I am writing to formally express my strong objection to the proposed major amendments submitted by DASCO (SSD-95997711) for the residential development at 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.

The original plans approved by the City of Sydney were appropriate for the area. This new proposal seeks to drastically and unacceptably alter those plans, negatively impacting the Waterloo, Zetland, and Green Square communities.

My primary concerns regarding this proposal are:

1. Unjustified Increases in Height and Density
The proposed height increases are staggering and entirely out of character for the neighborhood. Increasing the Bourke Street North building from the approved 12 storeys to 31 storeys, and the Young Street Tower from 21 storeys to 38 storeys, constitutes a massive overdevelopment. Furthermore, adding 233 apartments (bringing the total to 580) while providing a mere 20 additional parking spaces is grossly inadequate and will severely impact local street parking.

2. Severe Infrastructure Strain
The local infrastructure is already operating at or near capacity. Adding this volume of new residents will place unacceptable pressure on local roads and public transport. Services such as the 304 bus and peak-hour trains from Green Square are already heavily congested, with full buses routinely passing waiting commuters. Public amenities, including local libraries, are also under pressure and cannot support the cumulative impact of an estimated 8,000 new residents projected for the Waterloo and Zetland area.

3. Visually Overbearing Design
The sheer scale of the proposed towers is far too large for the surrounding area. Rather than integrating with the existing neighborhood, these structures will dominate the local streetscape, creating a serious visual impact that undermines the current character of Waterloo.

4. Severe Overshadowing
If approved, these two oversized towers—especially when combined with the proposed 38-storey tower at the adjacent 881-885 Bourke Street (SSD-80441462)—will create significant cumulative overshadowing. This will severely impact nearby homes and public open spaces, particularly during the winter solstice.

Conclusion
The cumulative impact of this development, alongside other major projects in the area, equates to dropping a small country town's worth of residents into our neighborhood within a few short years, without the necessary infrastructure to support them.

I strongly urge the NSW Government to reject these major amendments and enforce the original development plans as approved by the City of Sydney.

Thank you for your time and for considering the severe impact this proposal will have on our community.

I am writing as a local Waterloo resident to express my deep disappointment and strong objection to the State Government’s handling of the revised proposal for the former Water Board site at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo. While I support well-planned density and understand the need for increased housing, this proposal appears to have moved well beyond responsible urban planning. In my view, it represents an excessive and opportunistic attempt to maximise developer yield at the expense of community amenity, neighbourhood character, and the long-term liveability of Waterloo.

The proposed escalation in height and density is deeply concerning and, in my view, represents a serious departure from the expectations previously set for this site. Increasing the buildings to 30 and 37 storeys is not a minor amendment — it is a dramatic intensification that fundamentally alters the character, impact, and consequences of the development.

I am extremely disappointed in the state government's approach to this outrageous submission from a developer. As a local resident who respects density living for all its benefits now is out of control with what a future may look like for our society

I write to express my profound disappointment and personal outrage at the scale and nature of the proposal put forward for the redevelopment of the former Water Board site at 903–921 Bourke Street in Waterloo.

The proposed escalation in height and density is, in my view, an opportunistic and excessive overreach that disregards both the original approved scheme and the reasonable expectations of residents. Increasing the buildings to 30 and 37 storeys is not a minor amendment — it is a dramatic intensification in fact 67% that fundamentally alters the character, impact, and consequences of the development.

I am particularly disturbed that such extreme height is being pursued despite known flight path constraints associated with Sydney Airport. Any proposal of this magnitude must transparently address aviation height restrictions, safety considerations, and cumulative impacts. The apparent disregard for these constraints raises serious questions about the appropriateness and planning integrity of the revised scheme.

Beyond the technical issues, I am deeply concerned that this proposal reflects a prioritisation of maximum yield over community wellbeing. The excessive height will dominate the skyline, erode neighbourhood amenity, intensify overshadowing, and further burden already strained local infrastructure. It represents a clear departure from balanced, responsible urban planning.

Also here are other concerns:

Building noise and street disruption for the next 4 years

The proposed building heights are markedly disproportionate to the established and emerging character of the Waterloo precinct. The scale of these towers would dominate the surrounding streetscape and materially alter the neighbourhood context.

