into public parkland is noted, these areas are not within convenient proximity to Bourke Street Waterloo and are unlikely to adequately address the shortage of open space locally. Without firm commitments to meaningful infrastructure investment and upgrades, there is a real risk that the development will outpace the capacity of essential services.
Given these considerations, I respectfully urge Council to carefully review the proposal and consider whether it is appropriate in its current form. At a minimum, substantial revisions should be required to ensure that the impacts on the local community and infrastructure are properly addressed.
Thank you for taking the time to consider this submission.
While I acknowledge the need for urban growth and renewal, I have serious concerns about the cumulative impact this proposal may have on the surrounding area—particularly in relation to traffic conditions, increased population density, and the ability of existing infrastructure to support further demand.
Traffic and transport in this areas are already under considerable strain. Roads in and around Bourke Street regularly experience congestion, especially during peak periods. Public transport is also heavily relied upon, yet services such as the 304 bus are frequently overcrowded, making it difficult for residents to access reliable transport. An increase in residents and activity from this development is likely to exacerbate these existing issues, placing additional pressure on both road networks and bus services. Although the Waterloo Metro Station is a welcome addition, its location does not adequately serve all parts of Waterloo, particular for those residents on Bourke Street and Lachlan Street sides, and many residents will continue to depend on bus connections for daily commuting.
In addition, the proposed scale of the development raises concerns about over-concentration of population within an already dense area. The intensity of the development appears inconsistent with the existing character and capacity of the neighbourhood. A significant increase in population is likely to place further strain on shared spaces and local amenities, potentially diminishing the overall quality of life for residents.
There are also broader concerns regarding infrastructure capacity. Key services—including public transport, schools, healthcare facilities, the local library, and accessible green spaces—are already operating close to their limits. While the planned conversion of part of Moore Park Golf Course into public parkland is noted, these areas are not within convenient proximity to Bourke Street Waterloo and are unlikely to adequately address the shortage of open space locally. Without firm commitments to meaningful infrastructure investment and upgrades, there is a real risk that the development will outpace the capacity of essential services.
Given these considerations, I respectfully urge Council to carefully review the proposal and consider whether it is appropriate in its current form. At a minimum, substantial revisions should be required to ensure that the impacts on the local community and infrastructure are properly addressed.
Thank you for taking the time to consider this submission.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
WATERLOO
,
New South Wales
Message
I am a local resident and a home owner of the Waterloo/Zetland/Green Square area and I strongly object to the proposed amendments to the approved development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.
The proposed amendments represent a substantial and unacceptable intensification of the original approval. Increasing the Bourke Street North building from 12 storeys to 31 storeys (more than double (!!!)), and the Young Street tower from 21 storeys to 38 storeys, is not a minor modification. It is a fundamental change to the scale, density and impact of the development. The proposal would significantly alter the character of the area and place further pressure on infrastructure, transport, parking, open space and local amenities that are already under strain.
The proposed increase from 347 approved apartments to 580 apartments would add 233 additional apartments, yet the proposal appears to provide only 20 additional parking spaces. This is not raising any red flags for you?! This is clearly inadequate and would push more vehicles onto surrounding residential streets, worsening congestion and competition for already limited parking. It would also place further pressure on public transport services, including buses and Green Square Station, which are already heavily used during peak periods.
The area is already experiencing rapid population growth, and the cumulative effect of thousands of new apartments cannot be ignored. Planning decisions should consider the lived reality for residents, not assess each tower in isolation.
My key objections are as follows:
1. The proposed height increases are excessive and out of character with the surrounding area. A jump from 12 storeys to 31 storeys and from 21 storeys to 38 storeys would create a visually dominant and overbearing development. The scale is disproportionate to the site and surrounding streetscape, and would significantly change the character of the neighbourhood.
2. Local roads, public transport, pedestrian routes and community services are already under pressure. Adding hundreds of additional apartments without corresponding infrastructure upgrades is not responsible planning. Residents already experience congestion, crowded buses, pressure on Green Square Station and difficulty accessing local services. This proposal would worsen those issues.
3. Providing only 20 additional parking spaces for 233 additional apartments is plainly insufficient. Even where residents rely on public transport, car ownership, visitor parking, trades, deliveries, ride-share vehicles and service vehicles still create demand. The proposal would likely increase illegal parking, traffic conflicts and pressure on surrounding streets.
