We have objection on This proposal to the NSW Government from DASCO (SSD-95997711) seeks to drastically alter the original plans approved by the City of Sydney. The proposal seeks a major increase in height, With the additional 233 apartments (347 approved apartments, increasing to 580) the proposal provides only 20 extra parking spaces. This population increase is in addition to the proposal by Coronation for a 38-storey residential building at the adjacent 881-885 Bourke Street, Waterloo(SSD-80441462). Along with the many other substantial developments, the cumulative impact is an estimated 4,000 new apartments and as many as 8,000 new residents in the Waterloo and Zetland area. That’s like dropping in a small country town’s worth of residents into our area within a few years.

Note: Works currently underway at 903-921 Bourke Street relate to D/2021/1415 approved by the City of Sydney (refer to ePlanning - Search application - City of Sydney) and works underway at 881-885 Bourke Street are for Early Works approved by the NSW Government.

The impacts
The impacts of this development will include:
1. Infrastructure strain — the extra residents would place unacceptable pressure on local roads and public transport, all of which are already stretched. Services such as the 304 bus and peak-hour trains from Green Square are already at or near capacity, and buses often pass by because they’re full.
2. Shortage of amenities - Public amenities are already under pressure and are unlikely to keep pace with the additional residents. Even now it can be difficult to find a place to sit and work at the library. This development would add further strain and make an already crowded situation worse.
3. Visually overbearing development - The proposed height is far too large for its surroundings and is out of character with the existing neighbourhood. Its scale would dominate the local streetscape and create a serious visual impact, undermining the current character of the area.
4. Overshadowing impacts - The two oversized towers proposed at 903-921 Bourke Street, together with the tower proposed at 881-885 Bourke Street, would create significant cumulative overshadowing during the winter months, affecting a large area of nearby homes, streets and public open space.
5. Wind tunnel effects at street level - which reduces pedestrian comfort and makes the public domain unpleasant to use.
6. Parking pressure — the additional 233 apartments are being matched with only 20 extra parking spaces, which is clearly inadequate and will push more cars onto already congested local streets. This will worsen parking competition for existing residents, visitors and businesses, especially in an area already under heavy development pressure.

The proposed height of this project and the number of storeys is way too much for this location. There is no public transport in this area, only buses which are already overcrowded and will not be able to cope with the huge number of residents seeking to live in these high towers. Likewise local roads will be severely impacted by excess traffic especially since McEvoy Street is already a busy existing east-west route. What about utilities? Gas, water, electricity - surely these will be overloaded with this indiscriminate build of massive human filing cabinets. Please stop this development.

Dear Planning Assessment Team,

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed development application SSD-95997711 for 903–921 [and Bourke Street, Waterloo [as well as to the additional changes to the Young St Tower].
While I understand the need for housing in Sydney, this proposal represents a drastic and unacceptable departure from the plans originally approved by the City of Sydney. The scale of the proposed changes is excessive, particularly the increase of Bourke Street North from 12 storeys to 31 storeys, and the Young Street Tower from 21 storeys to 38 storeys.

The proposal would also increase the number of apartments from 347 to 580, adding 233 additional dwellings, while providing only 20 additional parking spaces! This is not a minor amendment. It is a substantial intensification of the site and should be assessed in the context of the already significant growth occurring across Waterloo and Zetland, including the nearby proposed 38-storey residential tower at 881–885 Bourke Street.

My objection is based on the following concerns.

Firstly, the proposal would place unacceptable pressure on local infrastructure. Roads, parking, buses and trains in the area are already under significant strain. The 304 bus service and peak-hour trains from Green Square are frequently at or near capacity, and residents already experience overcrowding and delays - to the point where you can't plan always adequately plan your trip to work. Adding hundreds of extra apartments without adequate transport and parking provision will make these issues so much worse.

Secondly, local amenities are already struggling to keep pace with population growth. Community facilities, parks, libraries and public spaces are under increasing pressure. It is already difficult at times to find space to sit and work in the local library. This proposal would add further residents without demonstrating that the surrounding amenities can reasonably support them.

Thirdly, the proposed towers are visually overbearing and out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood. Increasing approved buildings from 12 to 31 storeys and from 21 to 38 storeys would create a dominant and excessive built form that is not appropriate for this location. The proposal would significantly alter the streetscape and undermine the existing character and liveability of the area.