Loss of Solar Access
Buildings of 30–37 storeys will result in substantial overshadowing of adjacent residences and public areas, diminishing natural light and impacting residential amenity.

Pressure on Local Infrastructure
A density increase of this magnitude will intensify demand on local roads, parking availability, and public transport services, which are already experiencing significant constraints.

Wind and Pedestrian Amenity
The additional height, particularly the 37-storey tower, raises serious concerns regarding adverse wind impacts at street level, with potential consequences for pedestrian safety and comfort.

I ask that my strong objection — and my profound dissatisfaction with the developer’s proposal — be formally recorded. I also request to be kept fully informed of all future stages of this application, as I intend to continue making formal submissions as the process progresses.

I write to express my profound disappointment and personal outrage at the scale and nature of the proposal put forward for the redevelopment of the former Water Board site at 903–921 Bourke Street in Waterloo.

The proposed escalation in height and density is, in my view, an opportunistic and excessive overreach that disregards both the original approved scheme and the reasonable expectations of residents. Increasing the buildings to 30 and 37 storeys is not a minor amendment — it is a dramatic intensification that fundamentally alters the character, impact, and consequences of the development.

I am particularly disturbed that such extreme height is being pursued despite known flight path constraints associated with Sydney Airport. Any proposal of this magnitude must transparently address aviation height restrictions, safety considerations, and cumulative impacts. The apparent disregard for these constraints raises serious questions about the appropriateness and planning integrity of the revised scheme.

Beyond the technical issues, I am deeply concerned that this proposal reflects a prioritisation of maximum yield over community wellbeing. The excessive height will dominate the skyline, erode neighbourhood amenity, intensify overshadowing, and further burden already strained local infrastructure. It represents a clear departure from balanced, responsible urban planning.

Also here are other concerns:

Building noise and street disruption for the next 4 years

The proposed building heights are markedly disproportionate to the established and emerging character of the Waterloo precinct. The scale of these towers would dominate the surrounding streetscape and materially alter the neighbourhood context.

Loss of Solar Access
Buildings of 30–37 storeys will result in substantial overshadowing of adjacent residences and public areas, diminishing natural light and impacting residential amenity.

Pressure on Local Infrastructure
A density increase of this magnitude will intensify demand on local roads, parking availability, and public transport services, which are already experiencing significant constraints.

Wind and Pedestrian Amenity
The additional height, particularly the 37-storey tower, raises serious concerns regarding adverse wind impacts at street level, with potential consequences for pedestrian safety and comfort.

I ask that my strong objection — and my profound dissatisfaction with the developer’s proposal — be formally recorded. I also request to be kept fully informed of all future stages of this application, as I intend to continue making formal submissions as the process progresses.

The proposed expansion of the project significantly departs from the initial proposal, and will place unsustainable pressure on existing infrastructure and amenities, including roads, public transport and parks. The added height of the building will impact on the sunlight that reaches the surrounding roads and homes and will be visually overbearing. An expansion of this magnitude would need to be accompanied by a significant investment to increase public transport, free communal public spaces like parks, and other amenities like gyms. The proposal will fundamentally, adversely change the nature of the neighbourhood. I am strongly opposed to the proposal.

I strongly object and condemn the amendment to the building project which benefits solely the builder and its bottom line and is at the expense of the local community. Based on the submission for additional 204 units and based on the plans that can be found on: https://meetings.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/documents/s70408/Attachment%20B%20-%20Architectural%20Drawings%20Tower%20and%20Plaza%20Buildings.pdf and https://meetings.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/documents/s70409/Attachment%20C%20-%20Architectural%20Drawings%20Young%20Street%20North%20and%20Young%20Street%20South%20Buildings.pdf
I can clearly see that the intention is to put the most of the additional planned units to a high-rise which is overshadowing the surrounding smaller planned residential buildings. This is also confirmed by the proposed drastic change to the floor space ratio!
Firstly, I don't want lex specialis of any form for a benefit of a corporation. I come from a country where this was done through political pressure and I thought Australians were better than this.
Secondly, I don't want high density in an area which is already quite dense in terms of population especially as I am a father of the young child and these plans are putting significant pressure on the future of my child (and future children). More specifically by granting DASCO this privilege you have put more pressure on local schools (most important for me), facilities and opportunities for my child to have a more peaceful childhood. Furthermore, I don't see any plans for better transportation (more bus lines, a tram line or some other form of public transportation) to absorb additional ~1000 people per day from the planned increase.
Thirdly, I expect my street, which is currently quite peaceful to become congested with much more traffic as all the extra cars are set off in the morning to workplaces.
Fourthly, I don't want any negatives (foreseen or unforeseen) from a highrise which might impact wind patterns, sewage, garbage collection, insolation given the about 100 to 150 m proximity of my dwelling to the planned construction.

