I am a resident who has been living since 2022 in an apartment complex, which is less than 200 metres from this site.

The “Environmental Impact and Rezoning Statement” states on page 94 that “Letter box drop: 750 notices were distributed to properties within close proximity to the site”. The “Engagement report” on page 13 says the same. Despite living around 200m from this site, I confirm that I never received such a letter. There was no information about this intention to amend or even any notices around the site that I walk around regularly. Therefore, this statement is misleading and inaccurate, which calls into question the credibility of the entire proposal.

I only came to know about this amendment proposal for the first time, less than a week ago, from the building manager of our apartment complex. I was already aware of the original proposal, which was put forward several years ago; however, this amendment appears to have been introduced in a manner that allows it to slip past the surrounding community.

Having said that, going through the “Engagement report”, it shows that even if more community feedback was sought, concerns wouldn’t be addressed adequately anyway. The community has strongly opposed this amendment as per the raw comments in “Engagement report”; however, none of the submitted documents by the developer seems to genuinely address these concerns. Rather, they try to brush off or provide some convincing-looking argument.

The area around this building is already congested with so many residential apartment complexes. The number of community parks, public spaces, green spaces, playgrounds, and recreational areas is very low compared to the density of the number of people living around. The narrow roads are already full of traffic, no parking spaces are available, and buses are full during the peak hours. The original proposal itself was a further burden on this, but adding 200 more apartments on top of the already proposed 300 is insane. To add more, this NSW scheme that bypasses the council seem to have an application for another massive tower with hundreds of apartments less than 50 meters from this site. These sites are >500m away from the green square station (which is already crowded) and the new metro station, so without having proper transport options provided for that 500m, this will create massive congestion. See the traffic in the attachment near the green square – on 26th Sunday, April 2026, even during non-peak hours. At least if these buildings were next to the Waterloo metro (where there are areas that are not yet this densely packed), it would have made at least a bit more sense. The NSW state government’s ad hoc approvals like this will make the Waterloo/Zetland/Greensquare area unlivable like Hong Kong.

While there is a housing crisis and affordability issues, putting an unsustainable level of apartment units in an already crowded and densely populated area is totally unacceptable. There are many suburbs towards the east of Sydney that are significantly less dense and can be utilised for these. Eastlakes and Kensington are very good examples. I do not understand why more and more apartments are being put into this already crowded area. The same developer has done a maximum 8-story apartment complex with only 142 units in Kensington – why aren’t towers of 30 floors not being built in these suburbs that have very little housing density? Furthermore, apartments from this developer are extremely expensive, and there is no way they will create affordability. Consequently, this amendment to the proposal will not adequately address the issues, despite claims to the contrary.

Furthermore, the documents state “The subject proposal does not include affordable housing, but makes a significant (~$40M) contribution to the City of Sydney’s Affordable Housing fund to fund future affordable housing projects.”. This demonstrates that the application does NOT intend to help affordability, but instead procrastinate it to the future. By the time this building is finished, it could be way later than 2029. So, unless this proposal itself has ways to provide affordable houses as soon as possible, it does not fall under the HDA’s priority “The Government's priority is delivering completed homes, not just approvals.” Rather looks like the developer is gaming this system to increase their profit margins. I hope those who review these documents pay careful attention to these. In fact, there is an already approved application for 300 apartments, and this amendment will delay the delivery of those by a few more years.

Furthermore, it’s important to note that the City of Sydney council has already failed to adequately control excessive housing density under its relaxed limits for this area; attempting to bypass even those by doubling the allowable density is unreasonable.

In summary, I strongly object to this proposal. Many residents in the area likely feel the same; however, I suspect that a number of them may not even be aware that it has been proposed.

26 April 2026
To Whom It May Concern,
Mixed Use Development - 903-921 Bourke St Waterloo - (EXH-113655238)
I am writing to formally object to the amended development proposal for 903-921 Bourke St Waterloo - (EXH-113655238), which now seeks to significantly increase the height and scale of the originally approved plan. The revised proposal represents a substantial departure from what was initially presented to the community. Doubling the building height is not a minor adjustment—it fundamentally alters the character of the area and has serious consequences for surrounding residents.

First, the increased height will result in the loss of existing city views from my property. These views are a key component of the amenity and value of my home. Their loss represents not only a significant reduction in quality of life, but also a decrease in property value.

