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

To me this proposal is a Trojan horse, seeking to destroy the lives of the people living in the existing 80 flats and only replace them with 34 new appartments that will be considerably more expensive than what they are replacing.
We talk of housing crises, and this project is why we have such a problem. It’s removing small affordable appartments in the inner city and replacing them with less. I feel this project is abusing the process by claiming there are affordable units within the new building - but the existing building has 80 examples of affordable units, far more than in the new development.
The area of Potts point is characterised by these smaller units, most without car spaces since the area is highly connected through walkability and public transport. This new development doesn’t fit with that existing mould instead creating oversized appartments with so much parking that it would actively encourage driving.
As such I believe this development should be rejected since it willl benefit the few rather than the many.

I am making a submission as a resident and owner in 12-16 Challis Avenue, Potts Point

I object to the project

Please see attached submission as the owner of Apt 5, The Yellow House, 57-59 Macleay Street.

I am concerned that a ’fast track’ development application submitted to the NSW Department of Planning proposes to demolish 80 relatively affordable studio apartments in The Chimes and replace them with 34 apartments (a net loss of 46 dwellings). Of these, 25 will be 3-bedroom luxury dwellings; only 9 will be affordable housing, and then only for 15 years.

This proposal represents a significant reduction in overall housing stock, reduces the stock of affordable housing, greatly disadvantages renters in our community on lesser incomes and will only benefit wealthy property buyers.

The new building will be 13 storeys (50.05) metres high, in the vicinity of apartment blocks such as 4 Macleay which stand at only 25M, within the Potts Point Heritage Conservation Area (HCA). The Chimes is worthy of consideration as contributing to the HCA and, for that reason, being retained.

I am concerned that the ground floor retail space of cafes and ‘open eating areas’ will have environmental impacts with increased noise in a part of Macleay Street that is quiet and residential only.

I also object to the application, under the State Significant Development SSD) process, to enable the developer to bypass the local council (City of Sydney), which is opposed to the development and to fast track assessment and approval through NSW Planning.

I object to the concept proposal on the following grounds:
1. This is a heritage apartment building in the Modernist style, designed by the important emigre architect Hugo Stossel and one of some 30 modernist apartment blocks in the Potts Point, Elizabeth Bay Area which should be conserved.
2. This building provides some 80 affordable studios apartments whereas the proposed building at best will have 8 affordable apartments .... the net loss of housing stock, affordable housing and resident diversity is unacceptable
3. The building is capable of being remediated which is a more sustainable approach than demolition
4. The proposed 50+ metre height of the building is totally inconsistent with the surrounding buildings and will create a wind tunnel, shadowing and loss of views.
5. The design of the building does not fit the 19th and 20th century heritage character of the area

the DA should be refused.
yours
Jan Hatch

The concept proposal for The Chimes is a cynical attempt to use laws aimed at increasing housing
affordability as a loophole to justify the removal of low-cost housing and housing supply for profit. I
oppose the proposal and ask that you refuse it.

The Chimes currently accommodates 80 one-bedroom and studio apartments, providing essential
low-cost homes in an area that is close to transport, services and jobs. The proposed concept plan
would demolish all 80 homes to construct a new building with only 34 homes, 25 of which would be
luxury apartments and nine of which would be affordable housing for a minimum period of 15
years. The building’s height would increase from 35 metres to 50.5 metres.

The 25 market-priced luxury apartments proposed will not be affordable to the existing 80 plus
residents of the Chimes, most first home buyers, essential workers or anyone on a low or medium
income. Even the nine affordable homes will do little to improve affordability when considered in
the context that they come at the expense of 80 low-cost homes and will likely be returned to the
private market after 15 years.

The proposal for The Chimes is a disingenuous effort to exploit legislation intended to promote housing affordability as a loophole to eliminate low-cost housing and reduce overall housing stock for financial gain. I oppose the proposal and urge its rejection.

Housing Affordability

New South Wales is currently facing a serious housing affordability issue, which all tiers of government are striving to resolve. In response, the Government has implemented a variety of measures to expand housing availability, lower housing costs, and incentivise the inclusion of affordable dwellings in new developments.

At present, The Chimes consists of 80 studio and one-bedroom units that offer vital low-cost accommodation in a location with convenient access to transport, services, and employment. The submitted concept plan proposes demolishing all 80 units to make way for a new development with only 34 residences—25 of which are intended as high-end apartments, with just nine designated as affordable housing for a minimum duration of 15 years. The height of the building would increase from 35 metres to 50.5 metres.