I welcome that there is going to be a lot of additional commercial real estate meaning more restaurants, shops and entertainment venues but I categorically oppose that profit driven (and I'm sure this is the case) motives are now causing whining on corporate part for special rules and privileges. They had access to the zoning laws at the time when they were buying the property, they had ample time to do all sorts of financial modelling and they had ample time to consider all sorts of unfavorable scenarios which they could have stress modeled and tested.
I do not want higher buildings in this neighbourhood, I want my child and future children to have more chances for proper schooling and facilities and I don't want profit motives of others to impact my life any more than they currently are!

I am a resident of Waterloo writing to formally object to this application (SDD 95997711) for alterations and additions to the approved mixed use development at 903-921 Bourke Street and 3 McEvoy Street, which proposes to increase apartments from 347 to 580 and to add 17 storeys to the Young Street tower (21 to 38 storeys) and 19 storeys to the Bourke Street north tower (12 to 31 storeys), via the Housing Delivery Authority pathway with a concurrent amendment to Sydney LEP 2012.

I note that this application is being assessed simultaneously with an adjacent proposal at 881-885 Bourke Street (SSD-80441462), which proposes 850 apartments including a 36-storey tower, also via the HDA pathway. I have reviewed both applicants' EIS documents. They contradict each other on cumulative traffic impact, and neither accounts for the other's effects on solar access or infrastructure. My objection raises four grounds, each supported by the applicants' own documents.

FIRST GROUND: CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC - CONTRADICTORY ASSESSMENTS

Section 2.3 of this EIS states that cumulative traffic impacts would not significantly affect the road network and would be minor and acceptable. This directly contradicts the findings of the adjacent Coronation application's Traffic Impact Assessment (Genesis Traffic, October 2025), which assessed the same intersections and found that Bourke Street/Lachlan Street already operates beyond capacity in the AM and weekend peaks and declines from Level of Service B to LOS F in the PM peak under the Coronation proposal alone, with average delay increasing from 26 to 104 seconds. Danks Street/Bourke Street already operates beyond capacity on weekends, with the degree of saturation worsening from 1.203 to 1.439 under Coronation alone. Even after the Coronation applicant's proposed mitigation, both intersections remain over capacity on weekends.

The DASCO traffic assessment was conducted without modelling the Coronation development's traffic generation, yet concludes the network is not significantly impacted. The two assessments concern the same intersections and the same peak periods and cannot both be correct. Furthermore, Section 8.6 of the Coronation Traffic Impact Assessment - the cumulative impact assessment required by that application's SEARs - was never completed. It consists of a single sentence deferring to further consultation with TfNSW or Council. Neither application has therefore produced a credible combined cumulative traffic assessment for the precinct.

I ask: which assessment does DPHI accept, and why? Has DPHI required either applicant to produce a combined cumulative traffic model for the Danks Street South Precinct that accounts for both developments together, alongside City West Housing (74 dwellings completed), and the potential development at 923-935 Bourke Street currently under assessment?

SECOND GROUND: SOLAR ACCESS - PRECINCT COMPLIANCE NOT MODELLED

The Coronation application's Solar Access report (Bates Smart + SJB, September 2025) discloses that the Coronation proposal alone reduces the DASCO precinct's solar compliance from 73.5% to 70.9% of dwellings achieving 2 hours of mid-winter solar access - sitting at the absolute DCP minimum of 70%. This EIS does not appear to model the solar access impact of the Coronation proposal on this precinct's dwellings, nor does it assess whether the combined shadow envelope of both developments maintains precinct compliance. The DASCO proposal adds 233 apartments and substantially increases building height. If both developments proceed, the precinct is at or below the 70% threshold before the increased DASCO massing is factored in.