Second, the proposal fails to adequately address infrastructure impacts. The increase in density will inevitably lead to greater traffic congestion in an area that is already under strain. There has been no meaningful commitment to improving transport options. Existing bus services are already overcrowded, and no additional services have been proposed to accommodate the increased population.

Third, the development raises serious concerns regarding community impact. The inclusion of additional social housing, without appropriate support infrastructure, risks exacerbating existing issues in the area. Residents already experience disturbances including late-night noise, antisocial behaviour, and public drunkenness. Increasing density without proper planning and safeguards will likely intensify these problems. I understand that a number of the proposed units will be small one bedroom apartments. Developments of this nature can present challenges if not supported by appropriate planning, management and community services. Without these measures in place, there is a risk of further strain on the local environment and community amenity.

In addition, residents have already endured prolonged disruption from ongoing and past construction in the area. This has included years of exposure to construction noise, dust, and general disturbance, both on weekdays and weekends. As someone working from home, these impacts have been particularly challenging, affecting daily life and the ability to work effectively. Extending or intensifying this level of disruption through a significantly larger development is unreasonable and unfair to existing residents.

The development has also already impacted the usability of my property. I have often been unable to use my balcony, which is my only outdoor space, due to excessive dust, noise, and unpleasant odours emanating from the site, including sewer-like smells. This has significantly reduced my ability to enjoy my home and outdoor living space.

Finally, there are existing environmental and health concerns that have not been addressed. Issues such as rodent activity are already present in the area, and higher population density may worsen these conditions if not properly managed.
In summary, the amended proposal prioritises increased scale and density at the expense of existing residents’ amenity, infrastructure capacity, and community wellbeing. I respectfully request that this application be refused.

Thank you for considering my objection.

The ammenities are not sufficient to support the current population, let alone an increase. The privatisation of the 320 and 304 along with limited 392 services - buses are unable to cope. The Metro is placed in Alexandria not Waterloo and is unsafe to be for older people and women after dark. The 304 needs to run more frequently in peak hour. The 320 needs to resume running at least to Wynyard (it used to go over the bridge but not only stops at Central). The proposed development doesn’t include gyms, pools, or sufficient parking for the area. Regardless of metro area requirements - you should follow ACT and build enough spots underground for everyone to own a car as you wish to put bikes on the roads. Most Australians road trip and have family interstate and prefer to have freedom of cars. This is not going to change. This removes parked cars and enables use of additional lanes without obscene construction costs. Additionally Crown st and Baptist st could use additional development and road redesign to allow flow of traffic and still support business. It is a major thoroughfare for Waterloo. The Bus Stop as you are travelling towards Zetland from the City past the Surry Hills Village but before Phillip St can be removed. Jutting out the bus lanes along crown creates traffic and stops the 8000 people living here being able to drive up it. That was a terrible decision and a waste of money - the flow of traffic is terrible. The height of the propose building is gargantuan and unnecessary. Current height approvals are more than sufficient. Additionally, the wind tunnel that exists along potter st and surrounding areas will be worsened. The density proposed is obscene without genuine thought out common sense logic. You fail to service the current population adequately and have already privatised the bus routes. Density will also be increased in surrounding areas like Zetland and Waterloo near the metro. Without adequate parking mandated for these buildings you will destroy Sydney. It is a wealthy city with wealthy people that want to be able to drive their nice car. We have to have cars for work, to see family, travel to investment properties or simply holiday without wanting to pay a gross amount to rent a car. Bit of a disgusting grab from the developer and would be an absolute blight on the current government administrations overseeing the go ahead that have failed to be able to think at a wholistic level thinking of every important part. Projects like this will kill Sydney if not done sensibly with action on community ammenities and the facilitation of the Australian Sydney lifestyle.

