I object to this proposal on the basis of infrastructure capacity, transport limitations, and insufficient green space.
While I acknowledge that Sydney requires additional housing, this particular location is not suitable due to existing road constraints. The surrounding road network is already under significant pressure, with key intersections such as McEvoy Street turning onto Bourke Street and Lachlan Street turning onto Bourke Street being notably narrow and difficult to navigate. In practice, two standard-sized vehicles are often unable to turn simultaneously, and buses or trucks frequently require multiple lanes to complete these turns.
An increase in residents will inevitably lead to increased traffic volumes, and it is unclear how the current road infrastructure will accommodate this demand. There does not appear to be sufficient capacity to support higher density development without significant congestion and safety concerns.
In addition, the site is not conveniently located near high-capacity public transport. It is unclear whether there are plans to increase bus services connecting the development to nearby stations such as Redfern, or to improve access to the metro. However, given the already constrained road network, further reliance on buses may not be a viable solution. Clarification is needed on whether there are any plans to upgrade road infrastructure or provide alternative transport solutions beyond existing bus services.
A further concern is the lack of adequate green space to support an increased population. The proposal to reduce the size of Moore Park Golf Course is not supported, as the course contributes significant revenue to Greater Sydney Parklands, which helps fund important public spaces such as Parramatta Park and Centennial Park. Reducing this revenue stream may negatively impact the maintenance and quality of these broader parklands.
Given current economic conditions, it would be more prudent to prioritise investment in infrastructure and services before pursuing higher-density development in areas that are not well-equipped to support it.

I am writing to object to the proposed development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo. As a resident of 806 Bourke Street directly opposite, I have significant concerns.

While increased housing is important, this area is already experiencing substantial density growth, placing strain on infrastructure, transport, and local amenity. The proposed added building heights and additional apartments are a step too far.

The proposal underestimates impacts. The heights far exceed existing towers in Green Square and are inconsistent with the current neighbourhood character. Increased traffic, noise, and pedestrian congestion along Bourke and Potter Streets will worsen already high levels, including when adding an extra street. Public transport, particularly bus routes, already at capacity, and claims of minimal impact are unrealistic. Overshadowing, reduced light, and a street-level design that creates a dense, uninviting corridor are also key concerns. It was interesting to see CGI imagery from this angle was not provided. Note, McEvoy and Bourke streets will not be family & stroller friendly places to hang out as per the unrealistic CGI imagery offered. Parking provision, incl the added spaces squeezed within the same flooring for 200+ more units is inadequate and will further strain availability and traffic congestion. The findings in the applications from experts are clearly bias in favour of Dasco who have paid for the service. So, should all be taken with a grain of salt. Sarah George's watering down of the community engagement findings is a prime example.

Finally, claims regarding affordability and community benefit appear overstated and not reflective of local conditions. I.e. local citisens will not be able to afford these units.

This updated proposal represents overdevelopment and a cash grab from the builder without sufficient consideration of its impact on existing residents and infrastructure. Please do not allow this to proceed for the sake of the people who actually live here.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed modification to the development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SSD-95997711).

While development on this site has already commenced, this application appears to seek a substantial increase in building height and scale—effectively doubling the originally approved development. I strongly object to this escalation.

As a nearby resident located to the west of the site, with an east-facing apartment, I am particularly concerned about the impact this increased height (up to approximately 125m) will have on sunlight access and residential amenity. My apartment relies on morning sunlight, and a development of this scale is likely to significantly reduce or delay direct sunlight, particularly during winter months.

In addition, the proposed height and bulk will significantly reduce sky outlook and visual amenity. The development would become one of the tallest buildings in the immediate area and would dominate the outlook from surrounding residences, creating an overbearing built form and diminishing the sense of openness currently enjoyed.

The proposed increase in height and scale is excessive and does not appropriately respond to the surrounding built environment or the amenity of existing residents. It represents a material departure from what was originally approved and what the community would reasonably have expected.

I respectfully request that this proposed increase in height and scale be refused, or significantly reduced to mitigate impacts on neighbouring properties.

Thank you for considering my submission.

I support the project, I believe it will significantly improve housing affordability and availability in the area.