I ask: has the solar access assessment for this application been modelled with the Coronation development in place? If not, can the Department confirm that precinct solar compliance is maintained under the combined shadow envelopes of both developments? Has DPHI assessed whether both applications can proceed without the precinct falling below the 70% DCP minimum?

THIRD GROUND: DESIGN EXCELLENCE WAIVER - INADEQUATE BASIS

This application obtained a waiver of the competitive design process under Clause 6.21D(2) of SLEP 2012 on the basis that construction has already commenced, making a new competition disproportionate. The Coronation application relies on an analogous argument - that HDA timeframes make the mandatory competitive design process impossible. Both arguments produce the same outcome: the mandatory precinct-level design quality requirement, established specifically to govern the Danks Street South Precinct, is waived for both of the precinct's two largest developments simultaneously. The original DASCO consent (D/2021/1415) was the product of a competitive design process. The proposed 38-storey and 31-storey towers are not. This EIS describes the addition of 17 and 19 storeys to existing approved towers as alterations and additions for the purpose of the waiver. Adding nearly double the approved height to a building already under construction is not, by any ordinary meaning, a minor alteration, and the waiver provision was not designed for an intervention of this scale.

I ask: on what basis is it unreasonable or unnecessary to hold a design competition for towers that will add 17 and 19 storeys above an originally competitively-designed scheme? Is the Government Architect's endorsement of the Alternative Design Excellence Strategy a public document, and will it be published as part of the formal assessment record?

FOURTH GROUND: CONCURRENT REZONING AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

This application seeks not only development consent but a concurrent amendment to Sydney LEP 2012, including amendments to the Height of Buildings Map and insertion of new site-specific provisions. This permanently entrenches the proposed heights as permitted controls for the precinct. The community consultation recorded in Appendix 31 of this EIS explicitly captured feedback including traffic impacts, scepticism of the planning pathway being utilised, and a lack of confidence that community feedback will be considered - concerns recorded in the applicant's own document. Both the DASCO and Coronation applications seek concurrent LEP amendments via the HDA pathway affecting the same precinct, and both remove City of Sydney Council from the determination process, despite Council having formally objected to the adjacent Coronation proposal.

I ask: has City of Sydney Council been formally notified of and invited to respond to the proposed SLEP 2012 amendments sought by this application? Has DPHI considered whether the concurrent LEP amendments sought by both applications should be assessed together as a single planning proposal rather than as separate development applications, given that they affect the same precinct and are being progressed through the same pathway simultaneously?

CONCLUSION

I am not opposed to housing development in Waterloo and recognise the genuine need to increase supply. My concern is that two large applications on adjacent sites are being assessed in parallel, using the same fast-track pathway, with technical studies that contradict each other on the central question of cumulative impact and with no mechanism in either assessment to consider the combined effect on the precinct's infrastructure, solar access, and public domain. The residents of this precinct will not experience these developments separately. They will experience them as a single built environment of three towers reaching 31, 36, and 38 storeys above streets whose intersections are already beyond capacity. Neither EIS accounts for that reality. I ask that each question raised above receive a written response.

Dear Assessment Team,

I am a resident of Danks Street in Waterloo, NSW, and I am writing to formally submit my objection to SSD-80441462 in its current iteration. While I appreciate and support the necessity for well-planned densification within our inner-city suburbs, I believe this specific proposal is drastically out of step with the established and emerging character of the surrounding neighbourhood.

1. Unacceptable height and incompatibility with local character
The proposed 36-storey skyscraper, reaching an elevation of roughly 125 metres, is entirely disproportionate to the existing urban fabric of this precinct. Current developments in the immediate vicinity generally range between 4 and 13 storeys, meaning this tower would be more than double the height of its neighbours. Such an extreme increase in scale creates a visual disconnect and lacks the necessary transition to integrate with the streetscape. A building of this magnitude is perhaps appropriate for a regional transport hub, but it is fundamentally misplaced on a mid-block site along Bourke Street.