Objection to Proposed Development at 881–885 and 903–921 Bourke Street
I wish to formally object to the proposed development based on the following concerns regarding its impact on the local community and environment.
1. Infrastructure Strain
The proposed increase in residents will place significant and unacceptable pressure on already overburdened infrastructure. Local transport services, including the 304 bus and peak-hour train services from Green Square, are currently operating at or near capacity. It is not uncommon for buses to pass stops without picking up passengers due to overcrowding. This development would exacerbate these issues without any clear plan to improve transport capacity.
2. Insufficient Public Amenities
Existing public amenities are already under strain and are not keeping pace with population growth. Facilities such as local libraries are frequently overcrowded, making it difficult for residents to access basic community resources. The addition of hundreds of new residents will further diminish accessibility and reduce overall quality of life.
3. Visually Overbearing Scale
The proposed height and bulk of the development are excessive and out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood. The scale of the buildings would dominate the streetscape, creating a visually intrusive presence that undermines the established character and amenity of the area.
4. Overshadowing Impacts
The cumulative effect of the two large towers at 903–921 Bourke Street and the additional tower at 881–885 Bourke Street will result in significant overshadowing, particularly during winter months. This will negatively impact nearby homes, streets, and public open spaces, reducing access to natural light and overall livability.
5. Wind Tunnel Effects
The scale and configuration of the proposed towers are likely to create wind tunnel effects at street level. This will reduce pedestrian comfort and detract from the usability and enjoyment of public spaces.
6. Inadequate Parking Provision
The proposal includes 233 additional apartments but provides only 20 extra parking spaces. This is clearly insufficient and will inevitably increase on-street parking demand in an already congested area. The resulting competition for parking will negatively impact residents, visitors, and local businesses.
Conclusion
In its current form, this development fails to adequately address its significant impacts on infrastructure, amenity, and the character of the neighbourhood. I strongly urge that the proposal be reconsidered or substantially revised to better align with the capacity and needs of the local area.

Objection to proposed mixed-use development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo

I strongly object to the proposed amendment to the approved development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo, which seeks to add more apartments to an already substantial mixed-use development.

The proposed increase is excessive for this location and would represent serious overdevelopment of the site.

The development would create an extremely high-rise built form that is out of scale with the surrounding Waterloo streetscape.

The tallest element would stand out as one of the most dominant buildings in the immediate area.

The development would visually overpower nearby lower-rise apartment buildings and older residential streets.

The additional height and bulk would create unacceptable overshadowing of neighbouring buildings, streets, open spaces and apartments.

Existing residents should not lose sunlight, outlook and amenity simply so the developer can add hundreds of extra apartments.

Waterloo and surroundig suburbs are already dense inner-city suburbs, and this proposal would push density beyond what the local infrastructure can reasonably support.

Public transport in the immediate area is limited. For many residents, buses are the main practical option, and they are already full or overcrowded at busy times.

The proposal would add hundreds of new residents without a matching increase in transport capacity.

The site is not directly on a train or metro station, so it is misleading to treat it as though it can absorb unlimited density.

Bourke Street, McEvoy Street and surrounding roads already experience congestion, especially during peak times.

More apartments mean more cars, rideshare vehicles, deliveries, removalist vans, visitors and service vehicles.

The local street network is not designed to absorb this level of additional pressure.

Parking and traffic impacts will spill into surrounding residential streets.

There are not enough shops, supermarkets, medical services, childcare places, community facilities or everyday amenities in the immediate area to support such a large increase in population.

Existing residents already rely heavily on nearby suburbs for many basic services.

The proposal risks creating a high-density enclave without adequate supporting infrastructure.

The building bulk would reduce privacy for neighbouring apartments, especially where windows and balconies face existing homes.

The proposal would increase noise from residents, retail uses, loading docks, waste collection, traffic and construction.

Construction impacts would be severe and prolonged, including dust, noise, vibration, truck movements and disruption to nearby residents.

The development would place additional pressure on already limited public open space in Waterloo.

Any public-domain improvements do not compensate for the loss of sunlight, privacy, outlook, neighbourhood character and liveability.

The proposal appears to prioritise apartment yield over good planning, human scale and the wellbeing of existing residents.

The area needs thoughtful, proportionate development, not a major uplift that overwhelms local infrastructure.

Approval would set a concerning precedent for further excessive height and density in Waterloo.

The proposed additional apartments would worsen the urban heat island effect through increased building mass, hard surfaces and reduced sunlight access.

The scale of the development is inconsistent with the character of the local area and would create a jarring built-form outcome.

The cumulative impact of this proposal, together with other developments in Waterloo, Green Square and Alexandria, must be properly considered.

Existing residents should not be expected to absorb endless increases in density without equivalent improvements to transport, schools, parks, roads, services and community infrastructure.

I request that the consent authority refuse the proposed amendment or require a substantial reduction in height, bulk, density and apartment numbers.

At minimum, the proposal should be redesigned to better protect neighbouring residents from overshadowing, traffic, privacy loss, noise and infrastructure strain.

