Hello,
To my understanding, the proposal is to go from:
- Bourke Street North – increasing from 12 storeys (approved) to 31 storeys (proposed).
- Young Street Tower - increasing from 21 storeys (approved) to 38 storeys (proposed).
This is an addition of 233 apartments with only an addition of 20 parking spaces which will inevitably lead to cars being parked anywhere (legal or not). This is going to lead to a severe shortage of parking.

The considerably taller buildings (basically double the height) will lead to shadowing for most of the day surrounding buildings and potentially some wind tunnelling effects though the latter is less certain and more of a guess.

Public transport is already at or over capacity in the area. It is common for busses like 304 to not stop a the McEvoy with Elisabeth street intersection at around 8 AM and for would be passengers to have to wait for followup 304 busses which may still have spare capacity. The new metro station designated as "Waterloo" was a slap in the face for the residents of Waterloo and Zetland as that station is practically "Red Fern station" and only if you squint really hard at the map of Waterloo do you see that it fits in the most top left corner of the Waterloo suburb. So in terms of public transport this area is not seeing any improvement. The train station at Green Square is already at capacity which is baffling in terms of city planning that a station was built in an area which was going to see very significant development on the vertical which such little capacity (escalators, stairs and concourse area).

Last but not least, such tall buildings will be out of place with the surroundings and with what people understood this area would be like as it develops further. This is not fighting progress or the necessities of housing but surely instead of doing 31 or 38 storeys buildings we can keep building ones between 8 to 12 storeys to match the surroundings. We should be in the extremes of "only houses" or 38 story high rise. There is a middle path of reason to be walked and we can take plenty of inspiration from European cities which had to deal with growth pains roughly a 100 years ago and they didn't go with +30 storeys buildings but generally with 8 storeys.

Regards,
Alexandru Ionica

The concerns outlined below relate specifically to the proposed increase in height and floor levels beyond the originally approved development.

The additional floors will introduce further population density, placing increased strain on already overburdened infrastructure. Local roads, parking, and public transport are currently operating at or near capacity.
The uplift in density will exacerbate these existing issues.

The proposed increase in building height is also excessive in the context of the approved development and the surrounding area. The additional levels significantly amplify the visual bulk and will result in a more dominant and overbearing presence within the streetscape, beyond what was originally contemplated.

Importantly, the cumulative impact of the additional height across the proposed towers will result in increased overshadowing, particularly during the winter solstice. The uplift in scale directly contributes to a broader and more prolonged shadow impact on nearby residences and public open space.

Finally, the increased height raises further concerns regarding wind impacts at street level. Taller buildings intensify downdraft and wind tunnelling effects, which may adversely affect pedestrian comfort and safety.

In summary, it is the increase in height and density beyond the approved development that gives rise to these additional and compounding impacts, and this uplift is not supported.

While I recognise issues raised by others including Waterloo Action Group Sydney does need more housing and consequently I support this despite potentially being negatively impacted. That said I do agree with concerns of others and agree that we do need more infrastructure in the area in particular in my experience Green Square station needs additional trains.

The marked increase in size of this development is not reasonable. Current road infrastructure does not support the scale of the proposed increase in the size of the development. This development has not taken the opportunity to remove a bottle neck double intersection at Bourke St, intersecting McEvoy and Lachlan St - these two, busy and narrow intersections could have been redeveloped into just one intersection. Additionally, Lachlan St could have been widened to allow for two lanes for the entire length that runs between South Dowling St and Bourke St to avoid merging and the traffic bottle-necking that plagues the area at these intersections. The new proposed height of the towers will become monstrosities in the area given neighbouring towers have been around the same size as the current proposal, being 21 and 12 levels. Those heights were already increases on original proposals, so to increase the heights again is unreasonable. There are plenty of other opportunities for projects of scale in Waterloo, with numerous industrial and commercial sites available for redevelopment. The proposed size and scale of this redevelopment is also not close enough to mass transit infrastructure and will overburden already choked roads and footpaths with more vehicles bikes and pedestrian traffic. Not to mention the size of the shadows that will be cast on an already built up area.

Infrastructure strain, Shortage of amenities, Visually overbearing development and overshadowing impacts.