4. Towers of this scale are likely to create significant overshadowing impacts on surrounding homes, streets, public spaces and communal areas. Residents should not be expected to accept major reductions in sunlight, privacy and outlook simply because a developer seeks to substantially increase yield beyond the original approval.
5. Tall towers can create uncomfortable wind conditions at street level and reduce the quality of public spaces. The proposed towers would also create overlooking and privacy impacts for nearby residents. The visual bulk of the development would dominate the local area and undermine the human-scale character that should be protected in a residential community.
6. The local area already has limited capacity in libraries, parks, childcare, health services and other community facilities. A significant increase in population must be matched by investment in public infrastructure and amenities. Approving more apartments without adequate supporting services will reduce quality of life for existing and future residents.
7. Approving such a substantial increase after the original approval would set a concerning precedent. It would suggest that developers can obtain approval for one scale of development and later seek major increases in height and density, undermining community trust in the planning process.
For these reasons, I request that Council strongly oppose the proposed amendments and advocate for the protection of local amenity, appropriate building scale, adequate infrastructure and responsible planning outcomes.
I do not object to housing in principle. However, housing growth must be planned properly, supported by infrastructure, and delivered at a scale that respects the existing and future community. This proposal goes too far and would impose unacceptable impacts on residents.
I respectfully request that the proposed amendments be refused or substantially reduced to remain consistent with the original approval and the capacity of the local area.
25 April 2026
The proposed amendments represent a substantial and unacceptable intensification of the original approval. Increasing the Bourke Street North building from 12 storeys to 31 storeys (more than double (!!!)), and the Young Street tower from 21 storeys to 38 storeys, is not a minor modification. It is a fundamental change to the scale, density and impact of the development. The proposal would significantly alter the character of the area and place further pressure on infrastructure, transport, parking, open space and local amenities that are already under strain.
The proposed increase from 347 approved apartments to 580 apartments would add 233 additional apartments, yet the proposal appears to provide only 20 additional parking spaces. This is not raising any red flags for you?! This is clearly inadequate and would push more vehicles onto surrounding residential streets, worsening congestion and competition for already limited parking. It would also place further pressure on public transport services, including buses and Green Square Station, which are already heavily used during peak periods.
The area is already experiencing rapid population growth, and the cumulative effect of thousands of new apartments cannot be ignored. Planning decisions should consider the lived reality for residents, not assess each tower in isolation.
My key objections are as follows:
1. The proposed height increases are excessive and out of character with the surrounding area. A jump from 12 storeys to 31 storeys and from 21 storeys to 38 storeys would create a visually dominant and overbearing development. The scale is disproportionate to the site and surrounding streetscape, and would significantly change the character of the neighbourhood.
2. Local roads, public transport, pedestrian routes and community services are already under pressure. Adding hundreds of additional apartments without corresponding infrastructure upgrades is not responsible planning. Residents already experience congestion, crowded buses, pressure on Green Square Station and difficulty accessing local services. This proposal would worsen those issues.
3. Providing only 20 additional parking spaces for 233 additional apartments is plainly insufficient. Even where residents rely on public transport, car ownership, visitor parking, trades, deliveries, ride-share vehicles and service vehicles still create demand. The proposal would likely increase illegal parking, traffic conflicts and pressure on surrounding streets.
4. Towers of this scale are likely to create significant overshadowing impacts on surrounding homes, streets, public spaces and communal areas. Residents should not be expected to accept major reductions in sunlight, privacy and outlook simply because a developer seeks to substantially increase yield beyond the original approval.
5. Tall towers can create uncomfortable wind conditions at street level and reduce the quality of public spaces. The proposed towers would also create overlooking and privacy impacts for nearby residents. The visual bulk of the development would dominate the local area and undermine the human-scale character that should be protected in a residential community.
6. The local area already has limited capacity in libraries, parks, childcare, health services and other community facilities. A significant increase in population must be matched by investment in public infrastructure and amenities. Approving more apartments without adequate supporting services will reduce quality of life for existing and future residents.
7. Approving such a substantial increase after the original approval would set a concerning precedent. It would suggest that developers can obtain approval for one scale of development and later seek major increases in height and density, undermining community trust in the planning process.
For these reasons, I request that Council strongly oppose the proposed amendments and advocate for the protection of local amenity, appropriate building scale, adequate infrastructure and responsible planning outcomes.
I do not object to housing in principle. However, housing growth must be planned properly, supported by infrastructure, and delivered at a scale that respects the existing and future community. This proposal goes too far and would impose unacceptable impacts on residents.