For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposed development.

I am a nearby resident and formally object to amending DA SSD-95997711, which proposes to increase apartments at 903–921 Bourke Street from 376 to approximately 626 and to increase building heights. This amendment represents an unacceptable intensification of an already dense precinct without adequate assessment of impacts on existing residents.

GROUND 1 — TRAFFIC CONGESTION
An additional 250 dwellings will materially worsen traffic on Bourke, McEvoy, and Young Streets, which already experience significant congestion. No adequate assessment has been provided of the cumulative traffic impact alongside the neighbouring Coronation proposal (881–885 Bourke St, 850 homes) and Fabcot/Woolworths development (923–935 Bourke St). A revised Traffic Impact Assessment must address peak hour generation, pedestrian safety, and adequacy of basement parking for the increased resident population.

GROUND 2 — ON-STREET PARKING
Residents in the immediately surrounding streets, including Wellington Street, rely entirely on on-street parking as the existing housing stock has no off-street garages or driveways. There is no alternative parking available to these households. Adding 250 new dwellings will introduce significant additional competition for a finite on-street supply. Visitor parking, tradespeople, and basement overflow from the development will spill directly onto local streets. A Parking Impact Assessment must quantify the net impact on surrounding street parking, accounting for existing stress levels before any additional demand is added.

GROUND 3 — NOISE
Noise impacts arise from two sources. During construction, the enlarged building program will expose nearby residents to sustained heavy machinery, piling, and concrete works over an extended period. Strict construction hours must be enforced with a clear resident complaints mechanism. Long-term, the primary noise impact on neighbouring streets will be from the significant increase in traffic generated by 250 additional dwellings — more vehicles, deliveries, and ride-share activity on local streets. This is a permanent impact borne by existing residents and must be modelled and assessed against NSW EPA residential noise criteria.

GROUND 4 — VIEW LOSS AND OVERSHADOWING
The original approval already relied on Clause 4.6 height variations. Further height increases compound these departures without sufficient justification. Winter solstice shadow diagrams and view impact analyses must be provided specifically for the additional height sought in this amendment, demonstrating impacts on surrounding residential properties.

GROUND 5 — CUMULATIVE DENSITY
Three major developments are proposed simultaneously in this precinct: this site (~626 apartments), Coronation at 881–885 Bourke St (850 apartments), and Fabcot at 923–935 Bourke St. The combined population increase is transformative, yet no cumulative infrastructure assessment has been provided. A Cumulative Impact Assessment addressing traffic, parking, open space, utilities, and community services across all three proposals must be required before this amendment is determined.

CONCLUSION
I request the Department require a comprehensive revised EIS addressing cumulative traffic, parking, noise, and amenity impacts; reject any further height increase beyond what is already consented; and impose enforceable conditions protecting nearby residents during construction and operation. I am a resident in close proximity to the site with a direct interest in its proper assessment.

I wish to formally object to the proposed development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo on the grounds of excessive overshadowing and inadequate solar access, which will negatively impact the amenity of surrounding properties and public spaces.

The proposal appears inconsistent with the solar access and environmental performance objectives outlined in the relevant planning controls administered by the City of Sydney Council. These controls emphasise the importance of maintaining adequate sunlight to habitable rooms, private open spaces, and communal areas—particularly during midwinter conditions when access to sunlight is most limited and most critical to residential amenity.

Based on the scale, height, and massing of the proposed development, it is highly likely that the building will cast significant additional shadows over neighbouring properties and surrounding areas. This is of particular concern during the hours between 9:00am and 3:00pm in midwinter, which are typically used as the benchmark period for assessing solar access. Any substantial reduction in direct sunlight during this period represents a meaningful degradation in living conditions.

The loss of solar access has several tangible impacts, including:

Reduced natural lighting to living rooms and primary living spaces, leading to increased reliance on artificial lighting
Diminished usability and comfort of private open spaces such as balconies and courtyards
Adverse effects on thermal comfort, particularly in winter months where sunlight contributes to passive heating
Broader implications for health and wellbeing, as access to natural light is a key component of residential liveability

In addition to impacts on private dwellings, there is concern that the development may also increase overshadowing of public or communal spaces. If parks, streetscapes, or shared open areas are affected, this would further undermine the quality and usability of the local urban environment and conflict with established urban design principles that prioritise sunlight access to public domain areas.