I am concerned also about cumulative overshadowing impacts. The two oversized towers proposed at 903–921 Bourke Street, together with the proposed tower at 881–885 Bourke Street, would create substantial overshadowing. This would affect nearby homes, streets and public open spaces, reducing sunlight access and amenity for existing residents. Lastly, the proposal raises serious concerns about wind tunnel effects at street level. Towers of this scale can create uncomfortable and potentially unsafe wind conditions for pedestrians, particularly in an area with high foot traffic. This issue must be properly assessed in the context of the cumulative tower development proposed nearby.

Overall, this proposal represents severe overdevelopment of the site. The increase in height, density and population has not been matched by adequate infrastructure, parking, transport, public amenities or open space. The cumulative impact of this proposal, alongside other major developments in Waterloo and Zetland, would significantly reduce the liveability of the area for existing and future residents.

I respectfully request that the NSW Government reject the proposed amendments in SSD-95997711, or require the applicant to substantially reduce the height, density and scale of the development so that it is more consistent with the original approval and the capacity of the local area.

Yours sincerely,
Waterloo Resident

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed redevelopment of the project, particularly due to the excessive height of the proposed buildings and the long-term impacts this development would have on the surrounding community.
I have been a renter at this property for nearly ten years and have seen firsthand the increasing strain on local infrastructure. The existing infrastructure is not suitable to support a development of this scale. Parking is already extremely limited for current residents and property owners, and any increase in density will significantly worsen access issues for those who already live in the area.
Traffic congestion is a major concern. Young street, Bourke Street, McEvoy Street, and Dacey Avenue are consistently busy, especially on weekends when families are travelling to sports and community activities. Public transport and road networks are already under pressure, and further development without upgrades will increase congestion and reduce safety.
Flooding remains an unresolved issue. During heavy rainfall, the intersection of Morehead and McEvoy Streets regularly floods, particularly during the rainy season. Increasing development without addressing stormwater capacity and drainage places residents at further risk.
Additionally, the area is currently experiencing a reduction in social housing, particularly with the redevelopment of public housing in Waterloo into high-rise buildings. Just down the road, this proposal seeks to increase housing numbers again; however, it appears unlikely that this development would meaningfully contribute to affordable or social housing. There is a clear need for more genuinely affordable housing in this area—especially for key workers, families, and long-term residents—to ensure communities can remain connected and supported.
High-rise developments continue to change the character of the neighbourhood. With Zetland already surrounded by tall apartment buildings, further height will lead to a loss of sunlight, reduced privacy, and diminished liveability for existing residents and owners. Any development should prioritise appropriate building height, increased green spaces, and design that allows for adequate sunlight so current residents are not negatively impacted.
Greenery, open spaces, and access to natural light are essential for healthy communities. Increasing building height without sufficient consideration of these factors will negatively affect both residents and the broader neighbourhood environment.
For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposed redevelopment and urge the relevant authorities to reconsider the scale, height, and purpose of the project in favour of infrastructure-ready, community-focused, and genuinely affordable housing outcomes.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my submission.
Yours sincerely,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed major amendments (SSD-95997711) for the residential development at 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo. While I support the strategic goal of increasing housing density near transit hubs, this specific proposal represents an unsustainable and unreasonable departure from the previously approved plans for this site.

My objection is based on the following grounds:

1. Infrastructure Strain and the "Transit Gap"
- Proponents often compare the density of this proposal to the Waterloo Metro precinct or Green Square. However, this comparison is fundamentally flawed as this site lacks immediate walking access to both the high-capacity Heavy Rail and Metro networks.

- The 1.3km Gap: The Waterloo Metro is 1.3km on foot from this site, which Google Maps validates as a 19-minute walk. This is well beyond a standard walking catchment (typically 400m-800m) for a high-frequency Metro service. Similarly, Green Square Station (Heavy Rail) is not within an effortless walking distance for many residents.

- Transit Stranded: Because the site sits in a "gap" between these two distinct rail networks, the majority of the residents from the 580 apartments will rely on the 304 bus to reach the Metro or the CBD.