I respectfully request that the proposed amendments be refused or substantially reduced to remain consistent with the original approval and the capacity of the local area.
25 April 2026
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
WATERLOO
,
New South Wales
Message
To Whom It May Concern
I am writing to formally object to the proposed modifications under SSD-95997711 for the development at 903–921 Bourke Street and 3 McEvoy Street, Waterloo.
I live in close proximity to this site and am directly impacted by the proposed increase in scale, height, and density. While I understand the need for additional housing in Sydney, this proposal represents a significant departure from what was originally approved and raises serious concerns about the cumulative impact on the local area.
My key concerns are as follows:
First, the proposed increase in building height (from 12 to 31 storeys and from 21 to 38 storeys) is excessive and out of character with the existing and planned built environment. This scale of development will dominate the streetscape and materially change the character of the neighbourhood in a way that was not originally contemplated.
Second, the increase in density is not matched by adequate infrastructure. Public transport, roads, and local amenities in the Waterloo/Zetland/Green Square area are already operating at or near capacity. Peak-hour trains are overcrowded, buses frequently pass by full, and local roads experience regular congestion. A substantial increase in residents without corresponding infrastructure upgrades will exacerbate these issues.
Third, the proposal will have a significant impact on residential amenity. In particular, overshadowing from towers of this height will reduce natural light to surrounding homes and public spaces, especially during winter months. This has a real and tangible impact on quality of life for existing residents.
Fourth, the proposal appears to prioritise increased yield over thoughtful, integrated planning. The originally approved scheme reflected a balance between density, liveability, and infrastructure. This revised proposal undermines that balance and sets a concerning precedent for further ad hoc increases in scale across the precinct.
Finally, I am concerned about the cumulative impact of multiple large developments in the area. When considered together, these projects represent a substantial population increase over a short period of time, without a clear and coordinated plan for infrastructure, public space, and services.
For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposed modifications and request that the application be refused in its current form.
At a minimum, any revised proposal should:
Remain consistent with the originally approved height and density parameters;
Be supported by clear, funded infrastructure commitments; and
Demonstrate a genuine consideration of impacts on existing residents and community amenity.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback.
Yours sincerely,
Olivia Seet
I am writing to formally object to the proposed modifications under SSD-95997711 for the development at 903–921 Bourke Street and 3 McEvoy Street, Waterloo.
I live in close proximity to this site and am directly impacted by the proposed increase in scale, height, and density. While I understand the need for additional housing in Sydney, this proposal represents a significant departure from what was originally approved and raises serious concerns about the cumulative impact on the local area.
My key concerns are as follows:
First, the proposed increase in building height (from 12 to 31 storeys and from 21 to 38 storeys) is excessive and out of character with the existing and planned built environment. This scale of development will dominate the streetscape and materially change the character of the neighbourhood in a way that was not originally contemplated.
Second, the increase in density is not matched by adequate infrastructure. Public transport, roads, and local amenities in the Waterloo/Zetland/Green Square area are already operating at or near capacity. Peak-hour trains are overcrowded, buses frequently pass by full, and local roads experience regular congestion. A substantial increase in residents without corresponding infrastructure upgrades will exacerbate these issues.
Third, the proposal will have a significant impact on residential amenity. In particular, overshadowing from towers of this height will reduce natural light to surrounding homes and public spaces, especially during winter months. This has a real and tangible impact on quality of life for existing residents.
Fourth, the proposal appears to prioritise increased yield over thoughtful, integrated planning. The originally approved scheme reflected a balance between density, liveability, and infrastructure. This revised proposal undermines that balance and sets a concerning precedent for further ad hoc increases in scale across the precinct.
Finally, I am concerned about the cumulative impact of multiple large developments in the area. When considered together, these projects represent a substantial population increase over a short period of time, without a clear and coordinated plan for infrastructure, public space, and services.
For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposed modifications and request that the application be refused in its current form.
At a minimum, any revised proposal should:
Remain consistent with the originally approved height and density parameters;
Be supported by clear, funded infrastructure commitments; and
Demonstrate a genuine consideration of impacts on existing residents and community amenity.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback.
Yours sincerely,
Olivia Seet
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Waterloo
,
New South Wales
Message
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo, currently under consideration by Council.
Our primary concerns relate to the significant and negative impacts this development is likely to have on traffic congestion, population density, and the capacity of existing local infrastructure.
