I’ve consistently supported appropriate residential growth in this area, including backing the residential and retail plans for 923–935 Bourke St and the earlier proposals for the Dasco Dank Street precinct (903-921 Bourke St). I understand the need for increased mixed housing supply, particularly in well-located inner-city areas like ours. I have also advocated and continue to advocate for social housing.

However, as a homeowner at 834 Bourke Street, I have serious concerns about the scale of the current proposal for 903–921 Bourke Street and do not support the level of uplift being proposed.

This part of Waterloo/Zetland is already undergoing substantial and ongoing development. With multiple large-scale projects either recently completed, approved, or in progress along Bourke Street and the surrounding precincts, the impact on infrastructure is significant and, in my view, not being adequately addressed.

Public transport is already under pressure. Despite the proximity of Green Square station and the Metro, they are over 1 km away for many residents, making buses the primary and realistic mode of transport. During peak periods, buses are consistently at capacity already and frequently pass stops without picking up passengers from 7am onwards and then from 4pm for the afternoon rush. This is particularly noticeable on routes servicing the CBD and the University of New South Wales direction, where buses are effectively the only viable option. Increasing density further without any clear commitment to transport upgrades will only exacerbate an already strained system.

Waste management and general environmental amenity are also major concerns currently. The area is already dealing with the realities of very high-density living, and it shows. Streets regularly experience overflow from bins during collection times, with rubbish spilling onto footpaths and roads, alongside ongoing issues with littering. At times, the area genuinely resembles a dumping ground. There has been little evidence of innovative or effective responses from council to manage waste in a way that reflects the density of the population.

Adding a significant number of additional residents without a clear, credible plan to address waste management will inevitably worsen these conditions and further degrade the local environment.

Overall, while I support well-planned and sustainable development, I do not support increasing the already approved scale of this site. The initial plan was reasonable and sustainable, the proposed uplift appears excessive when considered alongside the volume of surrounding development and the clear limitations in existing infrastructure. Without meaningful investment in public transport, waste management, and broader urban amenity, this level of density risks undermining the liveability of the neighbourhood for both current and future residents.

As a resident and owner at 850 Bourke Street, I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the proposed modifications under SSD-95997711.
While I understand the need for housing, the scale of "uplift" requested for this site is reckless and ignores the existing safety and infrastructure realities of Waterloo. The jump from an approved 21-storey tower to a 37-storey skyscraper is a total disregard for the planning controls that protect our suburb’s liveability.
My primary grounds for objection are:
• Public Safety & Traffic Volatility: Our apartment overlooks the intersection of Bourke St and the Liberty petrol station. Because this station is a rare supplier of E85 race-blend fuel, it has become a magnet for loud performance cars and anti-social driving behavior. We frequently witness engine revving, skidding, and dangerous driving that poses a direct threat to my toddlers and other pedestrians. Doubling the density on this specific corner will turn an already dangerous traffic situation into a permanent safety crisis.
• Dangerous Wind Downwash: Increasing heights across the board—including the leap from 12 to 30 storeys on Bourke St North—will create an impenetrable wall. This results in high-velocity wind downwash, making the public plazas and footpaths at the base of the buildings dangerous and uncomfortable for the community.
• Infrastructure Failure: The Waterloo/Green Square precinct is already at a breaking point. Green Square Station is frequently at capacity, and local schools cannot absorb the population surge this 67% increase in GFA represents. This proposal puts developer profit ahead of the basic infrastructure needs of current residents.
• Heritage and Amenity Loss: The State-listed Waterloo Pump House will be completely overshadowed and "buried" by these towers. Furthermore, the 37-storey tower will block vital solar access to the central park, rendering it a cold, shaded, and unusable space for the community.
• Unacceptable Height Creep: I object to the height increases across the entire site, including the additional levels on the Bourke Street South and Young Street buildings. This suggests a strategy of over-developing every available square meter without regard for the original "human-scale" design competition.
I request that the Department and the Minister intervene to ensure that this development is kept to the original, approved heights. The community should not have to sacrifice safety and sunlight to accommodate a 67% density increase that the site simply cannot sustain.
Current density as already provided by Green Square for housing means trains are standing room only. Bus transport was sold off and is at capacity and unreliable people walk as much as a km to get on a bus. Roads are also at capacity. Danks Street northern side with the 30+ towers will be in perpetual shade as they are all single or two level terrace homes.
We have done our high rise lifting. There are currently 6 cranes within a block with developers sneakily increasing the height of every building under construction or planned.
Ronald Smith
411/850 Bourke Street