2. Unjustified deviation from established planning controls
This site is already subject to a prior development approval that was granted under significantly more modest height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) limits. This new application seeks a massive uplift, moving from a 29-metre limit to 125 metres and increasing the FSR from 2.15:1 to 3.05:1 without offering a proportional public benefit in return. As a local resident, I find it concerning that the predictability of the planning system is being undermined, as many of us made long-term decisions based on the previously approved building envelopes for this site.

3. Significant loss of solar access and natural light
I am deeply concerned about the reduction of sunlight to neighbouring residential properties caused by the height and positioning of these towers. Upon reviewing the proponent's Solar Access report, it appears there is a failure to assess the overshadowing impacts on several directly affected buildings, such as Cameo at 6 Lachlan Street and Aria at 4 Lachlan Street, as well as various west-facing homes on adjacent streets. This lack of comprehensive modelling is a major oversight in the Environmental Impact Statement.

4. Establishment of a detrimental planning precedent
If a 36-storey residential tower is approved in this location, which lacks immediate proximity to a major transport interchange and is surrounded by low-to-mid-rise buildings, it will set a dangerous precedent for the area. Other developers will inevitably use this approval to justify similar disproportionate rezonings and uplifts throughout Waterloo. This approach contradicts the principles of orderly and strategic development as outlined in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

5. Critical pressure on public transport infrastructure
Waterloo currently lacks a centrally located train station, and the upcoming Waterloo Metro is a 15-minute walk from this site, being closer to Redfern. Existing bus services, particularly the 304, 392, and 348, are already operating at peak capacity and frequently bypass commuters because they are full. Introducing approximately 850 new apartments to this corridor without a confirmed and significant upgrade to transport frequency will cause these essential services to fail entirely.

6. Increased traffic congestion and road safety concerns
The intersections at Bourke, Lachlan, Danks, and McEvoy Streets are already heavily burdened by traffic. As arterial routes become more congested, local residential streets are being used as shortcuts, which compromises the safety of pedestrians and the amenity of the area. The provided Traffic Impact Assessment does not seem to take into account the cumulative effect of this proposal alongside other major nearby projects, such as the Dasco development and the broader Waterloo Estate renewal.

7. Overburdening of essential local services
Local community infrastructure is already reaching a breaking point. Green Square Public School is at capacity, there is a distinct lack of nearby public high schools, and local medical practitioners are increasingly difficult to access. This proposal introduces a massive influx of new residents without providing any substantial commitment to the social infrastructure required to support such a population boom.

8. Inadequacy of proposed public open space
The central park included in the plans is touted as a public benefit, but in reality, it is a small area that will be overshadowed by towers ranging from 13 to 36 storeys. The space appears to have very limited recreational utility, lacking basic amenities like play equipment, functional lawn areas, or facilities for pets. It cannot realistically meet the needs of 850 new households while also serving the existing community.

9. Cumulative impacts of ongoing construction
Our precinct has been subject to continuous construction for years, leading to persistent issues with noise, dust, vibration, and heavy vehicle traffic. Adding a project of this scale will significantly worsen these disruptions. Should the Department move toward approval, it is vital that a transparent and enforceable Construction Management Plan be implemented to strictly regulate work hours, noise levels, and haulage routes in coordination with other active sites.

10. Exacerbation of wind tunnel effects
The sheer mass and height of the proposed towers are likely to intensify wind tunnel effects throughout the precinct. This will make outdoor areas, including balconies, the proposed park, and the surrounding footpaths, uncomfortable for residents and pedestrians. I do not believe the wind impacts have been sufficiently modelled or mitigated in the current application.

11. Threat to the neighbourhood atmosphere
The unique neighbourhood feel of Waterloo is at significant risk of being eroded by hyper-dense developments that ignore the human scale. Without a more sensitive approach to design and density, there is a real danger that this vibrant community will be transformed into an impersonal and sterile urban wasteland, devoid of the character that makes our suburb a desirable place to live.