Although the application suggests that the number of units is irrelevant at the concept stage, the quantity of housing is central to the proposal. It seeks approval to exceed current planning controls on height and floor space ratio in return for supposed affordability outcomes.

The 25 luxury apartments included in the new plan will be financially out of reach for the current residents, most first-time buyers, essential service workers, and people on low or moderate incomes. Even the nine so-called affordable units offer little meaningful benefit when they replace 80 low-cost homes and may revert to market prices after 15 years.

Despite the assertions in the environmental impact statement, the proposal is at odds with the objectives of the National Housing Accord, which targets the construction of 376,000 new, well-situated homes—including around 15,800 affordable and social housing units—by 2029. Rather than increasing supply, this plan would reduce the number of homes on the site by roughly 60 percent.

If housing affordability initiatives are applied inconsistently or work against one another, they will fail to address the crisis. This concept plan results in both a net decrease in available dwellings and the removal of affordable housing, driven solely by profit motives. The proposed increases in building height and floor area are not warranted.

x

Chimes Development Objection
As an owner & resident the Potts Point / Elizabeth Bay area, I am very concerned about the residential developments that have already been approved, in construction or submitted for approval.
I am all for densifying Sydney however it must be done is a well-considered way. Architectural heritage, affordable housing, excessive building height & bulk and ensuring that we retain the diverse local community, must all be taken into consideration. Developers should not be allowed to bully & push these controversial developments through the system without complying to the City of Sydney planning controls. This only benefits greedy developers and not the local area.
The residential development at 29 Billyard avenue, Elizabeth Bay (nearing completion) was approved for 9 high-end luxury apartments, removing from 34 affordable 1- & 2-bedroom apartments. This has significantly reduced housing density and removed a considerable number of affordable housings in the area. This majorly affects the diverse local community and only caters to the super wealthy. How is this densifying Sydney?
Following are my key objections:
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.

Thank you for taking these objections into consideration

I am a resident of the Macleay Regis and my west-facing unit looks directly onto the site of the proposed development. I would like to raise the following objections to the proposed redevelopment of the Chimes:
The size of the proposed development is much larger than the current building and yet will reduce the overall no.of dwellings by
60% and the no.of affordable apartments substantially to the detriment of the demographic mix of the area.
The proposed 9 affordable apartments for 15 years seems to be an attempt to do the least amount possible to appear to be addressing the affordable housing mandate of the NSW government and win approval for the project. It still represents a loss of over 70 currently affordable dwellings.
The proposed building will greatly dominate its surrounding buildings and is not at all sympathetic to the historic
precinct of Potts Point detracting from the heritage feel to the area which currently attracts many tourists and visitors
The bulk of the building will substantially rob existing Macleay St residents of their views and sunlight and privacy whilst
subjecting them to increased noise and congestion both during major demolition and after reconstruction
There is no advantage to the community from this proposal, only substantial negative impact particularly to west-facing Macleay Regis residents such as myself. The last thing Potts Point needs is more cafes and outdoor eating areas which are already prolific.
In summary, the proposal if passed will definitely adversely affect the local community to an unreasonable extent in
both the long and the short term whilst essentially providing benefit only to the developer. This would undoubtedly encourage other developers to disregard the intent of the planning guidelines and to treat the objectives of the fair housing process with cynicism.
A fairer resolution would be to commercially upgrade the current Chimes building with affordable units , allowing local residents to continue to enjoy their quality of lifestyle whilst providing a more aesthetically pleasing and diverse range of dwellings in keeping with the neighbourhood of Potts Point.
Please do not reward a cynical attempt to provide a mere 9 affordable dwellings, temporarily, at a huge cost to all other stakeholders. This is clearly not the intent of the NSW government's affordable housing policy.

Excessive bulk and height
The proposed building is hugely out of proportion with surrounding buildings. I understand that the request for additional height and fl oor space is ‘justifi ed’ with an offer of temporary provision of some low cost housing for 15 years. This offer strikes me as derisory. It exploits the needs of low income residents to provide a massive benefi t to the developers, at severe permanent cost to the streetscape and local environment.
Inadequate consultation with the affected community
The lack of adequate consultation with the local community adds to the sense that proposal is unserious and exploitative. I understand, though it is hard to believe, that only residents within 75 metres were asked for their views, and then only with very short notice for comments.
75 metres is only 1.5 times the height of the proposed building. It is as though the developers had said, “Let’s ask the folk who will be in the way if the thing falls over”. There would be residents in the shade of this tower at morning and afternoon sun elevations who have not been consulted – and of course many more who live, work, and enjoy the remarkable streetscape of the surrounding area.
I urge that this application be rejected.
Thank you for your attention.