It is also important to consider cumulative impacts. Waterloo is already experiencing significant urban densification, and the incremental loss of sunlight across multiple developments can result in a substantial overall decline in environmental quality. This proposal contributes to that cumulative burden and should be assessed with that context in mind.

I request that the consent authority:

Require a detailed and transparent overshadowing analysis, including clearly legible shadow diagrams for midwinter conditions at hourly intervals
Demonstrate compliance with applicable solar access standards for neighbouring properties and open spaces
Consider design amendments to reduce the extent of overshadowing, such as lowering building height, reducing bulk, or modifying setbacks and building separation

Until it can be clearly demonstrated that the development will not result in unreasonable loss of solar access or amenity, I do not support the approval of this proposal.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed modification of the mixed-use development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.

This proposal represents a substantial and unacceptable increase in scale from what was originally approved. The height increase from approximately 65 metres to around 125 metres effectively doubles the development mid-process. This is not a minor amendment but a fundamental change that significantly alters the impact on the surrounding community.

Residents engaged with and accepted the original proposal on the basis of its approved scale. Doubling the height after approval undermines community trust in the planning process and raises serious concerns about transparency and procedural fairness.

The revised proposal will have several adverse impacts:

1. Increased congestion and infrastructure strain
The local area is already experiencing significant congestion, particularly along Bourke Street and surrounding roads. A development of this increased scale will exacerbate traffic, parking shortages, and pressure on already stretched public transport and local infrastructure.

2. Overshadowing and loss of amenity
The substantial increase in height will result in greater overshadowing of neighbouring residential buildings and public spaces. It will also lead to a loss of views and reduced natural light, negatively affecting residents’ quality of life.

3. Inadequate community consultation
For a change of this magnitude, there appears to have been limited meaningful consultation with local residents. Many in the community are unaware that the development has effectively doubled in size. This lack of engagement is deeply concerning.

4. Precedent and planning integrity
Allowing such a significant increase post-approval sets a troubling precedent. It signals that developers can secure approval at a lower scale and later seek major uplifts, bypassing the level of scrutiny that a proposal of this size would ordinarily require.

Given the extent of these impacts, I strongly urge the consent authority to reject this modification application.

At a minimum, any proposal of this revised scale should be subject to a fresh assessment process with comprehensive community consultation, rather than being treated as a modification to an existing approval.

This proposal, in its current form, is inconsistent with the expectations of the local community and fails to adequately consider the cumulative impacts on amenity, infrastructure, and planning integrity.

I respectfully request that this modification be refused.

I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed development at 903–921 Bourke Street, Waterloo.

While I acknowledge the need for urban growth and renewal, I have serious concerns about the cumulative impact this proposal may have on the surrounding area—particularly in relation to traffic conditions, increased population density, and the ability of existing infrastructure to support further demand.

Traffic and transport in this areas are already under considerable strain. Roads in and around Bourke Street regularly experience congestion, especially during peak periods. Public transport is also heavily relied upon, yet services such as the 304 bus are frequently overcrowded, making it difficult for residents to access reliable transport. An increase in residents and activity from this development is likely to exacerbate these existing issues, placing additional pressure on both road networks and bus services. Although the Waterloo Metro Station is a welcome addition, its location does not adequately serve all parts of Waterloo, particular for those residents on Bourke Street and Lachlan Street sides, and many residents will continue to depend on bus connections for daily commuting.

In addition, the proposed scale of the development raises concerns about over-concentration of population within an already dense area. The intensity of the development appears inconsistent with the existing character and capacity of the neighbourhood. A significant increase in population is likely to place further strain on shared spaces and local amenities, potentially diminishing the overall quality of life for residents.

There are also broader concerns regarding infrastructure capacity. Key services—including public transport, schools, healthcare facilities, the local library, and accessible green spaces—are already operating close to their limits. While the planned conversion of part of Moore Park Golf Course into public parkland is noted, these areas are not within convenient proximity to Bourke Street Waterloo and are unlikely to adequately address the shortage of open space locally. Without firm commitments to meaningful infrastructure investment and upgrades, there is a real risk that the development will outpace the capacity of essential services.

Given these considerations, I respectfully urge Council to carefully review the proposal and consider whether it is appropriate in its current form. At a minimum, substantial revisions should be required to ensure that the impacts on the local community and infrastructure are properly addressed.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this submission.