Requested outcome

I request that the Department refuse the application in its current form or require major amendments. Specifically, there must be a significant reduction in the maximum building height to ensure it aligns with the existing built form of the precinct. Furthermore, I request a more transparent and comprehensive solar access assessment and a robust, enforceable Construction Management Plan. To be clear, I do not oppose the redevelopment of this site entirely; however, I strongly object to a development of this excessive scale and height under the current planning framework.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours sincerely,

Sandra Kontos
Danks Street, Waterloo NSW

Dear Assessment Team,

I am a resident of Danks Street in Waterloo, NSW, and I am writing to formally submit my objection to SUB-117619490 in its current iteration. While I appreciate and support the necessity for well-planned densification within our inner-city suburbs, I believe this specific proposal is drastically out of step with the established and emerging character of the surrounding neighbourhood.

1. Unacceptable height and incompatibility with local character
The proposed 36-storey skyscraper, reaching an elevation of roughly 125 metres, is entirely disproportionate to the existing urban fabric of this precinct. Current developments in the immediate vicinity generally range between 4 and 13 storeys, meaning this tower would be more than double the height of its neighbours. Such an extreme increase in scale creates a visual disconnect and lacks the necessary transition to integrate with the streetscape. A building of this magnitude is perhaps appropriate for a regional transport hub, but it is fundamentally misplaced on a mid-block site along Bourke Street.

2. Unjustified deviation from established planning controls
This site is already subject to a prior development approval that was granted under significantly more modest height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) limits. This new application seeks a massive uplift, moving from a 29-metre limit to 125 metres and increasing the FSR from 2.15:1 to 3.05:1 without offering a proportional public benefit in return. As a local resident, I find it concerning that the predictability of the planning system is being undermined, as many of us made long-term decisions based on the previously approved building envelopes for this site.

3. Significant loss of solar access and natural light
I am deeply concerned about the reduction of sunlight to neighbouring residential properties caused by the height and positioning of these towers. Upon reviewing the proponent's Solar Access report, it appears there is a failure to assess the overshadowing impacts on several directly affected buildings, such as Cameo at 6 Lachlan Street and Aria at 4 Lachlan Street, as well as various west-facing homes on adjacent streets. This lack of comprehensive modelling is a major oversight in the Environmental Impact Statement.

4. Establishment of a detrimental planning precedent
If a 36-storey residential tower is approved in this location, which lacks immediate proximity to a major transport interchange and is surrounded by low-to-mid-rise buildings, it will set a dangerous precedent for the area. Other developers will inevitably use this approval to justify similar disproportionate rezonings and uplifts throughout Waterloo. This approach contradicts the principles of orderly and strategic development as outlined in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

5. Critical pressure on public transport infrastructure
Waterloo currently lacks a centrally located train station, and the upcoming Waterloo Metro is a 15-minute walk from this site, being closer to Redfern. Existing bus services, particularly the 304, 392, and 348, are already operating at peak capacity and frequently bypass commuters because they are full. Introducing approximately 850 new apartments to this corridor without a confirmed and significant upgrade to transport frequency will cause these essential services to fail entirely.

6. Increased traffic congestion and road safety concerns
The intersections at Bourke, Lachlan, Danks, and McEvoy Streets are already heavily burdened by traffic. As arterial routes become more congested, local residential streets are being used as shortcuts, which compromises the safety of pedestrians and the amenity of the area. The provided Traffic Impact Assessment does not seem to take into account the cumulative effect of this proposal alongside other major nearby projects, such as the Dasco development and the broader Waterloo Estate renewal.

7. Overburdening of essential local services
Local community infrastructure is already reaching a breaking point. Green Square Public School is at capacity, there is a distinct lack of nearby public high schools, and local medical practitioners are increasingly difficult to access. This proposal introduces a massive influx of new residents without providing any substantial commitment to the social infrastructure required to support such a population boom.

8. Inadequacy of proposed public open space
The central park included in the plans is touted as a public benefit, but in reality, it is a small area that will be overshadowed by towers ranging from 13 to 36 storeys. The space appears to have very limited recreational utility, lacking basic amenities like play equipment, functional lawn areas, or facilities for pets. It cannot realistically meet the needs of 850 new households while also serving the existing community.