- Existing Strain: Local bus services are already operating at capacity, often passing waiting residents because they are full. To increase density so drastically after the government rejected the City of Sydney’s proposed tram for this area creates a "density without infrastructure" vacuum.

2. Drastic Scale and Visual Massing
- The proposed height increases are not "modifications"—they are a total transformation of the site’s scale into Sydney CBD-sized buildings.

- The Scale of the Uplift: The Bourke Street North tower increase from 12 to 31 storeys is 2.58 times the height of the original approval. The Young Street Tower's jump to 38 storeys is 1.8 times the height of the previous 21-storey approval.

- "Window Dressing": Community feedback from recent webinars suggests a consensus that the developer’s "architectural refinements" are merely aesthetic window-dressing. No amount of facade treatment can mitigate the sheer visual massing and the "wall effect" created by buildings that are nearly triple the height of what was originally deemed appropriate for this streetscape.

3. Undermining the Planning Process
- Construction on this site has already commenced under the existing approval. Seeking such a massive amendment after breaking ground is highly irregular and undermines public confidence in the planning system.

- The original plans were the result of extensive collaboration with the City of Sydney. To bypass that established context with an SSD amendment of this scale feels disingenuous and disrespectful to the local community and the Council, who have successfully shaped the amenity of the broader Green Square precinct.

4. Cumulative Impact vs. Isolated Assessment
This project must not be assessed in a vacuum. Between this site and the adjacent proposals (such as 881-885 Bourke Street), the cumulative impact is estimated at 4,000 new apartments and 8,000 new residents. This population influx is being forced into an area where schools, parks, and roads are already stretched to their limit, without the benefit of being "on top of" a rail or metro station.

Conclusion
This proposal is a "bait-and-switch" that seeks to capitalise on infrastructure located elsewhere while ignoring the immediate constraints of the Waterloo East area. I urge the Department to reject this amendment and require the developer to adhere to the previously approved scale which was deemed appropriate for this location.

Sincerely,

As the owner of a unit in Crescent Street Redfern, and a unit in Hunter Street Waterloo, I strongly object to the proposed additional building height, additional residential units and increase in gross floor area for 903-921 Bourke Street Waterloo.

Reasons for objection
1. This site is the subject of an approved master plan and development consent that is already increasing the supply of well-located housing.

This site is making a substantial contribution of 347 units to assist in meeting housing targets in the City of Sydney LGA which will work to address the housing crisis in NSW. The City of Sydney's track record in urban renewal at Green Square is exemplary and their responsibility for this development should not be upended by the HDA pathway. The existing approval made a considered assessment of neighbourhood amenity and transport impacts. This HDA application will undermine the quality of the built environment for everyone in Waterloo, and most directly for all new residents in the combined Bourke Street sites.

2. This site is not a transport oriented development (TOD): "sky-rise" and "high-rise" towers belong over a train station, not in Bourke Street where everyone catches a bus to get to a train station.

The site falls outside the 10 minute walking zones for both Waterloo Metro and Green Square Station as shown in UNSW City Futures TOD atlas:
https://www.unsw.edu.au/research/city-futures/cityviz/transport-oriented-development-atlas-sydney
This location is not "exceptional access". Current residents rely on the Bourke Street bus routes for station access. The reports attached to this application contain numerous errors regarding the provision of bus services - there are no buses in McEvoy street and list bus routes that no longer operate.

3. The proposed towers are too high for Redfern/Waterloo/Green Square and will destroy the inner city character: the successful precedent in this neighbourhood is densification through 10 storey street walls with "episodic" towers of 20 storeys - not 40 storeys.

This uplift proposal is compromised by timing; the application is made while the previous masterplan is under construction. Simply extruding the approved footprints will not "retain the core architectural strategy", it is a mockery of the design excellence process. The additional 36 levels across the two towers more than double the original number of storeys. The public realm around the heritage buildings on the site will be shaded and dwarfed by towers that belong in a central business district.

4. The grass won't cope with the increased population: additional residents in the uplift design will destroy the viability of the one public green space provided to the combined Danks Street masterplan. This lawn will not be able to cope with increased daily dog traffic and will be constantly fenced off to pets and people for turf recovery.

The combined Danks Street masterplan sites are already providing social, affordable, rental and market housing. This application is an overblown opportunistic claim for development yield which sacrifices amenity for future residents and their neighbours. It should be rejected.