Hello
I strongly object to the revised development on the grounds of:
1) the massive deviation from the original plan
2) the massive overreach in terms of height and volume of apartments, being not sustainable and suitable for the area. it is excessive
3) the area not having commensurate facilities of parking / traffic capability / green spaces / buses / trains / daycares to support this overreach
4) the area has already more than had its' fair share of development to ease the housing crisis. balance is needed

Although I support the Inner City suburbs like Waterloo to construct large scale developments and increase the overall density of population, these deveopments need to be served well by the proper public transport options. What the author of reports for 903-921 Bourke Street development nominated is not true, as the Train and Metro stations are too far away (approx 1km away) to be considered as viable public transport options (especially during bad weather or at night). The NSW government, the CoS Council and the developer all need to push for better public transport alternatives, and to actively support the Light Rail construction from CBD through Redfern, Waterloo and Zetland, the new Metro line from CBD to Waterloo and Zetland, and the update the bus network by increasing number of lines, buses and frequency for buses (especially 343, 320 and 304), as the current buses are already at capacity during AM or PM peaks, with buses often not taking passangers, or buses being significantly late or cancelled.
Also, as part of the development, better bike infrastructure has to be constructed. Current shared path along Bourke Street is very dangerous, as it's not wide enough to fit both pedestrains and bike users, and bike users often go along it much faster than nominated 10km/h, creating risk to pedestrians. A separated bike path along Bourke Street is necessary, to properly connect Waterloo/Zetland residents to Green Square and Waterloo stations, and to the broader cyclelane network at Bourke Street (north of Coles Waterloo) and George Street.
In addition, for better connectivity, and to increase safety of pedestrians, the following items need to be addressed:
- reduce the width of McEvoy street and construct infrastructure to make vehicles go slower - currently, this street is very wide, with cars and heavy trucks often speeding, creating dangerous situation for other drivers and all pedestrians in this area;
- introduce new pedestrian crossings along McEvoy and Bourke Streets. These streets are wide, and due to very limited number of pedestrian crossings, crossing it is very dangerous and can take a long wait, especially for pedestrians with limited mobility or parents with kids. Going to the nearest pedestrian crossing
- automatically turn all pedestrian lights as green for each traffic lights sequence - it's a daily struggle when me or my friends press the pedestrian button a second too late, and we need to wait the full sequence of traffic lights to be able to cross the street, which can take a few minutes each time.
To approve this development and the increase to the number of units, better public transport options have to be proposed and constructed, ahead of the development of the nominated project.
Noting the same comment applies to all new developments proposed in the Waterloo/Redfern/Zetland area (including the Coronation and new Woolworths projects along Bourke Street, and a high number of ongoing residential developments in Waterloo and Zetland areas).

I support the City’s sustainable, community-focused housing plan for Waterloo and surrounding suburbs. I’m concerned that this project will set a precedent for undermining this careful planning, and negatively impact the skyline, amenities and traffic in this area. In an already densely populated area, it is vital for the community and the living quality in this area that new developments do not exceed 65m as this would close in the skyline, creating additional shade, not to mention less privacy and increased congestion. Thank you for considering these concerns.

I strongly and formally object to the amending Development Application for 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo, which proposes approximately 208 additional apartments and an increase in building height to 37 storeys. I live near the site and the impacts of this proposal fall directly on my home, my street, and the surrounding residential community. My objection is grounded in serious concerns about overshadowing, traffic, parking, noise, infrastructure strain, and the fundamental character of the area. Each of these concerns is significant on its own. Taken together, they make this proposal incompatible with responsible planning for an established inner-city neighbourhood.

The first and most important point I want Council to understand is that this is not a minor modification. The original Development Application D/2021/1415 was approved for 376 apartments across six buildings, with the tallest tower at 20 storeys. That approval itself relied on a variation to the Height of Buildings development standard under the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012. The community accepted that variation in good faith, on the basis that it represented the maximum reasonable departure from the planning controls. What is now proposed, an increase to 37 storeys, is an 85% height increase on a building that was already granted an exception to the standard. This cannot credibly be characterised as an amendment. It is, in substance, a new development with a materially different impact profile, and it deserves to be assessed through a full planning proposal with a new site-specific Development Control Plan, fresh public exhibition, and updated environmental, traffic and shadow studies. Allowing a change of this scale to proceed as an amending DA sets a dangerous precedent for the entire Local Government Area, signalling to developers that headline approvals are a starting point rather than a ceiling, and that density can be aggressively expanded after the fact without the public consultation a fresh proposal would require.