9. Cumulative impacts of ongoing construction
Our precinct has been subject to continuous construction for years, leading to persistent issues with noise, dust, vibration, and heavy vehicle traffic. Adding a project of this scale will significantly worsen these disruptions. Should the Department move toward approval, it is vital that a transparent and enforceable Construction Management Plan be implemented to strictly regulate work hours, noise levels, and haulage routes in coordination with other active sites.

10. Exacerbation of wind tunnel effects
The sheer mass and height of the proposed towers are likely to intensify wind tunnel effects throughout the precinct. This will make outdoor areas, including balconies, the proposed park, and the surrounding footpaths, uncomfortable for residents and pedestrians. I do not believe the wind impacts have been sufficiently modelled or mitigated in the current application.

11. Threat to the neighbourhood atmosphere
The unique neighbourhood feel of Waterloo is at significant risk of being eroded by hyper-dense developments that ignore the human scale. Without a more sensitive approach to design and density, there is a real danger that this vibrant community will be transformed into an impersonal and sterile urban wasteland, devoid of the character that makes our suburb a desirable place to live.

Requested outcome

I request that the Department refuse the application in its current form or require major amendments. Specifically, there must be a significant reduction in the maximum building height to ensure it aligns with the existing built form of the precinct. Furthermore, I request a more transparent and comprehensive solar access assessment and a robust, enforceable Construction Management Plan. To be clear, I do not oppose the redevelopment of this site entirely; however, I strongly object to a development of this excessive scale and height under the current planning framework.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours sincerely,

Sandra Kontos
Danks Street, Waterloo NSW

I object to this project, as it sets a precedent for CBD high-rise office tower height apartment blocks in small residential suburbs, which will cause shadowing and unsightly big buildings as well as added congestion to already busy streets. Also, many people have bought apartments in surrounding suburbs and paid $100,000 plus for uninterrupted Sydney skyline views in high locations where it would be inconceivable that the view would ever be blocked due to their location/height, yet apartment towers at these extraordinary heights proposed here would never have been predicted, as their heights are only found in CBD locations such as Sydney, Parramatta, North Sydney, etc., not in residential Waterloo.

I object to the proposed development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.

As a long-term resident and a mother raising a young family in this community, I would like to express my deep concern regarding the scale and impact of this proposal.

Over the years, this neighbourhood has developed into a relatively low- to moderate-density residential area that supports a safe, family-friendly environment. This balance is extremely important for households like ours, where daily life depends on access to manageable, uncrowded, and safe surroundings.

1. Impact on safety and daily liveability
A development of this scale, with a very high number of additional residents, will inevitably increase congestion in already constrained local streets and public spaces.
As a parent, I am particularly concerned about:

• Increased traffic risks for children walking in the area
• Overcrowding in footpaths and shared spaces
• Reduced sense of safety in what is currently a relatively quiet and peaceful environment

These are not abstract concerns, but practical, day-to-day realities for families.

2. Overcrowding of essential family-oriented amenities
Facilities that families rely on are already under pressure. Playgrounds, parks, and open spaces are often crowded, especially during peak hours. It is common to see children waiting to use basic play equipment.

Similarly, access to everyday services such as healthcare, childcare, and local shops is becoming increasingly strained.

A significant population increase without meaningful expansion of these services will directly impact the wellbeing of families living in the area.

3. Disproportionate scale compared to community character
The proposed height and density are far beyond what has been established in this neighbourhood. Previous developments have generally been moderate and have respected the existing urban character.

This proposal introduces a level of density more comparable to a central business district, which is not appropriate for a neighbourhood that has evolved as a residential community.

4. Lack of supporting infrastructure and planning balance
It is particularly concerning that the proposal seeks flexibility around infrastructure requirements. Growth must be accompanied by proper planning and investment in supporting facilities.

Without this, the burden is shifted onto existing residents, reducing overall quality of life.

5. Long-term impact on community cohesion
One of the strengths of this area is its sense of community, where neighbours interact and families feel comfortable living long-term.

A sudden and significant increase in density risks undermining this balance and changing the nature of the community in a way that may not be reversible.

In conclusion, I respectfully submit that this proposal is excessive in scale, inconsistent with the needs of families, and unsupported by adequate infrastructure.

I strongly urge that the development be refused, or significantly redesigned to better reflect the character, capacity, and long-term liveability of the community.