Grant Cameron
Object
Grant Cameron
Object
Waterloo
,
New South Wales
Message
To: NSW Department of Planning and Environment
Re: Submission of Objection – SSD-95997711 (903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo)
To the Planning Officer,
I am writing to formally lodge my strong objection to the proposed modifications for the residential development at 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SSD-95997711).
As a resident living directly across the road from this site, the proposed amendments represent a gross departure from the originally approved plans and will have a direct, detrimental impact on my daily life and the broader Waterloo community.
My objections are based on the following critical concerns:
1. Significant Loss of Solar Access
Living directly opposite the site, I am highly concerned by the proposal to increase the Bourke Street North building from 12 to 31 storeys, and the Young Street Tower from 21 to 38 storeys. This massive increase in height will result in severe overshadowing of my home and the surrounding public spaces. The cumulative effect of these towers, alongside the adjacent proposal at 881-885 Bourke Street, will drastically reduce natural light during the winter solstice, affecting both my well-being and the energy efficiency of my residence.
2. Traffic Congestion and Parking Shortfall
The proposal adds 233 additional apartments over the approved plan (a total of 580 units) yet provides only 20 extra parking spaces. The local streets, particularly the intersection of Bourke and McEvoy, are already heavily congested. Adding thousands of new residents without adequate parking or road infrastructure will create a permanent traffic gridlock, making it increasingly difficult for local residents to navigate the area or find parking for essential services.
3. Infrastructure and Amenity Strain
Our local services are already at a breaking point. I frequently observe the 304 bus and Green Square trains operating at full capacity, often passing by commuters because there is no room. Adding "a small country town's worth of residents" to this specific block without a proportional increase in public transport and amenities—such as library space and seating—is unsustainable and will significantly diminish the quality of life for current residents.
4. Overbearing Scale and Wind Impacts
The proposed height is visually overbearing and entirely out of character with the existing streetscape. Furthermore, the creation of 30+ storey "walls" along these corridors poses a high risk of severe wind tunnel effects. As a pedestrian who uses these footpaths daily, I am concerned that the street-level environment will become hostile and potentially unsafe due to these downdrafts.
Conclusion
While I support sensible, sustainable growth in Waterloo, this specific proposal is excessive. The leap from 12 storeys to 31 is not a minor modification; it is a complete reimagining of the site that ignores the local context and the constraints of our infrastructure.
I urge the Department to reject these amendments and hold the developer to the scale originally approved by the City of Sydney.
Sincerely, Grant
Re: Submission of Objection – SSD-95997711 (903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo)
To the Planning Officer,
I am writing to formally lodge my strong objection to the proposed modifications for the residential development at 903-921 Bourke Street, Waterloo (SSD-95997711).
As a resident living directly across the road from this site, the proposed amendments represent a gross departure from the originally approved plans and will have a direct, detrimental impact on my daily life and the broader Waterloo community.
My objections are based on the following critical concerns:
1. Significant Loss of Solar Access
Living directly opposite the site, I am highly concerned by the proposal to increase the Bourke Street North building from 12 to 31 storeys, and the Young Street Tower from 21 to 38 storeys. This massive increase in height will result in severe overshadowing of my home and the surrounding public spaces. The cumulative effect of these towers, alongside the adjacent proposal at 881-885 Bourke Street, will drastically reduce natural light during the winter solstice, affecting both my well-being and the energy efficiency of my residence.
2. Traffic Congestion and Parking Shortfall
The proposal adds 233 additional apartments over the approved plan (a total of 580 units) yet provides only 20 extra parking spaces. The local streets, particularly the intersection of Bourke and McEvoy, are already heavily congested. Adding thousands of new residents without adequate parking or road infrastructure will create a permanent traffic gridlock, making it increasingly difficult for local residents to navigate the area or find parking for essential services.
3. Infrastructure and Amenity Strain
Our local services are already at a breaking point. I frequently observe the 304 bus and Green Square trains operating at full capacity, often passing by commuters because there is no room. Adding "a small country town's worth of residents" to this specific block without a proportional increase in public transport and amenities—such as library space and seating—is unsustainable and will significantly diminish the quality of life for current residents.
