For clarity - I am a supporter of higher density housing and have enjoyed engaging with the concept development for this location previously with the City of Sydney. The development as planned was well considered and commendable.

The concerns raised at the community consultation online meeting over the proposed modifications in my view were largely reasonable and real. The revised plans are not minor modifications, they comprise a just under 70% increase in density. That is massive! I understand and support the urgency for more housing but object to this 70% increase as I believe it is excessive for this site on the following grounds:

1. Public transport.
This block (together with the increased numbers approved for the adjoining development) will all pour out into Bourke St to utilise the bus network as it is at its doorstep. They will not use the Waterloo Metro as it’s a 20 minute walk away. No other options are close enough to consider. The Bourke Street stop is already at capacity at peak hour even before buses arrive at this stop. The likely demographic of the proposed additional cohort will be added to this queue. It’s unworkable.
The report states a breezy “ the state government plans additional services to deal with this”. And that’s that? We kick the can down the road with one Hail Mary line, washing of hands and let’s move on? It’s poor planning to jam 70% more occupants on a block without the demonstrable ability for the infrastructure to deal with it. The developer won’t care - but our State Govt planners should. The impact is not “moderate” as stated - it’s severe.

2. Additional vehicles on the roads.
The social impact report stated a view that few of the demographic will likely be car owners. That is not what I’ve perceived to be the reality so far in the Green Square area. Even if 50% are car users this is not insignificant. The existing roadways are at capacity, and this reality cannot be massaged away with a breezy comment.

3. Open space
The revised proposal suggests additional outdoor amenity has been provided for this 70% increase. The addition of an ad hoc patchwork of outdoor areas, many positioned on small wind blown areas at high level, or landlocked with no solar access at ground do not credibly supply the amenity promised. Poor amenity does not a happy community make. My concern is the lack of adequate external areas for this number of planned residents will degrade its attractiveness and usage in the mid to long term. Impacting on the block and the neighbourhood.

Closing, I understand and support the urgency for more housing but we want good outcomes now and into the future. The addition of 70% more housing to this location is excessive. It will add to the overwhelming the local transport network. It does not provide additional quality outdoor recreational space which will impact on this community and its surrounds.

The % increase needs to be reduced & open space rethought.

Sincerely,
Lynette Preston

I object to increase the number of levels in this (and the developement next to it) in this project. The near doubling of levels is going to create a massive burden on the local infrastructure. The council had previously approved the developments whilst taking into account a variety of aspects (including infrastructure) and this should be honoured. The application provides for no further green space and public amenities dispite the near doubling of levels and inferring residents. It is also out of character for the area. 31-38 levels is rediculus. Most buildings around us a under 20, with only a few just above.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed amendment to the above building project.

Based on the submitted plans and supporting documents, including the architectural drawings provided, it is evident that the amendment seeks to introduce an additional 204 units, primarily concentrated within a high-rise structure. This represents a significant increase in density and is further reflected in the substantial change to the floor space ratio.

My concerns are as follows:
1. Departure from established planning principles
I do not support amendments that effectively grant exceptions or special treatment that appear to benefit a single developer, particularly where this diverges from the intent of existing planning controls. Developments should remain consistent with the framework under which the land was acquired and assessed.

2. Increased population density and community impact
The proposed increase in density raises concerns about cumulative pressure on local infrastructure and services. This includes schools, childcare, recreational facilities, and general community amenities. There is no clear indication within the proposal of corresponding upgrades or expansions to support the additional population.

3. Transport and accessibility
The documentation does not demonstrate sufficient improvements to public transport or traffic management to accommodate the expected increase in residents. Without meaningful enhancements—such as expanded public transport options or traffic mitigation measures—the surrounding area is likely to experience increased congestion.

4. Local traffic and neighbourhood character
An increase in residents will inevitably lead to higher vehicle usage, particularly during peak hours. This is likely to impact the safety, accessibility, and overall character of currently quieter residential streets.

5. Environmental and amenity impacts
The scale and proximity of the proposed high-rise raise legitimate concerns regarding potential impacts such as overshadowing, wind effects, waste management, and pressure on existing infrastructure systems. These factors may negatively affect the amenity of nearby residences.

While I acknowledge the potential benefits associated with additional commercial activity in the area, I do not consider that these outweigh the broader impacts of the proposed increase in residential density under the current amendment.

In summary, I do not support the introduction of significantly taller buildings or increased density in this neighbourhood without comprehensive and clearly demonstrated infrastructure, transport, and community planning to support it.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Formal Submission of Strong Objection to SSD-95997711 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.

I am a resident of Waterloo and I strongly object to the proposed major amendments to the approved development at 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SSD-95997711).