My most serious individual concern is loss of sunlight and overshadowing. A 37-storey tower in this location will cast substantial shadow across surrounding residential streets, dwellings, private open space, and public space for significant portions of the day, particularly in the winter months when mid-winter solar access is already limited. The original 20-storey scheme was approved only after detailed shadow modelling. It is not acceptable to increase the height by a further 17 storeys without a new, independent, peer-reviewed shadow study covering every adjoining and near-adjoining property, existing parks, and planned public spaces. Until that evidence is produced, made publicly available, and independently reviewed, this application cannot be properly assessed.

The traffic impact of this proposal is my second major concern. Bourke Street, McEvoy Street, and Young Street are already operating at or near capacity during peak periods. The approved scheme was assessed against a traffic baseline calibrated for 376 apartments. Adding 208 more apartments represents roughly a 55% increase in residential density on a site whose surrounding road network was not designed to absorb it. This will mean peak-hour congestion on the arterials, queuing and safety issues at the intersections of Bourke and McEvoy and Young and McEvoy, increased rat-running through residential side streets, and growing pressure on pedestrian and cyclist safety, particularly near Green Square. The Traffic Impact Assessment that supported the original consent cannot reasonably be relied on for a scheme this much larger. Council must require a fully updated, independent assessment that models the entire 584-plus apartment scheme against current 2026 traffic data, not the baseline used in 2021.

Parking shortage is a daily reality in our streets. Residents routinely spend fifteen to thirty minutes circling to find a legal space. The approved scheme's parking allocation was calibrated for 376 apartments, not 584 plus. The new proposal only include 0.6 car spots per apartment, which will create traffic and parking havoc on the sourrounding streets. Visitor parking, trade parking, and service vehicle access all compete for the same limited kerb space. The planning controls assume reduced car ownership near transport, but the lived reality is that residents do own vehicles, and no amount of optimistic modelling changes that. The applicant must demonstrate with current, local demand data that the increased unit count will not further erode parking availability for existing residents, and if they cannot, the application should be refused on those grounds alone.

Construction noise and ongoing operational noise are also major concerns. I work from home and all day I hear non stop construction and screeching from the site. Once built and occupied, 208 additional apartments mean more than 400 additional residents, with associated vehicle movements, deliveries, garbage collection cycles, rooftop plant, and ground floor retail activation. The cumulative acoustic impact on surrounding residential properties has not been properly modelled for the amended scheme and needs to be, with strict conditions on construction hours, independent monitoring, and published results.

Infrastructure strain is the concern that I believe is most underestimated in the applicant's material. The amending DA does not adequately address how an additional 208 apartments will be serviced by local primary and secondary schools that are already at or near capacity, by water, sewer and stormwater systems that sit adjacent to the operational State-listed Waterloo Pumping Station, by Green Square Station which is already heavily crowded at peak, by local healthcare, childcare and community facilities, and by per capita open space provision on a fixed land area.

Finally, I object on grounds of character and precedent. Residents accept that Waterloo is changing. What we do not accept is a pattern where developments are approved at one scale, then acquired, modified, and amended upward in incremental steps that collectively bypass the public consultation a fresh planning proposal would require. A 37-storey tower is radically out of character with the surrounding built form, dominates the skyline from Green Square through to Surry Hills, and materially alters the relationship of the precinct with the State-heritage-listed Waterloo Pumping Station and Valve House. Approving this change via an amending DA tells every other developer in this LGA that they can do the same. That is not sound planning.

For all of these reasons, I refuse and refute this amending Development Application in its current form. I do not accept any increase in height, density, or apartment numbers beyond what was originally approved under D/2021/1415. The only scheme the community consented to, and the only scheme this site should deliver, is the initial proposal of 376 apartments across six buildings with a maximum tower height of 20 storeys. That is the development that was assessed, exhibited, and accepted. Anything beyond it must be refused. Waterloo cannot support this increase in density. Our streets cannot support this increase in traffic. Our infrastructure cannot support this increase in population. Our homes cannot absorb this increase in overshadowing, noise, and visual bulk. The applicant has had their approval. They are not entitled to a second, larger one through an amending pathway that sidesteps the public process a development of this scale demands. I ask Council to refuse this amending DA outright, to hold the applicant to the originally approved scheme, and to send a clear signal that consented developments in this LGA are not a floor to be amended upward, but a ceiling that protects the communities who live alongside them.