This submission is about the dev project submitted by DASCO (SSD-95997711) at 903-921 Bourke St Waterloo,
As local residents close to the dev project I strongly object the amendment (increase the building hight significantly) of this project for following reasons:
It will bring extra pressure on local transportation facilities that already tight
It will block the natural lights to surroundings neighborhood buildings that put our life in the dark shadows
It will further increase the shortage of local public facilities
It will worse the local climate conditions introduce strong wind tunnel on nearby buildings
This change will make Waterloo suburb overall living conditions worse that should be blocked by the government

I strongly object to the inadequate parking provision in the expanded development. As far as I can tell from the plans, an additional 233 apartments are planned compared to the original approval, but only 20 extra parking spaces. There should be at least an extra 350 parking spaces to avoid excess cars clogging up the local roads

As a resident in the area, I object to SSD-95997711 (903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo). I support more housing in principle, but this proposal goes too far in height and scale for the area and hasn’t shown that the impacts on neighbours and the public domain are acceptable.

I am especially concerned about parking and day-to-day access. Adding roughly 250 extra apartments without a clear, workable plan for resident and visitor parking, pick-up/drop-off, deliveries and waste collection will push congestion and parking overflow into surrounding streets that are already under pressure. The transport assessment needs to deal with kerbside demand and local street impacts in a realistic way, not just peak-hour traffic. If the numbers don’t stack up, the Department should require more on-site parking and/or strong, enforceable measures to prevent overspill impacts on nearby residents.

The proposed towers are also too tall and will cause major overshadowing, especially in winter. The EIS should clearly show what changes compared with the approved scheme, including winter shadow diagrams (hourly) and a plain-English summary of who and what will lose sunlight. If the increased height makes nearby streets, homes, or open spaces significantly darker, the proposal should be redesigned with lower heights and better setbacks.

More residents also means more demand on open space and local services. The proposal should not increase dwellings while keeping communal/public open space effectively the same. Any public benefit commitments already tied to the site (public domain works, plazas, links, and contributions) must be protected and, if density is increased, should be improved rather than diluted.

I ask to refuse the proposal as currently presented, or require a major redesign that reduces height and bulk, protects sunlight, provides a credible parking/traffic and servicing plan, and delivers proportionate improvements to open space and public benefit outcomes.

I would like to make a submission in relation to the above project firmly opposing amending the development application to greatly increase the number of housing units in the project.
The existing approval is for 6 x mixed use buildings containing 376 residential apartments. The requested amendment is to increase buildings to provide for approximately 250 additional apartments. This will almost double the housing density on the site.
The surrounding road system is already choked by traffic, BEFORE a single unit there is occupied. Traffic and consequent pollution will vastly increase with the approved 376 units, and will make the area virtually un-livable for existing residents in what is already a heavily populated region of Sydney. To increase that impost by yet another further 250 units will run the risk of turning the entire area into a heavily congested area. Several major roads intersect near the development and it is also a heavily foot trafficked area. The number of near accidents between cars and pedestrians has already increased in the last couple of years and additional load will simply make that risk an inevitability.

The value of existing properties is likely to take a significant hit. We are owner-occupiers and love the area due to the mix of proximity to the city, amenities and open, green space with some expansive sky views. The views and amenity of surrounding existing properties will be severely affected by this change as it is out of scale with surrounding developments with not enough green space around it to balance it out. There is high density housing and then there is ridiculous overdevelopment. This clearly falls into the latter category.

Please do not increase the number of residents in this project. Eastern Waterloo is full as it is. Catching the bus is often a nightmare and most of these new units do not have car parks. It is not fair on the elderly and disabled who already have to fight to be shown any respect or care by the high number of younger residents.
The Danks St District development has enough new residents coming in already under the original plan. Increasing it is unconscionable. The extra units and people they will bring will be too much for the existing infrastructure.
This is the type of development that should be close to high volume public transport. There is no metro or train on the eastern side of Waterloo. The buses cannot cope as it is. Eastern Waterloo seems to be becoming a bit of a dumping ground for as many people as possible but it does not have the capacity you seem to be assuming it does. It is already at tipping point.
Please stop the extra apartments.