This proposal seeks to dramatically increase the height and density of the development: from 12 to 31 storeys on Bourke Street North, and from 21 to 38 storeys on the Young Street Tower, adding 233 apartments beyond what was originally approved by the City of Sydney. This represents a radical and unacceptable departure from the approved concept.

My objections are based on direct impact this will have on my daily life as a resident:

Our suburb is already overpopulated and under-resourced. The Waterloo/Zetland area is already struggling to accommodate its existing population. According to official ABS-derived estimates, the Waterloo–Zetland area already has a population density of approximately 16,308 persons per square kilometre, compared to just 8,892 per square kilometre across the broader City of Sydney LGA. Adding hundreds more apartments, on top of the many other approved developments already in the pipeline, into one of most crowded neighbourhoods, with no meaningful uplift in infrastructure or services, is reckless planning.

Public transport is already overwhelmed. The newly opened Waterloo Metro station is already overcrowded under its current, partial line operation. It is deeply irresponsible to approve a massive increase in residential density.

The area is already experiencing a clear shortage of basic services and amenities. We do not even have a local post office! I need to go to Strawberry Hills to collect parcels.Libraries and community spaces are already overcrowded. This development will add hundreds more residents to an area that already cannot provide for the people who live here. High-density development must be accompanied by meaningful investment in open space and public amenities, which this proposal fails to provide.

Traffic in this area is already a serious problem. The intersection of McEvoy Street, Bourke Street and South Dowling Street is heavily congested throughout the day — dangerous and frustrating for drivers and pedestrians alike. A significant increase in the local population will make an already difficult situation far worse. A trip to the supermarket currently means either waiting through two traffic lights for 15 minutes each way to travel three blocks, or hauling heavy bags on foot a few times a week. This is the reality of living here now, before any further development.

Green space is virtually non-existent for local residents. The area has only very small local parks that is entirely inadequate not only for the current population but even for the walking dogs. Proponents of high-density development in this area often point to Moore Park as nearby open space, but this is not entirely correct as the overwhelming majority of Moore Park's land is occupied by a golf course.

Good planning requires alignment between density, infrastructure, transport capacity, and amenity. This proposal prioritises density uplift without delivering the necessary supporting infrastructure, resulting in an unbalanced and unsustainable outcome.

For these reasons I urge the NSW Government to reject this application in its entirety. The proposed scale increase is excessive, out of character with the neighbourhood, and will cause real harm to the quality of life of existing residents.

Submission of Strong Objection

Project: 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SSD-95997711)
Objector Role: Resident of NO.1 Lachlan (Directly Affected Party)

To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,

I am a resident of NO.1 Lachlan, located in close proximity to the proposed development at 903-921 Bourke Street. I am writing to formally lodge my strong objection to the SSDA modification submitted by DASCO. This proposal is not a minor adjustment; it is a radical departure from the approved planning framework that will cause immediate harm to the residential amenity of existing neighbours and the planning integrity of the Green Square precinct.

My objection is based on the following grounds:
1. Severe and Unacceptable Impact on Solar Access and Outlook The proposed height increase from 65m to a maximum of 126m represents an unprecedented 94% increase in scale. Specifically, the modification seeks to raise the Young St North (YSN) tower to 38 storeys and the Young St South (YSS) tower to 31 storeys.

Direct Overshadowing: The applicant’s own shadow diagrams (specifically for 21 June, 12pm–3pm) confirm that the proposed scheme results in significant additional overshadowing to NO.1 Lachlan compared to the approved envelope.
Loss of Winter Solar Access: During the critical midday period, when many apartments in our building currently receive vital direct sunlight, the shadows will now extend across our building. The drawings indicate that many apartments would receive less than 2 hours of solar access under this scenario.

Loss of Sky View: The scale of the proposed massing will result in a tangible loss of sky view and open outlook, which are essential components of our daily liveability and wellbeing.

2. Gross Overdevelopment and Excessive Density The request to more than double the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 1.5:1 to 3.2:1 (to accommodate approximately 580 apartments) represents an unjustified intensification. This level of density prioritises developer yield over the residential amenity of the surrounding community and significantly exceeds what the surrounding urban context can reasonably accommodate.

3. Avoidance of Critical Infrastructure Obligations (Clause 6.14) I strongly object to the proposed exclusion of Clause 6.14 (Community Infrastructure floor space at Green Square). The additional population generated by this development will place massive demand on local roads, public transport, and wastewater systems. It is inequitable to allow a developer to double their yield while seeking to bypass the infrastructure contributions required to mitigate these impacts on the existing community.

4. Undermining Design Quality and Planning Controls (Clause 6.21D) The proposal seeks to bypass the Competitive Design Process, which is a key mechanism in the City of Sydney for ensuring architectural excellence. For towers of this height (126m), avoiding this process undermines public confidence in the final built form and weakens the planning governance intended to protect the visual amenity of our neighbourhood.