Firstly, the proposal is likely to contribute to increased traffic congestion in the surrounding area. Local roads are already experiencing significant traffic volumes, particularly during peak hours. Public transport is similarly under strain; for example, it is often extremely difficult to board the 304 bus service during peak periods under current population levels. Additional residential and/or commercial activity would place further pressure on both road networks and bus services, potentially resulting in longer travel times, reduced safety for pedestrians and cyclists, and challenges for emergency vehicle access. While the new Waterloo Metro Station is a positive development, it is not centrally located for many residents, and a large proportion of the Waterloo community continues to rely heavily on bus services for travel to the CBD and Central Station.
Secondly, the scale of the development raises serious concerns about increased population density. The proposed density appears disproportionate to the character and capacity of the area. Such a substantial increase in residents will alter the amenity of the neighbourhood, placing pressure on public spaces and reducing overall livability for existing and future residents.
Finally, local infrastructure is already under considerable pressure and does not appear adequately equipped to support further expansion of this magnitude. Essential services such as public transport, schools, healthcare facilities, the local library, and green spaces are operating at or near capacity. While there has been a decision to convert part of the Moore Park Golf Course into public parkland, these green spaces remain relatively distant from Bourke Street Waterloo and are unlikely to meaningfully alleviate the existing shortfall of accessible open space within the immediate area. Without clear, detailed, and credible plans for substantial infrastructure upgrades, the proposed development risks placing additional strain on already constrained services and diminishing the overall quality, accessibility, and amenity available to the community.
In light of these concerns, I respectfully request that Council reconsider or reject the proposed development, or at the very least require substantial modifications to address these critical issues.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Our primary concerns relate to the significant and negative impacts this development is likely to have on traffic congestion, population density, and the capacity of existing local infrastructure.
Firstly, the proposal is likely to contribute to increased traffic congestion in the surrounding area. Local roads are already experiencing significant traffic volumes, particularly during peak hours. Public transport is similarly under strain; for example, it is often extremely difficult to board the 304 bus service during peak periods under current population levels. Additional residential and/or commercial activity would place further pressure on both road networks and bus services, potentially resulting in longer travel times, reduced safety for pedestrians and cyclists, and challenges for emergency vehicle access. While the new Waterloo Metro Station is a positive development, it is not centrally located for many residents, and a large proportion of the Waterloo community continues to rely heavily on bus services for travel to the CBD and Central Station.
Secondly, the scale of the development raises serious concerns about increased population density. The proposed density appears disproportionate to the character and capacity of the area. Such a substantial increase in residents will alter the amenity of the neighbourhood, placing pressure on public spaces and reducing overall livability for existing and future residents.
Finally, local infrastructure is already under considerable pressure and does not appear adequately equipped to support further expansion of this magnitude. Essential services such as public transport, schools, healthcare facilities, the local library, and green spaces are operating at or near capacity. While there has been a decision to convert part of the Moore Park Golf Course into public parkland, these green spaces remain relatively distant from Bourke Street Waterloo and are unlikely to meaningfully alleviate the existing shortfall of accessible open space within the immediate area. Without clear, detailed, and credible plans for substantial infrastructure upgrades, the proposed development risks placing additional strain on already constrained services and diminishing the overall quality, accessibility, and amenity available to the community.
In light of these concerns, I respectfully request that Council reconsider or reject the proposed development, or at the very least require substantial modifications to address these critical issues.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Waterloo
,
New South Wales
Message
To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Attention: Chris Eldred, Contact Planner
Re: Objection to State Significant Development Application SSD-95997711— Waterloo Mixed Use Development, 903-921 Bourke Street
Dear Assessment Team,
I am a resident of Danks St, Waterloo, and I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the proposed mixed-use development at 903-921 Bourke Street (SSD-95997711). While I recognize the necessity of strategic urban densification to meet Sydney’s housing needs, such growth must be sympathetic to the existing local context. The current proposal represents a significant overdevelopment of the site that is fundamentally inconsistent with the established character and capacity of our neighbourhood.
1. Inappropriate height and scale
The proposed 36-storey skyscraper, reaching an elevation of roughly 125 metres, is entirely out of scale with the surrounding Waterloo precinct. Existing and under-construction buildings in this immediate area typically range from 4 to 13 storeys, making this tower more than double the height of its neighbours. This creates a jarring visual disconnect rather than a considered transition. A tower of this magnitude is typically reserved for major transit hubs and is unsuitable for a mid-block location on Bourke Street.