I write as a resident of Redfern to formally object to the proposed amendment to the Development Application in neighbouring Waterloo.

While I understand the need for thoughtful urban growth, this amendment represents a scale of change that feels disconnected from the lived reality of the area and the character that makes these communities work.

Waterloo already accommodates a significant number of high-density residential developments. The proposed increase from 376 to 580 apartments , an additional 204 dwellings - further intensifies an area that is already heavily built up. This is not a small adjustment, but a substantial shift that will continue to push the precinct toward a more overbuilt, concrete-dominated environment.

What makes Waterloo and the surrounding Redfern streets feel liveable is not just the housing, but the balance — the sense of openness, the human scale of streets, and the pockets of space that allow the area to feel connected and community-oriented rather than dense and overwhelming. This amendment risks eroding that balance.

The increase in building height to 126 metres and the change in Floor Space Ratio from 1.5:1 to 3.2:1 will significantly increase bulk and density. In practical terms, this means more people, more pressure, and less breathing room. Without a corresponding increase in meaningful green space and community infrastructure, the outcome will be a precinct that feels harder, more crowded, and less liveable.

If additional apartments are to be introduced at this scale, there must be equal consideration given to how people will live within that environment. Access to green space, public areas, and community infrastructure is not optional, it is essential to supporting wellbeing and maintaining a sense of place.

The proposal to exclude Clause 6.14 (Community Infrastructure) is therefore particularly concerning. Increasing the population while removing requirements to contribute to community facilities creates an imbalance that will be felt not just within Waterloo, but across neighbouring areas including Redfern.

Similarly, the exclusion of Clause 6.21D raises concerns about the removal of planning safeguards that help ensure quality outcomes for both residents and the broader community.

This amendment reads as an increase in yield without a commensurate investment in the elements that make high-density living workable and enjoyable. Over time, this risks diminishing the very qualities that have made Waterloo and Redfern such valued and connected communities.

As a local resident, I am not opposed to development but it must be considered, balanced, and aligned with the character and capacity of the area. This proposal, in its current form, does not achieve that balance.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the proposed amendment be refused.

Yours sincerely,
Carol

While I acknowledge the need for additional housing supply, the scale and intensity of the proposed amendment—particularly the reported increase in building height from approximately 14 storeys to up to 36 storeys—represents a significant and unacceptable departure from the originally approved scheme and the established character of the surrounding area.
1. Excessive Height and Incompatibility with Local Context
The proposed height is grossly inconsistent with both the originally approved development and the prevailing built form in the Waterloo/Danks Street precinct.
The previously approved scheme comprised mid-rise buildings forming a cohesive urban village. A dramatic escalation to a 30+ storey tower introduces a high-rise typology that is out of scale with its surroundings and undermines the planning framework that governed the original approval.
This creates:
A visually dominant structure that overwhelms neighbouring developments
A precedent for further excessive height increases in the precinct
A fundamental shift away from the intended human-scale urban form
2. Loss of Amenity (Overshadowing, Views, and Privacy)
The proposal will have significant and unreasonable impacts on the amenity of surrounding residents, including:
Overshadowing: A building of this height will cast extensive shadows over neighbouring properties, including residential apartments and communal open spaces.
Loss of views: The development will directly obstruct outlooks currently enjoyed by surrounding buildings, including rooftop areas and private apartments.
Visual bulk: The increased scale creates a sense of enclosure and overdevelopment.
Privacy impacts: Increased overlooking from upper levels into nearby residences.
These impacts are not minor—they represent a substantial degradation of existing residential amenity and are inconsistent with good planning principles.
3. Overdevelopment of the Site
The amendment seeks to significantly increase yield (approximately 250 additional dwellings) beyond what was previously approved .
This raises serious concerns about:
Site overdevelopment
Excessive floor space ratio
Pressure on shared infrastructure within the development
The original design was the result of a lengthy planning process and was calibrated to balance density with livability. This amendment appears to prioritise yield over quality of living.
4. Infrastructure and Capacity Constraints
The surrounding area is already undergoing substantial densification (Green Square / Waterloo precinct). A major increase in population on this site will exacerbate existing pressures on:
Local roads and traffic congestion
Public transport capacity
Schools, healthcare, and community services
Public open space
There is insufficient evidence that the proposed uplift in density is matched by a commensurate increase in infrastructure provision.
5. Departure from Approved Planning Controls and Community Expectations
The original approval followed years of consultation and design refinement. Residents and stakeholders relied on that outcome as a reasonable planning envelope.
A significant height increase undermines:
Community confidence in the planning system
The integrity of previously approved controls
The principle that developments should not be fundamentally altered post-approval to maximise profit
6. Impacts on Urban Design and Public Domain
While the original scheme included meaningful public domain improvements (parks, plazas, and through-site links) , increasing tower height risks:
Creating wind tunnel effects
Reducing sunlight access to public spaces
Diminishing the usability and comfort of the public realm
7. Cumulative Impact
This proposal must be considered alongside other developments in the area. The cumulative effect of increased heights and densities across multiple sites risks:
Overcrowding
Reduced liveability
Strain on already limited urban infrastructure
Conclusion
The proposed amendment represents an excessive intensification of the approved development and fails to appropriately balance housing supply with amenity, urban design, and infrastructure considerations.
In particular, the increase to a significantly taller building form is:
Out of scale with the surrounding area
Detrimental to neighbouring amenity
Inconsistent with the intent of the original approval
For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposed amendment and request that it be refused, or at minimum substantially reduced in height and density.

