Concept Proposal for Mixed Use with Affordable Housing – 45-53 Macleay Street, Potts Point

This project is completely out of line with current housing needs. We are in a housing crisis, taking away 80 low cost properties and replacing them with 34 high cost properties, makes absolutely no sense at all. Except as a landgrab for the wealthy.
It would also destroy the area's historical ambience, a point to be seriously protected.
Please do not allow this project to proceed.

I thoroughly object to the proposal to replace relatively affordable studio apartments with luxury apartments. I object on the grounds that the loss of heritage and threat to preservation of Potts Point history is great in this case, and that reasonably priced dwellings in Sydney that cater to single income households are becoming more and more rare, alienating many people from areas historically associated with arts and cultural production. As a Potts Point resident I implore you to deny this proposal and help preserve the history and legacy of the area and slow the disturbing decline of affordability in inner Sydney.

I object due to the reduction of dwellings

This project should not be approved. Similar projects have been rejected several times by the council and is strongly opposed by the community. Despite being in the middle of a housing crisis - where we need more supply and need to drastically expand genuinely affordable housing- this project is an example of a developer attempting to redevelop a large number of apartments that have traditionally been affordable due to their age and small size, and replace them with less, more expensive housing. Even though the latest version of this development calls itself affordable housing, it will actually undermine affordability. Affordable housing needs to be real and long term, not only for 15 years. Developers shouldn't be allowed to exploit planning rules which are designed to deliver more housing and more affordable housing, but actually deliver the opposite, which is what is proposed here.

Replacing 80 affordable dwellings with 34 apartments is not consistent with NSW Government and City of Sydney policies to increase affordable housing. City of Sydney considers it imperative that new developments do not result in a greater than 15% net loss of dwellings. In this instance there will be a net loss of 71 relatively affordable dwellings, as the 25 three-bedroom apartments that make up the 34 new ones will also certainly not be affordable to “key workers who need to travel to the city every day” (a stated aim of the NSW policy).

While nine apartments will be affordable housing or social housing, which is to be managed by a community housing provider, there will be a net loss of 46 dwellings almost 60%. In addition, the 9 apartments will only be allocated for social housing for 15 years, after which they can be sold on the open market.

I strongly object to the proposal to redevelop 45-53 Macleay Street, Potts Point. We need to maintain the studio apartments like in this building. They are some of the only relatively affordable housing anyone can buy or rent in the area. This development will contribute to further gentrification of the area. The proposed affordable housing is only temporary and won't compensate for the loss of housing that currently exists.

(1) Significant Loss of Affordable Housing:
Replacing 80 affordable dwellings with just 34 apartments is not consistent with NSW Government and City of Sydney policies to increase affordable housing. City of Sydney now considers it imperative that all new developments do not result in a greater than 15% net loss of dwellings. While 9 apartments will be ‘affordable housing’, there will be a net loss of 46 dwellings, which equates to almost 60%. In addition, the 9 apartments will only be allocated for affordable housing for 15 years, after which they can be sold or rented on the open market, and the residents displaced. It also potentially provides the developer with a massive windfall after 15 years, as well as the right to build a much bigger building than would otherwise be allowed.

This proposal should not be considered in isolation, but in the context of significant loss of other affordable housing resulting from recent development approvals in the area, including:
• 11A and 13A Wylde Street, Potts Point
• 51-57 Bayswater Road, Rushcutters Bay

(2) Loss of Heritage
The Chimes building is a Modernist building designed by architect Hugo Stossell in 1964 and one of seven of his buildings in the area. An independent heritage assessment report provided to City of Sydney in December 2024, says the postwar building is contributory to the Potts Point HCA, and recommends that it be retained. Demolition of The Chimes and the erection of a high rise building in its place will have a detrimental impact on the Potts Point HCA, and in particular this part of Macleay Street which is quiet and surrounded by heritage listed and art deco buildings. In this regard, it must be noted that the ‘fast track’ process “requires the consent authority to consider the character of the local area or the desired future character for areas under transition”. The HCA has already been significantly diminished following approvals to demolish a number of its character buildings including, most recently, contributory buildings at 11A and 13A Wylde Street.