I would like to see the number of storeys and units significantly increased as well as units set aside for essential workers.

I'm currently the owner of unit 33 at 830 Bourke Street, living here for more than 8 years. I strongly object this project due to reasons below:
- Impacting current residents around the streets through blocking natural light & sight
- Pressure already limited resources in the area such as public transport, facilities and road traffic.
- Permanent impact on foot traffic and noise, this will undoubtably happen which will further impact our daily lives.
- There are TOO many apartments in Waterloo/Zetland area already, with a supply & demand issue and the increased scope of this DASCO project will only do harm to an already fragile economy in Sydney / Australia.

This project has been active for many years at the original plan, the fact DASCO has now applied to increase scope can only mean their initial project planning was very poor or they have stakeholder pressure to increase margins - this is at the cost of people's livelihoods and should not be approved by NSW Government.

Submission – Objection to SSD-95997711903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo

I am a nearby resident of O’Dea Avenue, Waterloo. I object to the proposed amendment to increase building height, density, and reduce key planning controls for the above development.

My concerns are outlined below.

1. Excessive Increase in Building Height (65m → 126m)The proposed increase in height is substantial and fundamentally alters the scale of the approved development.

This level of intensification is inconsistent with the existing built form and will result in:

Increased visual bulk and urban overdevelopment

Potential overshadowing impacts on surrounding residential areas

Reduced residential amenity for the local community

Such a significant departure from the current planning controls requires strong justification, which has not been adequately demonstrated.

2. Overdevelopment Through Increased Density (FSR 1.5:1 → 3.2:1)The proposed floor space ratio more than doubles the originally permitted density.

This raises serious concerns regarding:

Capacity of existing infrastructure (roads, parking, local services)

Increased traffic congestion in an already constrained road network

Pressure on local community facilities and open space

The proposal prioritises yield over liveability and does not align with sustainable urban planning principles.

3. Unjustified Removal of Key Planning ControlsThe proposal seeks to exclude:

Clause 6.21D (Competitive Design Process)

Clause 6.14 (Community Infrastructure Contributions)

These controls exist to ensure:

High-quality architectural outcomes

Adequate contributions to public infrastructure

Removing them while simultaneously increasing height and density is not appropriate and undermines the planning framework intended to protect community interests.

4. Inadequate Balance Between Public Benefit and Private GainWhile the proposal references increases in communal open space and non-residential floor area, these benefits are not proportionate to the scale of intensification proposed.

The development appears to deliver:

Significant additional private yield (over 200 additional apartments)

Limited and unclear public benefit in return

This imbalance is inconsistent with the principles of State Significant Development, which should demonstrate clear net public benefit.

5. Impact on Local Amenity and Residential CharacterThe cumulative effect of increased height, density, and reduced controls will result in:

Greater noise and activity levels

Reduced sense of space and privacy

Increased urban congestion

For existing residents, this represents a measurable decline in living conditions.

ConclusionThe proposed amendment represents a substantial intensification beyond the originally approved development, without sufficient justification or corresponding public benefit.

I respectfully request that the Department:

Reject the proposed increases in height and density; or

Require a significant redesign that aligns with existing planning controls and ensures appropriate community benefit.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Kind regards