4. Overbearing Scale and Wind Impacts
The proposed height is visually overbearing and entirely out of character with the existing streetscape. Furthermore, the creation of 30+ storey "walls" along these corridors poses a high risk of severe wind tunnel effects. As a pedestrian who uses these footpaths daily, I am concerned that the street-level environment will become hostile and potentially unsafe due to these downdrafts.
Conclusion
While I support sensible, sustainable growth in Waterloo, this specific proposal is excessive. The leap from 12 storeys to 31 is not a minor modification; it is a complete reimagining of the site that ignores the local context and the constraints of our infrastructure.
I urge the Department to reject these amendments and hold the developer to the scale originally approved by the City of Sydney.
Sincerely, Grant
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
WATERLOO
,
New South Wales
Message
I am writing to firmly oppose the amended development. I live near the site, and I invested in this neighbourhood to build a stable, long‑term home for my family. This proposal, as it stands, undermines the liveability and sustainability of the area for current and future residents.
My objection is not to additional housing — it is to the wrong kind of housing. What is being proposed is 580 high‑priced apartments starting at nearly $1 million for a one‑bedroom unit. That does nothing for families, essential workers, or long‑term residents who need housing they can actually remain in as their circumstances change. This is density without community benefit.
My concerns fall into four key areas:
1. Critical evidence gaps
The contamination assessment is incomplete. Two new basements are proposed in areas with known vapour risks, yet final floor levels and full modelling are missing. Approving a project of this scale without complete contamination data is irresponsible.
The wind assessment relies on shielding from a neighbouring development that is not approved. If that project does not proceed, the modelling collapses. A revised assessment based only on approved developments is required.
2. Removal of community protections
The proposal seeks to bypass both the competitive design process and the community infrastructure levy — obligations that existed for good reason. The building is now nearly double the approved height, yet the developer wants to self‑assess design excellence. That is unacceptable for a 126‑metre tower on a heritage‑sensitive site.
The VPA was negotiated for a much smaller development. The public is being offered the same infrastructure despite a 55% increase in apartments. That is not a fair or reasonable exchange.
3. Affordable housing that may deliver nothing
The so‑called 12% affordable housing contribution is not binding. The applicant openly states they are not subject to the policy from which that figure is drawn. Without a binding VPA, the entire contribution can be paid out as cash, resulting in zero affordable dwellings on site.
This community needs actual homes — not financial offsets — for families, older residents, and essential workers who keep this area functioning.
4. No cumulative transport assessment
The proposal shifts transport pressure onto public infrastructure without assessing the combined impact of multiple major developments in the precinct. This is a significant oversight and must be addressed before any approval is considered.
I ask the Department to:
Require complete contamination assessments and vapour modelling
Require a revised wind assessment based only on approved developments
Reject the removal of Clause 6.21D and require independent design review
Reject the removal of Clause 6.14 or secure an equivalent binding contribution
Renegotiate the VPA to reflect the increased yield
Require affordable housing as actual on‑site dwellings, secured in perpetuity
Require a cumulative transport assessment
Hold a public hearing
This decision will determine whether Waterloo remains a mixed, inclusive community or becomes a precinct only accessible to those who can afford premium apartments. I urge the Department to act in the long‑term interests of the neighbourhood.
Sincerely,
Sean Brown
My objection is not to additional housing — it is to the wrong kind of housing. What is being proposed is 580 high‑priced apartments starting at nearly $1 million for a one‑bedroom unit. That does nothing for families, essential workers, or long‑term residents who need housing they can actually remain in as their circumstances change. This is density without community benefit.
My concerns fall into four key areas:
1. Critical evidence gaps
The contamination assessment is incomplete. Two new basements are proposed in areas with known vapour risks, yet final floor levels and full modelling are missing. Approving a project of this scale without complete contamination data is irresponsible.
The wind assessment relies on shielding from a neighbouring development that is not approved. If that project does not proceed, the modelling collapses. A revised assessment based only on approved developments is required.
2. Removal of community protections
The proposal seeks to bypass both the competitive design process and the community infrastructure levy — obligations that existed for good reason. The building is now nearly double the approved height, yet the developer wants to self‑assess design excellence. That is unacceptable for a 126‑metre tower on a heritage‑sensitive site.