(3) Excessive height and bulk
The proposed development, 13 storeys and 50.05 metres high, is excessive and significantly out of proportion to surrounding buildings, which have an average height of only about 20-30 metres. While this excess will be permanent, the trade-off of providing a mere 9 affordable apartments will only be in place for 15 years.

(4) Proposed retail outlets including cafes and outdoor eating areas
This part of Macleay Street is a quiet residential area. The Developers Heritage Impact Statement quotes the Sydney Development Council Plan (SDCP) at 6.1.2.2 as follows: “Macleay Street and Wylde Street – The locality has a unique streetscape …. has a residential and leafy character, characterised by a streetscape quality…”. The nearest cafes and restaurants are one block up the road. The proposal to include ground floor and outdoor eateries is both unnecessary and will generate undue noise from patrons and loud music. There is if anything, an over-supply of cafes, restaurants, and bars in the Potts Point area. This part of the proposal seems to be included only for the purpose of bringing the application within the fast-track state significant development process, rather than any bona fide attempt to address a need for such commercial outlets. It is contrary to the policy that “requires the consent authority to consider the character of the local area or the desired future character for areas under transition.”

(5) Construction and Excavation
This development application process allows insufficient time for non-expert residents to consider fully and comprehend clearly voluminous documentation in support of it but, but there is genuine concern about the potential adverse implications for surrounding buildings and the amenity of neighbours of a design of this scale, which includes excavation to provide for three levels of underground parking.

(6) Lack of Community Consultation
Only residents with 75 metres of this proposed development site were notified of this development application, and then only given about three weeks to consider voluminous and complex documentation accompanying the application. This is patently inadequate and does not indicate any bona fide attempt to engage in meaningful consultation with residents and the public about what is purported to be a ‘state significant development.’ If it is of genuine state significance then everyone potentially adversely affected (which includes people who live beyond the 75-metre radius) must be given proper notice, and a more reasonable time to respond.

I object to this proposal, because it would result in the loss of housing supply and would reduce affordability in the inner city. Sydney is already one of the most expensive cities in the world. All levels of government have acknowledged that we are in a housing crisis. This development would be counter to the public interest because it would worsen the housing crisis. This proposal will not contribute to housing affordability, when it is undermining supply, and is not proposing to deliver any permanent affordable housing.

This project, if approved, would represent a net loss of dwellings and a massive loss of (relatively) affordable housing to be replaced by housing for the rich. It is a blatant abuse of the planning process that the developer is attempting to have it approved under the guise of affordable housing. 9 dwellings of "affordable housing" for a period of 15 years, vs 80 already existing affordable studios. Were this to be approved, it would make a mockery of the government's claims to be concerned with supply and affordability.
The heritage value of the existing building is also worthy of consideration, but that's barely worth discussing because the development proposal is so grossly against the public interest.

I am writing as an elected City of Sydney Councillor, and Chair of the Council’s Housing for All Advisory Panel.

I am writing to object to the proposal to demolish a large number of studio apartments (80) and replace them with 34 apartments.

My primary objections to this proposal are because of the significant loss of housing supply, and because of the loss of some of the scarce, remaining, relatively affordable private housing supply which exists in the area.

I note that there is minimal and only temporary affordable housing proposed. In practice, what is proposed will not compensate for the loss of lower cost housing the existing apartments provide.

Contrary to the claims in the proponent’s proposal, the housing listed as “affordable housing” in this proposal does not meet the criteria to be considered affordable housing in the City of Sydney Council’s schemes, so would not contribute to council meeting its affordable housing targets under the City of Sydney Council Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) as stated.

Further details -

It is important to acknowledge that the City of Sydney Council has identified the loss of smaller, older and relatively affordable apartments in Potts Point, such as those in the Chimes Building, to create larger, luxury housing, as a key local problem which needs to be addressed.

Small studio apartments play a key role in providing relatively affordable private housing in the area. Their loss and replacement with larger, more expensive housing will have a significant impact on the surrounding area, reducing diversity and contributing further to gentrification to what is already one of the most expensive suburbs to live in Australia.

In response to significant local concern, over the last two years the City of Sydney Council has progressed urgent changes to our planning rules to protect against “net dwelling loss” such as is proposed with this development.