2. Unjustified planning uplift
A development approval already exists for this site under much more modest height and FSR controls. This new application seeks a radical increase in density, rising from a 29m height limit to 125m, and an FSR increase from 2.15:1 to 3.05:1, without offering a corresponding public benefit of equal value. The local community and property owners have made long-term decisions based on the existing planning framework. Allowing such a massive departure from the approved envelope compromises the transparency and predictability of the NSW planning system.
3. Precedent for future overdevelopment
Permitting a 36-storey structure on a site that lacks direct proximity to a major transport interchange sets an alarming precedent for the broader Waterloo area. If approved, other landholders will undoubtedly cite this development to justify similar out-of-scale rezoning requests. This piece-meal approach to significant upzoning undermines the principles of orderly and sustainable development as outlined in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
4. Strain on public transport infrastructure
Public transport in Waterloo is already stretched to its limits. The new Waterloo Metro is a considerable walk from this site and is better positioned to serve the Redfern end of the suburb. Local bus services, specifically the 304, 392, and 348, are frequently at capacity during rush hour. Introducing roughly 850 new dwellings without a confirmed and proportional increase in bus frequency or transport capacity will leave existing and future residents with a failing transit network. Furthermore, several concerns are as follows:
• Bus corridors are already opening within congested road environment
• There are no dedicated bus priority lanes on Bourke St
• No additional transport upgrades are proposed in connection with the uplift.
In addition to the above, increasing residential density in the absence of improved transport infrastructure risks further congestion, increased private vehicle reliance, and diminished amenity for existing residence.
5. Road safety and traffic congestion
The intersections at Bourke, Danks, Lachlan, and McEvoy Streets are already notorious for heavy congestion. As arterial roads reach a standstill, more drivers are using quiet residential streets as shortcuts, which creates safety risks and ruins local amenity. I am concerned that the Traffic Impact Assessment fails to account for the combined pressure of this project alongside the nearby Waterloo Metro precinct and the massive Waterloo Estate redevelopment. Furthermore, several concerns are as follows:
• Intensify pedestrian movement
• Increase vehicle and delivery activity
• Heighten safety risk for cyclists and pedestrians
6. Deficiencies in public open space
The central park included in the proposal is insufficient as a meaningful public amenity. Enclosed by buildings ranging from 13 to 36 storeys, the space will be overshadowed and lack winter sun. Furthermore, it appears to lack essential recreational features such as play areas or dog-friendly zones. It is unrealistic to expect this small, overshadowed patch of land to meet the needs of 850 new households while also serving the existing community.
7. Loss of privacy and overlooking
The orientation of the tower’s balconies and primary living windows will result in direct lines of sight into the private rooms and outdoor spaces of existing low-rise residences. The proposal lacks the necessary setbacks or sophisticated screening measures required to protect the privacy of current neighbours, leading to an unacceptable level of visual intrusion.
8. Unacceptable cumulative construction burden
Our precinct has been subject to years of continuous construction, leading to persistent noise, dust, and heavy vehicle traffic. Adding a project of this immense scale will further degrade the quality of life for residents. Should this proceed, there must be a strictly enforceable Construction Management Plan that coordinates with nearby active sites to manage cumulative noise and haulage impacts in a transparent manner.
9. Adverse wind conditions
The height and bulk of the proposed structures are likely to create or exacerbate wind tunnel effects at the street level. This can make the public domain, including the proposed park and pedestrian footpaths, uncomfortable and uninviting. I do not believe the wind impacts on the surrounding microclimate have been sufficiently analysed or mitigated in the current application.
10. Escalating parking competition
The scarcity of on-street parking is a major issue for current Waterloo residents and businesses. A development of this magnitude will inevitably lead to an overflow of parking demand into the surrounding residential streets. This competition for limited spaces will significantly disadvantage existing residents who rely on local street parking. Density uplift without corresponding transport infrastructure or parking strategy risks transferring the burden from development site to the surrounding community.
11. Impacts on deliveries and logistics
The current congestion on our streets has reached a point where it is extremely difficult for delivery vehicles to find adequate space to park or unload. This creates significant delays and safety hazards for couriers and service providers. This development will only worsen the existing lack of curb side capacity, making basic logistical access for the neighbourhood almost impossible.