Inconsistency with established planning controls and strategy
- The site currently benefits from B4 Mixed Use zoning that complies to FSR. The proposal materially increases the residential yield beyond what allowable planning controls.
- undermines the strategic certainty of LEP framework that sets FSR and Height controls to manage built form
- approving this establishes an undesirable precedent for ad-hoc density increases

Over development and excessive built form bulk
- substantial increase of 250 additional dwellings, resulting in excessive heights and scale in the area
- Overdensification in an already dense area
- Increased density resulting to overshaodwing of adjacent residential areas and impacting skylines.
- Increased traffic impacts putting pressure on already pressured transport.

Height and scale not consistent with surrounding context.
Amendment to an already approved scheme does not arise from new strategic rezoning plans

I am writing to formally object to the proposed amendment to the development at 903 Bourke Street, Waterloo, which seeks to increase the number of apartments from 126 to 376 dwellings—an additional 250 apartments.

This significant increase in density is not supported by the current infrastructure and services available in the immediate area and raises serious concerns regarding transport capacity, access to essential amenities, and overall liveability.

1. Inadequate Public Transport Capacity
The local public transport network is already under considerable strain. The area is currently serviced by only two bus routes that provide direct access to the CBD, and these services are consistently overcrowded, particularly during peak hours. Increasing the residential population by an additional 250 apartments will place unsustainable pressure on an already inadequate system.

While future transport options are often cited as justification for increased density, the nearest Metro station is approximately a 25-minute walk from the site, which is not a practical commuting option for many residents, particularly during adverse weather or for those with mobility challenges. Similarly, the nearest light rail stop is a 15–20 minute walk away, limiting its accessibility as a primary transport solution.

2. Insufficient Local Amenities
The immediate area surrounding the development currently has very limited retail and essential services infrastructure. There is only one Coles supermarket and one Aldi servicing the local population. These stores already experience high demand, and a substantial increase in residents will exacerbate congestion, reduce accessibility, and negatively impact residents’ ability to access basic necessities in a timely manner.

No clear plan has been presented to expand retail, grocery, or community services in proportion to the proposed population increase.

3. Overdevelopment and Impact on Liveability
Increasing the number of apartments from 126 to 376—effectively tripling the original proposal—without a corresponding and guaranteed upgrade in infrastructure represents overdevelopment of the site. This risks diminishing the quality of life for both existing and future residents through increased congestion, strain on public services, and reduced amenity.

Urban density must be carefully balanced with infrastructure capacity. In this case, the proposed scale of development appears to significantly exceed what the current and planned infrastructure can reasonably support.

Conclusion
Given the above concerns, I strongly urge the consent authority to reject the proposed amendment or require a substantial revision that aligns with existing infrastructure capacity and includes firm commitments to transport and service upgrades.

Approving this amendment in its current form would place undue pressure on an already stretched local system and negatively impact the liveability of the Waterloo community.

Thank you for considering this submission.