That is, to protect against developments such as is proposed here - where a development leads to a reduction of more than 15% in the number of dwellings – the Council has exhibited and unanimously approved strong “dwelling retention” planning rules. Further details can be found https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/policy-planning-changes/your-feedback-proposed-changes-reduce-loss-of-housing

The council has acknowledged that, although the studios at risk from developments like these are not formally protected as affordable housing, they play a key role in maintaining some affordability for the area.

I note that the proponent has sought to access a fast-tracking planning proposal for this development, whereby the development will not be determined by the local council. However, the dwelling retention rules and the data on housing supply and affordability that supported the council’s planning proposal – found here at https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/ppr/finalisation/dwelling-retention – are directly relevant to understanding the real impact of this proposal, and should be carefully considered.

I note that the proposal includes provide for temporary affordable housing, limited to 15 years.

Contrary to the proponents’ claims in their supporting paperwork, it is not correct that the housing called “affordable housing” in their proposal would contribute to the City of Sydney Council Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) targets.

The City of Sydney clearly outline in our policy documents that making housing more affordable is a priority - it is one of the main aims of our planning instruments and in the Council's Community Strategic Plan. We have strong targets to grow affordable housing in our area. We are aiming for 7.5% of the LGA to be affordable housing by 2036, and 7.5% to be social, public or community housing.

But the City of Sydney Council correctly understand that affordable housing must be genuinely affordable housing. We have established a definition or threshold for affordable housing which is not here - housing with rents set at a rate of no more than 30% of very low income households, low income household or moderate income households (not just a discount from market rent which may not, actually, be affordable) and housing that is affordable in perpetuity (not for 15 years only).

We have established these definitions to ensure that we are tracking and reporting on housing that is genuinely affordable, not just housing which calls itself “affordable housing” but doesn’t deliver any real affordability gains for our city.

Only housing which meets the council’s minimum definitions of affordable housing contributes to meeting the affordable housing targets set by the City of Sydney and in our plans.

I note that the proponent has sought to access this approval pathway which bypasses the council, and there have been earlier development applications for this site which have been rejected.

The council’s assessment of why earlier and similar versions of the development should not be approved were detailed and extensive. They include but not are limited to concern about the design, heritage impacts and affordability, and are also relevant here.

Finally, and importantly, I note that the NSW Government’s stated intent when creating these fast-tracked pathways including to increase supply and help address the crisis in housing affordability.

The proposed development will have the opposite effect – reducing supply and reducing the amount of relatively affordable housing in what is already one of the most expensive suburbs in Australia.

It would be strongly counter to the public interest and public intent to allow the development to go ahead in its current form.

Thank you

I oppose on the project for the following main reasons:
+ The significant loss of existing affording housing that The Chimes at 45 to 53 Macleay Street provides. It is extremely concerning that 80 existing affordable studio apartments will be replaced by the project with nine affordable housing apartments with the developer/owner then being able to convert those nine apartments from 'affordable housing' to open market housing' in 15 years' time. Potts Point needs affordable housing now and in the longer term to house all those service people who allow our village to operate and house the creatives and arts institution employees who make our village and city thrive , and give it character.
+ The bulk and height of the project are not in keeping with our heritage area, one often compared to quarters in Paris. Such comparisons will be lost as Macleay Street under such a development is cast with long shadows and wind tunnels.
+ The Modernist building, The Chimes, designed by Hugo Stossell should be conserved. It was obviously a ground-breaking design in 1964 perhaps bringing controversy yet the architect unlike the architect of this current project was sensitive to bulk allowing light to stream through to Macleay Street and placed on the street corner to stand back and give space to surrounding significant heritage buildings.
+ My apartment is at Selsdon at 16 Macleay Street. I question whether residents in my building, and other surrounding buildings, were notified of this development? While we will be not directly impacted by a loss of light or breeze by the project, there is considerable concern around loss of heritage and character. Potts Point is unique and we are all aware of the need to conserve it. The time frame and deadline for submissions (falling over the Easter and Anzac period) have prevented me from notifying fellow concerned residents.

I would be grateful if you considered my concerns and rejected the project.