Requested outcome
I request that the Department refuse this application in its current form. Any approval for this site should be contingent on substantial amendments, including a major reduction in the maximum building height to align with the surrounding 4–13 storey context. Furthermore, a transparent solar access study and a robust, enforceable Construction Management Plan are essential. I wish to reiterate that I do not oppose the development of this site in principle, but I strongly object to a proposal of this excessive scale and height under the current planning framework.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Yours sincerely,
Name Withheld
Danks St, Waterloo NSW
Attention: Chris Eldred, Contact Planner
Re: Objection to State Significant Development Application SSD-95997711— Waterloo Mixed Use Development, 903-921 Bourke Street
Dear Assessment Team,
I am a resident of Danks St, Waterloo, and I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the proposed mixed-use development at 903-921 Bourke Street (SSD-95997711). While I recognize the necessity of strategic urban densification to meet Sydney’s housing needs, such growth must be sympathetic to the existing local context. The current proposal represents a significant overdevelopment of the site that is fundamentally inconsistent with the established character and capacity of our neighbourhood.
1. Inappropriate height and scale
The proposed 36-storey skyscraper, reaching an elevation of roughly 125 metres, is entirely out of scale with the surrounding Waterloo precinct. Existing and under-construction buildings in this immediate area typically range from 4 to 13 storeys, making this tower more than double the height of its neighbours. This creates a jarring visual disconnect rather than a considered transition. A tower of this magnitude is typically reserved for major transit hubs and is unsuitable for a mid-block location on Bourke Street.
2. Unjustified planning uplift
A development approval already exists for this site under much more modest height and FSR controls. This new application seeks a radical increase in density, rising from a 29m height limit to 125m, and an FSR increase from 2.15:1 to 3.05:1, without offering a corresponding public benefit of equal value. The local community and property owners have made long-term decisions based on the existing planning framework. Allowing such a massive departure from the approved envelope compromises the transparency and predictability of the NSW planning system.
3. Precedent for future overdevelopment
Permitting a 36-storey structure on a site that lacks direct proximity to a major transport interchange sets an alarming precedent for the broader Waterloo area. If approved, other landholders will undoubtedly cite this development to justify similar out-of-scale rezoning requests. This piece-meal approach to significant upzoning undermines the principles of orderly and sustainable development as outlined in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
4. Strain on public transport infrastructure
Public transport in Waterloo is already stretched to its limits. The new Waterloo Metro is a considerable walk from this site and is better positioned to serve the Redfern end of the suburb. Local bus services, specifically the 304, 392, and 348, are frequently at capacity during rush hour. Introducing roughly 850 new dwellings without a confirmed and proportional increase in bus frequency or transport capacity will leave existing and future residents with a failing transit network. Furthermore, several concerns are as follows:
• Bus corridors are already opening within congested road environment
• There are no dedicated bus priority lanes on Bourke St
• No additional transport upgrades are proposed in connection with the uplift.
In addition to the above, increasing residential density in the absence of improved transport infrastructure risks further congestion, increased private vehicle reliance, and diminished amenity for existing residence.
5. Road safety and traffic congestion
The intersections at Bourke, Danks, Lachlan, and McEvoy Streets are already notorious for heavy congestion. As arterial roads reach a standstill, more drivers are using quiet residential streets as shortcuts, which creates safety risks and ruins local amenity. I am concerned that the Traffic Impact Assessment fails to account for the combined pressure of this project alongside the nearby Waterloo Metro precinct and the massive Waterloo Estate redevelopment. Furthermore, several concerns are as follows:
• Intensify pedestrian movement
• Increase vehicle and delivery activity
• Heighten safety risk for cyclists and pedestrians
6. Deficiencies in public open space
The central park included in the proposal is insufficient as a meaningful public amenity. Enclosed by buildings ranging from 13 to 36 storeys, the space will be overshadowed and lack winter sun. Furthermore, it appears to lack essential recreational features such as play areas or dog-friendly zones. It is unrealistic to expect this small, overshadowed patch of land to meet the needs of 850 new households while also serving the existing community.
7. Loss of privacy and overlooking
The orientation of the tower’s balconies and primary living windows will result in direct lines of sight into the private rooms and outdoor spaces of existing low-rise residences. The proposal lacks the necessary setbacks or sophisticated screening measures required to protect the privacy of current neighbours, leading to an unacceptable level of visual intrusion.