The VPA was negotiated for a much smaller development. The public is being offered the same infrastructure despite a 55% increase in apartments. That is not a fair or reasonable exchange.
3. Affordable housing that may deliver nothing
The so‑called 12% affordable housing contribution is not binding. The applicant openly states they are not subject to the policy from which that figure is drawn. Without a binding VPA, the entire contribution can be paid out as cash, resulting in zero affordable dwellings on site.
This community needs actual homes — not financial offsets — for families, older residents, and essential workers who keep this area functioning.
4. No cumulative transport assessment
The proposal shifts transport pressure onto public infrastructure without assessing the combined impact of multiple major developments in the precinct. This is a significant oversight and must be addressed before any approval is considered.
I ask the Department to:
Require complete contamination assessments and vapour modelling
Require a revised wind assessment based only on approved developments
Reject the removal of Clause 6.21D and require independent design review
Reject the removal of Clause 6.14 or secure an equivalent binding contribution
Renegotiate the VPA to reflect the increased yield
Require affordable housing as actual on‑site dwellings, secured in perpetuity
Require a cumulative transport assessment
Hold a public hearing
This decision will determine whether Waterloo remains a mixed, inclusive community or becomes a precinct only accessible to those who can afford premium apartments. I urge the Department to act in the long‑term interests of the neighbourhood.
Sincerely,
Sean Brown
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
WATERLOO
,
New South Wales
Message
I live on Morehead Street, about 280 metres from the former Sydney Water site on Bourke Street. I bought my home here to put down roots: to be close to family, to raise my child in a neighbourhood with footpaths, parks, and a real community, and to grow old here. I am writing because this proposal, as submitted, will make that harder for people like me and significantly harder for people more vulnerable than me.
My concern is not that this site should have less housing. It is that this neighbourhood needs housing that lets people age in place rather than being pushed out when their circumstances change. Housing close enough to schools and family that grandparents can do the school run and adult children can check in on parents. Housing that a nurse, a teacher, or a childcare worker can actually afford. What is proposed here is 580 apartments starting at $985,000 for a one bedroom. That is not housing for the people who need it most.
My objections cover three areas: gaps in the evidence base that should pause this application; community protections being removed without binding replacement; and an affordable housing offer that, on close reading of the applicant’s own documents, may produce no affordable dwellings at all.
The evidence base
The contamination assessment is incomplete
Two new basements are proposed that were not part of the original approved consent D/2021/1415. The Young Street North basement sits in the northern part of the site where the applicant’s own contamination consultant identified historical soil vapour contamination from the former Lawrence Dry Cleaners. The Bourke Street South basement has not been fully assessed.
The contamination cover letter (EI Australia, Appendix 13 of the EIS) states:
“While the finished floor level of the basement (BSS) in the south-eastern portion of the site is not available at the time of writing this letter… the potential of vapour intrusion risk into the proposed basement is considered unlikely.”*
I ask the Department to require finalised floor levels and full vapour intrusion modelling for both new basements before any consent is granted.
The wind assessment relies on an unapproved development
The wind report (Mel Consultants, Appendix 33) concludes that pedestrian safety standards are met, relying in part on wind shielding from the Coronation development at 881-885 Bourke Street. That project is currently under exhibition as an SSD and has not been approved. If Coronation is not built, or is built differently, this wind assessment is unreliable.
I ask the Department to require a revised wind assessment based only on approved developments.
Two community protections are being removed with nothing binding offered in return
When this site was originally rezoned and approved through the City of Sydney, two obligations applied. The first required a competitive design process, run twice for this site, providing independent scrutiny of design quality. The second required community infrastructure contributions for Green Square, recognising that a growing population needs schools, childcare, libraries, and open space.
This application seeks exemption from both.
The revised proposal is nearly double the approved height with no independent design review. At 126 metres on a heritage-sensitive site, self-assessment of design excellence by the developer’s own consultants is not sufficient.
The applicant’s own Social Impact Assessment (Sarah George Consulting, Appendix 17) acknowledges that Waterloo is already experiencing cumulative pressure on childcare, schools, recreation space, and aged care. The same application then seeks exemption from the levy that exists to fund those things.