I am a former resident in THE CHIMES. I have lived in the neighbourhood for almost 20 years and am active in the King’s Cross community. I object to this development proposal due to the net loss in the number of homes, and the loss of 80 low-cost homes. This represents a degradation of the availability of affordable small homes in our community. I note that similar developments currently in progress (such as the two on Billyard Avenue, to which I also strongly object) are doing the same, supercharging gentrification in the area. This irreparably alters the cultural fabric of our community because it locks young people, creative workers, essential workers (and others who are simply ‘not rich’) out of living here. The 15-year affordability promise for just nine apartments — a pathetically tokenistic quantity — is both unreliable and too short; these promises must be upheld in perpetuity. I would prefer not to see this luxury development proceed at all.

The local community hates these developments. They have previously resulted in legal action. I have no doubt this will, too. I ask the NSW state government’s team to stop this development at THE CHIMES and others like it. You are ruining our community by removing affordable small homes and acting sycophantically towards developers.

Please see attachment for detailed comments

To whom it may concern

I would like to lodge an objection to the concept development lodged by Time & Place CHIMES Development Pty Ltd of The CHIMES at 45-53 Macleay St Potts Point.

Key Objections To The CHIMES Development Proposal

Heritage:
Potts Point and Elizabeth Bay display a unique representation of Sydney’s architectural styles from colonial times to the mid 20th Century. The mid 20th Century architecture is predominantly made up of Art Deco and Modernist buildings. While Modernist buildings in the past have not been recognised, their contribution to the architectural and social fabric of the area is increasingly being acclaimed and the City has updated its inventory for the Potts Point Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) to include interwar and post war buildings and is reviewing the status of post war apartment buildings across the local government area for contributory status.

The CHIMES is a typical modernist block. It was designed by eminent Hungarian architect Hugo Stossel who arrived in Sydney as a refugee in 1939 after escaping Nazism. It should not be considered as “detracting” from this heritage area while the contribution of mid-Century modernist architecture in the region is under examination.

The Potts Point Heritage Conservation Area in which The CHIMES is situated is quoted in books relating to Art Deco and Modernist heritage of the Potts Point area as “not just a collection of 20th century buildings but a clearly defined and preserved slice of Sydney’s physical and cultural history” It is not a place to be destroyed for high rise buildings that prioritise profit to developers, but a place to be preserved for a diverse community and for the cultural and historical value, for posterity.

Excessive Height and Bulk:
Besides contributing to post war architecture, as stated The CHIMES building stands in the Potts Point Heritage Conservation Area and a proposed development of 13 storeys at 50 metres high is excessive and significantly out of proportion to surrounding buildings, which have an average height of only 20-30 metres. A building of these proportions will not enhance this valuable heritage area.

The developer commissioned and paid for a Heritage Impact Statement (HIS), attached to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) ( 27/3/2025), it acknowledges that the site is in a heritage conservation area but disagrees with the updated 2024 independent heritage assessment report which sees The CHIMES as a “contributory building of significance to the Potts Point Heritage Conservation Area” and recommends that the CHIMES should be retained on these grounds. It continues to argue that the architect and the building is of no significance and that a massive high rise building in its place will enhance the heritage conservation area and the village atmosphere of this lower part of Macleay Street. This conclusion is totally illogical and misleading.

Over-Shadowing and Privacy:
It appears from basic drawings published by Urban Talk the height and bulk of this new 50 metre building will tower over adjacent Victorian terraces and the excessive height will see many adjoining homes lose significant sunlight, especially during winter.

The impact of increased height and scale over shadowing and lack of privacy for some residents is unacceptable particularly when assessed in the context that an extra 30% of height allowance to the proposed project is because it delivers affordable housing. Particularly as the “affordable housing” is not available to purchase helping our first homebuyers and local workers to live in the area.

Affordable Housing:
While 9 apartments included in this new proposal are described as “affordable housing” it is managed by a community housing provider. So although it appears there will be a loss of 71 affordable dwellings and 9 will be replaced there is actually a loss of 80 affordable dwellings as The CHIMES building currently offers affordable properties for rent or purchase to everyone. This allows first home buyers to enter the housing market and/or local workers who don’t qualify for community housing but still earn lower incomes to live and work in the area.