8. Unacceptable cumulative construction burden
Our precinct has been subject to years of continuous construction, leading to persistent noise, dust, and heavy vehicle traffic. Adding a project of this immense scale will further degrade the quality of life for residents. Should this proceed, there must be a strictly enforceable Construction Management Plan that coordinates with nearby active sites to manage cumulative noise and haulage impacts in a transparent manner.
9. Adverse wind conditions
The height and bulk of the proposed structures are likely to create or exacerbate wind tunnel effects at the street level. This can make the public domain, including the proposed park and pedestrian footpaths, uncomfortable and uninviting. I do not believe the wind impacts on the surrounding microclimate have been sufficiently analysed or mitigated in the current application.
10. Escalating parking competition
The scarcity of on-street parking is a major issue for current Waterloo residents and businesses. A development of this magnitude will inevitably lead to an overflow of parking demand into the surrounding residential streets. This competition for limited spaces will significantly disadvantage existing residents who rely on local street parking. Density uplift without corresponding transport infrastructure or parking strategy risks transferring the burden from development site to the surrounding community.
11. Impacts on deliveries and logistics
The current congestion on our streets has reached a point where it is extremely difficult for delivery vehicles to find adequate space to park or unload. This creates significant delays and safety hazards for couriers and service providers. This development will only worsen the existing lack of curb side capacity, making basic logistical access for the neighbourhood almost impossible.
Requested outcome
I request that the Department refuse this application in its current form. Any approval for this site should be contingent on substantial amendments, including a major reduction in the maximum building height to align with the surrounding 4–13 storey context. Furthermore, a transparent solar access study and a robust, enforceable Construction Management Plan are essential. I wish to reiterate that I do not oppose the development of this site in principle, but I strongly object to a proposal of this excessive scale and height under the current planning framework.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Yours sincerely,
Name Withheld
Danks St, Waterloo NSW
Pamela Allen
Object
Pamela Allen
Object
Waterloo
,
New South Wales
Message
As a Waterloo resident, I formally object to SSD-95997711 for alterations and additions to the approved mixed-use development at 903–921 Bourke Street and 3 McEvoy Street, Waterloo.
I am concerned that the applicant consistently understates the real-world amenity and transport impacts of the proposal. In particular, the wind, shadow and transport assessments rely on technical framing that does not reflect how the development will actually affect nearby residents and public spaces.
1) Wind impacts
Whilst the Wind Report prepared by MEL Consultants (Appendix 33, February 2026 addendum) concludes that the proposal meets the pedestrian safety criterion at all ground-level test locations, I remain concerned about pedestrian comfort and the practical usability of key outdoor areas.
At test location 23, which corresponds to the Nathan Road Cantonese Restaurant at 832 Bourke Street, the assessment indicates only walking comfort. That suggests the proposal may reduce the amenity of outdoor dining in that location.
At test location 27, which relates to a pedestrian crossing point, the assessment also indicates only walking comfort. Given the busy intersection environment, this may create an uncomfortable waiting space for pedestrians, particularly during peak periods.
The future park achieves only sitting comfort in one test location (location 63). That appears inconsistent with SDRP’s requirement in its letter of 18 December 2025, which called for a generous area for sitting and gathering to support the increased population.
2) Shadow impacts
Section 7.4.6 of the EI&RS, in the 830–840 Bourke Street (Divercity) summary, states that the proposed uplift ensures there is no reduction in the number of apartments achieving at least two hours of sunlight in mid-winter. In my view, this should more accurately be stated as no reduction in the percentage of apartments achieving at least two hours of sunlight in mid-winter.
The summary also states that although some additional overshadowing affects 10 units, those units still receive at least 2 hours of solar access to the living areas. However, the corresponding diagram in Appendix 9E, Design Report Appendix B Solar Access (in Figure 1 attached), indicates that the 10 units will receive less than two hours of sunlight.
Accordingly, the statement that the shadow impact does not alter the overall performance of adjacent buildings with respect to the percentage of apartments receiving at least 2 hours solar access appears inconsistent with the diagram and should be reconsidered.
3) Transport impacts
The proposed SSD adds 233 apartments to the approved yield, which will materially increase resident demand, yet the proposal adds only 30 additional parking spaces. In my view, the Transport Impact Assessment overstates the ease with which the site can be absorbed by the surrounding transport network.