Dear Ms Pemberton,
I am submitting my objection to the proposed amendment to the above Development Application that seeks an increase in gross floor area (GFA) and floor space ratio (FSR).
My concerns and objections are set out below.
1. Infrastructure Capacity and Impact
The proposal will massively increase dwelling numbers with no corresponding upgrade or capacity for supporting infrastructure. The surrounding streets, particularly Bourke and Danks Street are already subject to significant construction related strain. There is no plan with regards to:
. local road congestion
. stormwater and sewage infrastructure
. electrical and utilities capacity
. waste collection and servicing
2. Public Transport Limitations
No additional public transport upgrades are proposed in the submission. The site is a kilometre or more distance to the nearest Metro (Waterloo) or Railway Stations ( Green Square and Redfern). Not within easy walking distance. So bus services remain the primary public transport mode for residents. Increasing residential density will put even further strain on an already overwhelmed service.
. buses are already operating at capacity on congested roads in particular Crown and Bourke Street.
. there are no dedicated bus priority lanes.
. increased residents means increased cars putting even more pressure on already congested roads, and street parking.
On a personal note I get the 304 bus to the city for work. In peak times the bus comes approximately every 10 minutes. Often the bus goes past without stopping as it is full. Sometimes several buses. Causing frustrations and delays for commuters. The proposed amendment would mean diminished amenity for existing residents who are already experiencing inadequate public transport options.
3. Pedestrian and Cycling Safety
There are no designated cycling lanes on Burke Street. The surrounding walkways are “shared spaces” for both pedestrians and bicycles. The current resident bicycle use and always increasing food delivery bicycle use has made walkways congested, unsafe and at times dangerous for me to walk on. I almost get hit by a bicycle every day. An increased demand would be an additional burden on already overcrowded streets and walkways.
4. Insufficient On-Site Parking Provisions
The proposed increase in floor space and dwellings is not accompanied by an increase in on-site car parking spaces. On street parking is already scarce and difficult. This will result in:
. increased competition for already limited on street parking between residents, visitors, service vehicles and commercial vehicles.
. more “circulation” traffic as people search for spaces
. additional congestion on Bourke Street and surrounding local roads
5. Lack of Additional Communal Open Space and Green Infrastructure.
The proposed amendment does not include additional open or “green” space which is a critical component of sustainable urban density.
The Danks Street precinct has already had significant development over the recent years. Further increase without addressing the need for community open spaces will result in:
. reduced access to open spaces
. increased pressure on existing public parks
. diminished urban canopy and tree cover.
6. Local Services
. the local public school Green Square Public is already at full capacity
. local medical clinics and GP’s are overstretched and not taking any more patients. It is already extremely difficult to get a medical appointment.
7. Departure from Approved Development Application
Approving a 36 floor tower will be cited to justify similar inappropriate uplifts elsewhere in Waterloo. The proposed 36 story tower at 125 metres (from 29 metres) is more than double the height of any of the surrounding buildings and the height and bulk and would have significant adverse impact on existing residents including:
. overshadowing resulting in loss of sunlight and solar access,
. privacy concerns
. unsustainable overcrowding
I am asking that DASKO and its consultants reconsider the proposed amendments to the existing development consent.

Yours Sincerely,
Diana Thomas

Subject: Objection to Proposed Height Amendments – 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo
To Whom It May Concern,
I write to formally object to the proposed amendments to the development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo, specifically regarding the significant increase in building heights from 21 to 38 storeys for one tower and 12 to 31 storeys for another.
While I acknowledge the need for residential development and urban renewal, the scale of the proposed height increases raises serious concerns regarding the visual character of the neighbourhood, urban amenity, and the capacity of local infrastructure to accommodate such a substantial increase in residential density.
Visual Impact and Neighbourhood Character
The proposed heights are markedly inconsistent with the existing built form of the surrounding area. An increase of this magnitude will result in excessive visual dominance, fundamentally altering the skyline and character of Waterloo. The bulk and scale of the buildings will overshadow neighbouring properties, reduce sky views, and diminish the overall sense of openness that currently exists. Such a dramatic departure from the established height profile risks setting an undesirable precedent for overdevelopment in the area.
Residential Density and Population Impact
The proposed height amendments will substantially increase the number of residents within the site. This increase will place additional pressure on an already dense urban environment, affecting local roads, pedestrian movement, public transport, community facilities, and open spaces. The cumulative impact of this intensified population has not been adequately addressed, particularly in relation to liveability, safety, and access to essential services.
Waste Management and Local Amenity
A significantly higher number of dwellings will result in increased waste generation. Concerns remain regarding the adequacy of waste storage, collection, and disposal arrangements for a development of this scale. Without robust and clearly defined waste management strategies, there is a high risk of overflow, increased collection frequency, noise impacts, and negative effects on surrounding streets and public spaces. This would directly impact local amenity and environmental cleanliness.
Conclusion
In its current form, the proposed height increases are excessive and incompatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. I respectfully request that the consent authority reconsider the amendments and ensure that any development remains proportionate, sensitive to its context, and supported by appropriate infrastructure planning.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on this proposal.