I wish to raise a strong objection against the development proposed for 903-921 Bourke St, Waterloo, arguing that it constitutes an overdevelopment that should be refused as it is not in the public interest. The site already has an approved development, with construction commenced, which was based on carefully developed, democratic controls and provided a reasonable balance between increased housing supply and protecting liveability and amenity.

The proposed development is fundamentally different, imposing unreasonably on current and future residents through a massive increase in bulk and scale. The proposal increases the height from 21 to 38 storeys and raises the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 2:1 to 3.2:1, yet it improperly relies on the site structure designed for the much smaller, approved development.Unreasonable Impacts and Inadequate Assessment

The significant likely impacts of the proposal have not been fully assessed, with the existing assessment indicating the site is not suitable. The excessive bulk and scale will create negative solar, wind, privacy, visual, and social impacts on neighboring properties and the public domain.
Social Impacts and Infrastructure: The proposal will unreasonably strain already-at-capacity local infrastructure. Statements in the Environmental Impact and Rezoning Statement claiming the site is well-served by public transport are misleading; walks to Green Square or Waterloo metro stations take 20 minutes or more, and local buses are already full, making morning boarding impossible. Local schools are also under significant pressure, leading to frequent adjustments and reductions in catchment sizes. The Social Impact Assessment recognizes this increased demand but acknowledges the proposal will not address many of these needs.


Failure to Assess: The applicant's failure to properly assess and mitigate impacts from the massive scale increase is evident, particularly when the Environmental Impact and Rezoning Statement asserts that the proposal will not result in any significant adverse impacts. This failure means the requirements of s 4.15(b), (c), and (e) concerning impact assessment, site suitability, and public interest are not satisfied.


Visual Impact: The Visual Impact assessment is inadequate because it primarily assesses public views from points deemed to be of "negligible significance," while sites of "moderate significance," such as parks and lookouts, have not been assessed, further violating s 4.15(b).
Inconsistencies with Planning and Feedback
The development fails to align with key planning objectives and feedback:
Better Placed Objectives: Despite being far larger than the current approval, the proposal only "maintains the previously approved deep soil provision, street setbacks and building footprints, and public domain," provisions that are inadequate for the increased scale. Furthermore, the ESD features are standard, and describing BASIX—a minimum requirement—as "best practice sustainability" is inaccurate. The development contributes little to sustainability or community support beyond mandated open spaces.


SDRP Recommendations: The applicant did not adequately respond to feedback from the State Design Review Panel (SDRP). Recommendations ignored include increasing separation between the Young Street Tower and the Plaza Building, demonstrating ADG compliance (as non-compliances like solar access remain), and ensuring natural light to corridors. Instead of avoiding negative impacts on residential amenity, impacts were merely described as "not unreasonable".


EPA Act Objects: The proposal is inconsistent with the objects of the EPA Act because it does not promote social and economic welfare or a better environment (a), nor good design and amenity (g). The rezoning and scale increase of a project already under construction is not considered the orderly and economic use of land (k).
Community Engagement
Community engagement has been "woefully inadequate". The new proposal is being rushed through without the support of the community or elected representatives in the City of Sydney. The consultation (one webinar, some calls/emails) and the distribution of leaflets to a "tiny" catchment are insufficient compared to the extensive consultation that produced the site's original controls, failing the EPA Act object (h).