It also seems nonsensical to place residents who qualify for community housing (so are on extremely low incomes) in an expensive area. Wouldn’t that increase the pressure and stresses of our high cost of living upon people who are already struggling?

In conclusion, it seems grossly imbalanced to allow a monstrosity to be built negatively impacting on the look of the area and negatively impacting many local residents simply for 9 affordable properties that at not available to anyone. This can only benefit the developer.


Ground Floor Commercial:
The development proposes ground floor retail spaces to include cafes and ‘open eating areas’. This part of Macleay Street leading into Wylde Street, in the Potts Point HCA (from Challis Avenue down towards Wylde Street) is a quiet residential-only area of Macleay Street. The Developers Heritage Impact Statement quotes the Sydney Development Council Plan (SDCP) at 6.1.2.2 as follows: “Macleay Street and Wylde Street – The locality has a unique streetscape …. has a residential and leafy character, characterised by a streetscape quality…”

The proposal to include ground floor and outdoor eateries is both unnecessary and will generate undue noise from patrons and loud music. There is if anything, an over-supply of cafes, restaurants, and bars in the Potts Point area. This part of the proposal seems to be included only for the purpose of bringing the application within the fast-track state significant development process, rather than any bona fide attempt to address a need for such commercial outlets. It is contrary to the policy that “requires the consent authority to consider the character of the local area or the desired future character for areas under transition.”

Construction, Excavation and Lack of Community Consultation:
This development application process allows insufficient time for non-expert residents to consider fully and comprehend clearly voluminous and complex documentation accompanying the application. This is patently inadequate and does not indicate any bona fide attempt to engage in meaningful consultation with residents and the public about what is described as a ‘state significant development.’ but there is genuine concern about the potential adverse implications for surrounding buildings and the effect on the amenity of neighbouring properties from a design of this scale, which also includes excavation to provide for three levels of underground parking. Residents must be given proper notice, and a more reasonable time to respond as three weeks is clearly insufficient.

Furthermore, due to the height of the building residents from more than 75 meters away will be affected. Why were residents only within 75 metres of this proposed development notified? All residents who will be affected by this development should be given notice not just people living within 75 meters.

Conclusion:
The demolition of a low-rise post war building designed by Hungarian architect Hugo Stossel who arrived in Sydney as a refugee in 1939 after escaping Nazism is something that should be preserved, not eradicated. A post war building that is located in an heritage area being replaced by an excessively high, modern, monstrosity of a building that not only overshadows and reduces the privacy of local residents it also detracts from the heritage area and surrounding buildings. Why do we classify these areas of heritage importance if it means nothing and there isn’t any protection to preserve them simply because the government can’t supply affordable housing itself. So, to compensate for this, it allows developers to increase their profit margins and destroy valuable heritage areas as long as they supply a few token “affordable apartments” and these "affordable apartments" are only available for rental to people who qualify, therefore this is not providing opportunities for first home buyers or for local workers on lower wages to either rent or purchase.

The mixed use aspect is also unnecessary as the commercial area of Kings Cross/Potts Point is large enough with an oversupply of restaurants and cafes already. We currently have serious rat issues and parking problems and more restaurants and bars will only exacerbate these issues further. In addition the lower end of Macleay St is a quieter residential area and it should remain that way.

Therefore It is clear that demolishing The CHIMES and erecting a high rise building in its place will have a detrimental impact on the Potts Point Heritage Conservation Area and this part of Macleay Street which is quiet and surrounded by heritage listed and art deco buildings.

However, if demolishing a building of significant heritage value in a heritage conservation area cannot be stopped then it should be replaced by a low-rise building that is tastefully designed to fit into this valuable area with reference to the original architect, Hugo Stossel and let it sit quietly on site in this heritage conservation area.

Thank you for considering my objections and I hope this development is not approved in its proposed form.

Please see the attached document

I am objecting to the development proposal, and my objections are outlined in the attached letter.

In the middle of the housing crisis we need to build more affordable housing among other housing types. Potts Point is centrally located with ready access to all forms of infrastructure. I recommend all efforts to build up rather than out.