On the Voluntary Planning Agreement: the VPA was negotiated for a development of 347-376 apartments. The same plaza, footpath widenings, and heritage square are now presented as community return for 580 apartments. The public receives identical infrastructure while the development grows 55% larger.
I ask the Department to refuse the exclusion of Clause 6.21D and Clause 6.14, and to require the VPA to be renegotiated to reflect the actual scale of what is proposed.
The affordable housing offer may produce no affordable dwellings
The planning statement (Sutherland & Associates, March 2026) presents a 12% affordable housing contribution on the uplift floor space as a significant community benefit. The same document states:
*“The City of Sydney Affordable Housing Program is an internal Council policy and the subject application is not bound by this Council policy.”*
The 12% figure comes from a policy this application is explicitly not bound by. Voluntary commitments in planning statements do not bind developers once consent is granted unless secured through a condition or Voluntary Planning Agreement. No binding VPA is proposed for the affordable housing component.
Both the mandatory 3% baseline under Clause 7.13 and the proposed 12% uplift contribution can be discharged through “an equivalent financial contribution” rather than actual dwellings. The entire affordable housing offer can be paid as cash, with no affordable dwelling built on this site.
This neighbourhood needs the family that can no longer afford the rent to stay near their children’s school. It needs the older resident who has lived here for thirty years to have somewhere to go when their circumstances change. It needs the community worker, the paramedic, the cleaner, to live within reach of the place they work.
I ask the Department to require affordable housing to be delivered as actual dwellings on this site, managed in perpetuity by a registered community housing provider, secured through a binding VPA that cannot be substituted with a financial contribution.
Cumulative transport has not been assessed
The EIS claims the proposal generates fewer vehicle trips than the approved DA by capping car parking at 376 spaces for 580 apartments. The transport burden is transferred to public transport, which is not assessed. The Coronation project, the Barings development on O’Dea Avenue, and the Waterloo Metro Quarter are each assessed individually as having negligible impact. Cumulatively, they do not.
I ask the Department to require a cumulative transport assessment covering all concurrent developments in the precinct before consent is granted.
Summary of requests
I ask the Department to:
- Require completed contamination assessments for both new basements, with finalised floor levels and vapour intrusion modelling, before consent is granted
- Require a revised wind assessment that does not rely on unapproved neighbouring development
- Refuse the exclusion of Clause 6.21D or require an independent design review
- Refuse the exclusion of Clause 6.14 or secure an equivalent contribution through a binding VPA
- Require the VPA to be renegotiated to reflect the 55% increase in apartment yield
- Require affordable housing as actual on-site dwellings, managed in perpetuity by a community housing provider, secured through a binding VPA, not dischargeable as a financial contribution
- Require a cumulative transport assessment across all concurrent developments in the precinct
- Direct that a public hearing be held
What happens on this site will shape what Waterloo becomes: whether it remains a place where people of different ages and incomes can stay and belong, or whether it becomes somewhere that only certain people can afford to enter. I am asking the Department to weigh that carefully.
My concern is not that this site should have less housing. It is that this neighbourhood needs housing that lets people age in place rather than being pushed out when their circumstances change. Housing close enough to schools and family that grandparents can do the school run and adult children can check in on parents. Housing that a nurse, a teacher, or a childcare worker can actually afford. What is proposed here is 580 apartments starting at $985,000 for a one bedroom. That is not housing for the people who need it most.
My objections cover three areas: gaps in the evidence base that should pause this application; community protections being removed without binding replacement; and an affordable housing offer that, on close reading of the applicant’s own documents, may produce no affordable dwellings at all.
The evidence base
The contamination assessment is incomplete
Two new basements are proposed that were not part of the original approved consent D/2021/1415. The Young Street North basement sits in the northern part of the site where the applicant’s own contamination consultant identified historical soil vapour contamination from the former Lawrence Dry Cleaners. The Bourke Street South basement has not been fully assessed.
The contamination cover letter (EI Australia, Appendix 13 of the EIS) states:
“While the finished floor level of the basement (BSS) in the south-eastern portion of the site is not available at the time of writing this letter… the potential of vapour intrusion risk into the proposed basement is considered unlikely.”*
I ask the Department to require finalised floor levels and full vapour intrusion modelling for both new basements before any consent is granted.