I strongly oppose the proposal requesting major modifications and changes the existing development plans for 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SDD-95997711) for the following reasons:
1. Public transport: routes 343, 320, 304 all seem to be currently reaching passenger capacity during peak hours.
Has the government, the council, DASCO or neighbouring developer Coronation, conducted any reporting to identify how the additional number of apartment residents would impact our public transport services? Or identified what an increase to future resident numbers would mean/cost for the need to schedule bus services during peak hours.
2. Pedestrian safety: Bourke Street is a shared path (bicycles and foot traffic) - all along this section of footpath is already dangerous as bikes speed past pedestrians. What, if any, safety measures for pedestrians have been proposed by DASCO? EG road widening, bridges, zebra crossings?
3. Council: increase in residents, increase in amount of garbage, increasing strain on garbage collection trucks.
4. Emergency Services strain: increase in situations that may require police, fire and ambo.
5. Health: increased strain on local medical centre services.
6. Green spaces: any green spaces within this site will need sunshine to grow and establish, the extra height will substantially minimise the amount of sunlight any plantings receive each day.
7. Shadowing: the added height will detract from the whole site, creating wind tunnels and shade throughout. This will potentially affect the mental health for residents living in the lower levels as natural light and sunlight will be obstructed.
8. Character: buildings as high as 31 and 38 storeys are severely out of character for this immediate area. Considering the terraces to the north, the terraces to the west. Even the apartment buildings to the east and south are not as high as this modification proposal.
The City of Sydney has approved the original plans. It is the original plans that should be kept.
Who pays for more:
Bus services
Council garbage collections
Policing and fire brigade call outs
Local residents and the future residents who will choose to move into the new buildings (at 12 and 21 storeys) have a right to enjoy peaceful living, community safety and clean surroundings.
I can accept the need for housing, am happy to see the site being developed, happy to welcome new residents into the area and understand the growth that is occurring in most Sydney suburbs however, DASCO and Coronation have both submitted major modifications and scaled-up changes and neither should be approved.
Both the site and the surrounding local area should be respected, by blending these new buildings into the area, at an appropriate height.
Thank you

To whom it may concern,

I am a resident of the Waterloo community and I write with regards to the proposed major amendments to the development at 903-921 Bourke Street Waterloo. I strongly oppose the proposed changes, and ask that the proposed amendments not be approved, leaving the project at the scope that was originally approved.

It is unclear how the proposed amendments provide additional benefits to the development, community and local area. The previous approved development (DA/2012/1415) provides an acceptable, considered and balanced response to development of the site, which increases density in the area in meeting housing and affordability needs while being sensitive to the local environment and character of the area.

The current proposed amendments add height to six buildings on the site with an increase of 203 apartments (54% increase) and 57% increase in Gross Floor Area from the approved development. Considering these numbers, it becomes immediately evident how significant a deviation this is from the original approved proposal. It is concerning that these proposed changes are not supported by commensurate increases in the amount of communal spaces, amenities and parking spaces. While the proposal pushes to increase density, I would suggest that this ill-considered and inadequately supported by mitigations in the development proposal.

Beyond the development itself, such an increase in the scale of the development, will place more pressure on local infrastructure including roads, access to community resources, public transport. As a local resident, my experience is that these are already stretched.

To achieve these increases, the proposed amendments focus on two buildings - Bourke Street North and Young Street Tower - and increases their height 31 and 38 floors respectively (a 158% and 81% increase, respectively). In absolute terms, these are far too tall for this area, and not in keeping with the character of the locality. These proposed towers will be visually overbearing and taller than any other buildings in the area. They will also contribute to overshadowing of nearby homes and public spaces. They have the potential to significantly detract from the visual character of the Waterloo area and surrounds and to continue to do so into the distant future.

The local community has seen in developments such as Surry Hills Village that sensitively designed architecture and development can enhance and revitalise areas. Conversely, as in parts of Green Square, we see how excessive building height and a focus on maximising density can detract from the character and lived experience of an area.

I was dismayed to read some of the assessments accompanying this proposal. The Social Impact Assessment for SSD Housing prepared by Sarah George Consulting appears to over-report potential benefits, minimise impacts and suggests inadequate mitigations. This assessment relies heavily on existing parts of the approved development and utilises these as if they were novel justifications and mitigations for the significant proposed changes. It does not adequately describe how the proposed changes will cause social impact, and highlights that meaningful additional mitigations are lacking.

Likewise, the Visual Impact Assessment concludes a multitude of negligible and low impacts but utilises viewpoint locations with elevations, existing vegetation and built environment that minimise the proposed towers' rendered appearance. Furthermore, in location photos, wide landscape images are used, which crop out the vertical aspect, where the bulk of the proposed height changes would be apparent. Whether by methodological or selection limitations, I believe this report significantly under-represents how these 31- and 38-story towers would impact the local landscape and be affect the lived experience of Waterloo residents.

For all of the above reasons, I express my significant concern for the proposed major amendments to the development at 903-921 Bourke Street and ask that these are not approved. The development, community and residents will be better served by allowing the development to be completed as already approved.