5. Negative Planning Precedent Approving such a fundamental redesign and departure from established controls would set a dangerous precedent for the Waterloo / Green Square precinct, effectively signalling that strategic planning controls and solar rights can be bypassed for commercial gain.

Conclusion
This proposal represents an excessive intensification that will have clear and lasting negative impacts on the residents of NO.1 Lachlan, specifically through the loss of solar access and increased pressure on local infrastructure.

I respectfully request that the Department refuse this application. At a minimum, the project should be restricted to the originally approved scale and required to fully comply with all infrastructure contributions and design review processes.

Sincerely,

Resident of NO.1 Lachlan - 2 Thread Lane, Waterloo

I am an owner-occupier living on the 6th floor at 4 Lachlan Street, which is south-east of the development site. I’ve lived in the Waterloo area with my spouse for the last 8 years. This area has seen a lot of change over this time and I was pleased to see the initially approved DA for the development at 903-921 Bourke Street. However, after seeing the proposed updates, I strongly object to this proposal for the following reasons:

Building Heights
The increase in buildings heights is substantial (57-150% increase compared with the approved DA) and not in keeping with the local neighbourhood character. For context, the tallest apartment building in this neighbourhood is 17 storeys high. The 31 and 38 storey towers would look significantly out of place within the area and set a poor precedent for future developments.

The Community Engagement Report notes that the 'proposal is a departure from the existing heights in the area, however is in line with the emerging character of taller buildings'. This doesn't offer a reasonable justification for the significant height uplift from the approved DA. The proposed towers are taller than the approved development directly above the Waterloo Metro station, whereas the development site sits within a predominantly residential area which is 1km away from any nearby stations.

Visual Impact
The addition of 4 storeys (or 57% additional height) to the Bourke Street South building will result in a significant loss of sky views from our balcony towards the west, and would be taller than all apartment buildings directly next to the southeast corner of the site.

The Visual Impact Assessment doesn’t provide clarity on the loss of views for the majority of the residents living in the Crown Square precinct. Many of the viewpoints are taken far away from the development site. Diagrams VP01, VP02 and VP05 are the closest viewpoints and these don't show the full impact of the development. This implies that the view loss will be significant for residents living near the development site.

Overshadowing & Solar Access
The Shadow Plans in Appendix 9A of the Design Report only show additional overshadowing impacts during the winter solstice. Our apartment is south-facing and located on the 6th floor. We currently receive around 2 hours of direct sunlight to our balcony and living area during the late afternoon in the summer months. It is unclear whether we would lose access to direct sunlight with the proposed building height increases as there are no shadow diagrams available for the summer solstice period. If we did, our apartment wouldn’t comply with the ADG requirements for solar access.

Public Transport
The statements in the Transport Impact Assessment about the area having 'excellent access to nearby public transport network' and that the 'additional [87 trips by bus during the AM and PM peak hours] can be accommodated through the high frequency bus routes along Bourke Street' and that 'the opening of the Waterloo Metro station in 2024 has...relieved capacity on existing bus services in the Waterloo area' are misleading.

Waterloo is one of the most densely populated suburbs in Sydney. My spouse and I currently rely on the existing bus networks to transport us to nearby stations, as these aren’t within a convenient walking distance. These bus networks are already overcrowded and unreliable and the frequency of buses and number of available destinations have decreased over the years. The proposed 67% increase in apartment numbers will further add to an overstretched bus network without any provision for additional public transport links.

The current construction works at the Bourke Street site have already resulted in the loss of a bus stop for 2 major bus routes that connect local residents to the nearby stations of Central, Redfern and Waterloo Metro. This has led to more queuing at neighbouring bus stops. A larger development will mean longer construction times and more disruptions to existing bus routes.

Traffic Generation
There is already a high volume of traffic in the area due to the proximity to the Eastern Distributor and Lachlan Street being a major connector between the eastern and western suburbs. The proposed development increases apartment numbers by 67% but only allows for 10% additional parking spaces and 10% total cars. This suggests that most new residents will use public transport, which is unrealistic based on the limits of the current public transport networks in the area.

If the local public bus services become strained, this will lead to increased car usage, adding to the congestion of local road networks. This would make pedestrian and cyclist activity more dangerous, increase noise and air pollution in the area and increase demand for the few local on-street parking spaces.

The proposed construction vehicle route shown in the Traffic Impact Assessment will create significant additional traffic on Potter Street and Gadigal Street, which have residential carpark access for our building and other neighbouring buildings, as well as being part of the 304 bus route.

Public Amenities
The development proposal increases apartment numbers by 67% whilst reducing retail space by 4% and creating no additional areas of public domain. The proposal solely benefits private residences at the expense of the local community. The increased density will create further strains to local amenities such as the Green Square Library and Gunyama Park public pool, which we use regularly and already find to be busy the majority of the time.