The wind assessment relies on an unapproved development
The wind report (Mel Consultants, Appendix 33) concludes that pedestrian safety standards are met, relying in part on wind shielding from the Coronation development at 881-885 Bourke Street. That project is currently under exhibition as an SSD and has not been approved. If Coronation is not built, or is built differently, this wind assessment is unreliable.
I ask the Department to require a revised wind assessment based only on approved developments.
Two community protections are being removed with nothing binding offered in return
When this site was originally rezoned and approved through the City of Sydney, two obligations applied. The first required a competitive design process, run twice for this site, providing independent scrutiny of design quality. The second required community infrastructure contributions for Green Square, recognising that a growing population needs schools, childcare, libraries, and open space.
This application seeks exemption from both.
The revised proposal is nearly double the approved height with no independent design review. At 126 metres on a heritage-sensitive site, self-assessment of design excellence by the developer’s own consultants is not sufficient.
The applicant’s own Social Impact Assessment (Sarah George Consulting, Appendix 17) acknowledges that Waterloo is already experiencing cumulative pressure on childcare, schools, recreation space, and aged care. The same application then seeks exemption from the levy that exists to fund those things.
On the Voluntary Planning Agreement: the VPA was negotiated for a development of 347-376 apartments. The same plaza, footpath widenings, and heritage square are now presented as community return for 580 apartments. The public receives identical infrastructure while the development grows 55% larger.
I ask the Department to refuse the exclusion of Clause 6.21D and Clause 6.14, and to require the VPA to be renegotiated to reflect the actual scale of what is proposed.
The affordable housing offer may produce no affordable dwellings
The planning statement (Sutherland & Associates, March 2026) presents a 12% affordable housing contribution on the uplift floor space as a significant community benefit. The same document states:
*“The City of Sydney Affordable Housing Program is an internal Council policy and the subject application is not bound by this Council policy.”*
The 12% figure comes from a policy this application is explicitly not bound by. Voluntary commitments in planning statements do not bind developers once consent is granted unless secured through a condition or Voluntary Planning Agreement. No binding VPA is proposed for the affordable housing component.
Both the mandatory 3% baseline under Clause 7.13 and the proposed 12% uplift contribution can be discharged through “an equivalent financial contribution” rather than actual dwellings. The entire affordable housing offer can be paid as cash, with no affordable dwelling built on this site.
This neighbourhood needs the family that can no longer afford the rent to stay near their children’s school. It needs the older resident who has lived here for thirty years to have somewhere to go when their circumstances change. It needs the community worker, the paramedic, the cleaner, to live within reach of the place they work.
I ask the Department to require affordable housing to be delivered as actual dwellings on this site, managed in perpetuity by a registered community housing provider, secured through a binding VPA that cannot be substituted with a financial contribution.
Cumulative transport has not been assessed
The EIS claims the proposal generates fewer vehicle trips than the approved DA by capping car parking at 376 spaces for 580 apartments. The transport burden is transferred to public transport, which is not assessed. The Coronation project, the Barings development on O’Dea Avenue, and the Waterloo Metro Quarter are each assessed individually as having negligible impact. Cumulatively, they do not.
I ask the Department to require a cumulative transport assessment covering all concurrent developments in the precinct before consent is granted.
Summary of requests
I ask the Department to:
- Require completed contamination assessments for both new basements, with finalised floor levels and vapour intrusion modelling, before consent is granted
- Require a revised wind assessment that does not rely on unapproved neighbouring development
- Refuse the exclusion of Clause 6.21D or require an independent design review
- Refuse the exclusion of Clause 6.14 or secure an equivalent contribution through a binding VPA
- Require the VPA to be renegotiated to reflect the 55% increase in apartment yield
- Require affordable housing as actual on-site dwellings, managed in perpetuity by a community housing provider, secured through a binding VPA, not dischargeable as a financial contribution
- Require a cumulative transport assessment across all concurrent developments in the precinct
- Direct that a public hearing be held
What happens on this site will shape what Waterloo becomes: whether it remains a place where people of different ages and incomes can stay and belong, or whether it becomes somewhere that only certain people can afford to enter. I am asking the Department to weigh that carefully.