The TIA states that the site is well serviced by public transport, but that does not match the day-to-day experience of many residents who rely on bus services and cannot always walk long distances to rail or metro. In my case, I rely on the 343 bus for home-bound travel from Waterloo Metro to Bourke Street, and cancelled or unreliable services can leave me feeling stranded and unsafe after dark.
The TIA identifies Green Square station as approximately 1,000 metres from the site and Waterloo Metro as approximately 900 metres away. That may be acceptable in theory, but it is not a convenient walk for everyone, especially at night, in bad weather, or for people with mobility limitations.
I am also concerned that the public transport section relies on route information that should be checked against current TfNSW services before any conclusions are drawn:
• M20 route no longer exists.
• 301 route no longer goes through Waterloo.
• 302 route no longer exists.
• 303 route no longer goes through Waterloo.
• 343 route now only goes from Elizabeth St to Circular Quay
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department give serious weight to the cumulative amenity and transport impacts of the proposal and preserve the original development parameters.
I am concerned that the applicant consistently understates the real-world amenity and transport impacts of the proposal. In particular, the wind, shadow and transport assessments rely on technical framing that does not reflect how the development will actually affect nearby residents and public spaces.
1) Wind impacts
Whilst the Wind Report prepared by MEL Consultants (Appendix 33, February 2026 addendum) concludes that the proposal meets the pedestrian safety criterion at all ground-level test locations, I remain concerned about pedestrian comfort and the practical usability of key outdoor areas.
At test location 23, which corresponds to the Nathan Road Cantonese Restaurant at 832 Bourke Street, the assessment indicates only walking comfort. That suggests the proposal may reduce the amenity of outdoor dining in that location.
At test location 27, which relates to a pedestrian crossing point, the assessment also indicates only walking comfort. Given the busy intersection environment, this may create an uncomfortable waiting space for pedestrians, particularly during peak periods.
The future park achieves only sitting comfort in one test location (location 63). That appears inconsistent with SDRP’s requirement in its letter of 18 December 2025, which called for a generous area for sitting and gathering to support the increased population.
2) Shadow impacts
Section 7.4.6 of the EI&RS, in the 830–840 Bourke Street (Divercity) summary, states that the proposed uplift ensures there is no reduction in the number of apartments achieving at least two hours of sunlight in mid-winter. In my view, this should more accurately be stated as no reduction in the percentage of apartments achieving at least two hours of sunlight in mid-winter.
The summary also states that although some additional overshadowing affects 10 units, those units still receive at least 2 hours of solar access to the living areas. However, the corresponding diagram in Appendix 9E, Design Report Appendix B Solar Access (in Figure 1 attached), indicates that the 10 units will receive less than two hours of sunlight.
Accordingly, the statement that the shadow impact does not alter the overall performance of adjacent buildings with respect to the percentage of apartments receiving at least 2 hours solar access appears inconsistent with the diagram and should be reconsidered.
3) Transport impacts
The proposed SSD adds 233 apartments to the approved yield, which will materially increase resident demand, yet the proposal adds only 30 additional parking spaces. In my view, the Transport Impact Assessment overstates the ease with which the site can be absorbed by the surrounding transport network.
The TIA states that the site is well serviced by public transport, but that does not match the day-to-day experience of many residents who rely on bus services and cannot always walk long distances to rail or metro. In my case, I rely on the 343 bus for home-bound travel from Waterloo Metro to Bourke Street, and cancelled or unreliable services can leave me feeling stranded and unsafe after dark.
The TIA identifies Green Square station as approximately 1,000 metres from the site and Waterloo Metro as approximately 900 metres away. That may be acceptable in theory, but it is not a convenient walk for everyone, especially at night, in bad weather, or for people with mobility limitations.
I am also concerned that the public transport section relies on route information that should be checked against current TfNSW services before any conclusions are drawn:
• M20 route no longer exists.
• 301 route no longer goes through Waterloo.
• 302 route no longer exists.
• 303 route no longer goes through Waterloo.
• 343 route now only goes from Elizabeth St to Circular Quay
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department give serious weight to the cumulative amenity and transport impacts of the proposal and preserve the original development parameters.
Attachments
Thomas Cox
Object
Thomas Cox
Object
WATERLOO
,
New South Wales
Message
I strongly object to application SSD-95997711. My detailed objection, including material planning considerations relating to scale, heritage impact, transport, community infrastructure protections, and incomplete technical assessments, is set out in the attached letter. I respectfully request that the Department refuse the amended application and allow D/2021/1415 to proceed as approved.