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

This sort of development is turning our neighbourhood from a historically importantly diverse precinct to one which is becoming a place where wealthy people who can afford to pay multi - multi millions of dollars for 3 and 4 bedroom luxury apartments are moving to.

As someone who has lived in this area for over 60 years and has seen many changes – including the negative changes following the designation of KX as an R&R location for American soldiers fighting in Vietnam this level of ‘sweeping gentrification’ will be good for only one group of people -developers.

Everyone no matter how wealthy or how poor should have an equal opportunity to live in this area and to continue to contribute to its diversity and vitality and all the benefits this brings to a community.

In a housing crisis such as we are now experiencing ensuring we do not allow developers to build only for the wealthy is even more important than ever

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.

Our neighbourhood is unique. It is one of the – if not THE – most densely occupied areas in the country and contains so very many apartments representing different periods of architecture and design from the beautiful deco buildings of the 20s and 30s ( and even earlier) to the 40s and fifties, to the classic mid century buildings such as the Chimes and many others designed by well known architects such as Harry Seidler to more recent buildings in the 70s and 80s.

Here the beauty may be in the eye of the beholder but they are all a part of the heritage of your area and they catered for everyone with studios, one and two bedrooms being the majority. They need to be retained and not replaced with multi million dollar luxury 3 and 4 bedroom and bathroom and garage buildings which benefit greedy developers and do nothing for the community or for the housing shortage we are experiencing

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 – really important point because after 15years we know what is likely to happen…..and it is not more affordable apartments – more likely turn these too into luxury apartments.

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.”

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.

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.

Dear Sir/ Madam

I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed redevelopment of the Chimes site in Macleay St Potts Point .
I currently reside in the Pomeroy Building at number 14 and have done so since 2012. My apartment is on the 7th floor.

At the time we purchased the apartment in the building (my wife has since passed away) we did so because of the views it afforded us to the city, including a half view of the Harbour Bridge, the Opera House and the Overseas passenger terminal. The Chimes building was there and we took this into account when we purchased our apartment.

However, with the proposed development I will lose all of this view. There will be also issues with light because of the scale of the proposed two buildings. I am looking from my study window now and can see the Harbour Bridge and a ship at the Overseas passenger terminal. With the new proposed development I will lose all of this completely and be looking at two concrete buildings instead of one. I am also concerned about the afternoon shadows that this will cast onto my apartment.

The height and scale of these two buildings goes against every other building in the immediate area. The developer is obviously using a loophole with a percentage of affordable housing and completely devastating the amenity enjoyed by all the apartments opposite, not just Pomeroy. I believe any replacement building to the Chimes should not exceed it’s current height and any new building should be in keeping with the height limits of existing buildings.

Why should the amenity that myself and my neighbours currently enjoy be destroyed by a developer whose sole aim is to make as much money as possible using the current loopholes available.

Please refer to Chimes Objection Lot6 PDF attachemnt

Please see PDF attachment Chimes Objection OC

Submission of Christopher James Price Keely of 10C Challis Avenue, Potts Point (Strata Plan 9941)

I strongly object to the project. I spent the past 12 months working at the coalface of homelessness and housing insecurity for women aged 55+. As the Program Manager of Homes for Older Women, we constantly had a waiting list up to 80 older women seeking support to secure affordable rental accommodation. Many of the program's home seekers are divorced or widowed but due to time out of the workforce to raise families, they have much lower savings and superannuation than men. They simply cannot afford to buy a home and have been forced into the demoralising and highly expensive private rental market. There is a severe lack of low to medium priced studios, apartments and houses for sale and rent. Most accommodation is way beyond the reach of people on one income. Replacing 80 affordable studios in this project with 25, 3-bedroom luxury apartments is outrageous. In the housing and cost of living crises we need to retain and build as many affordable dwellings as possible. Having 9 affordable apartments (for only 15 years) as part of this project is a short-term and tokenistic component that goes against NSW Government and City of Sydney policies to increase affordable housing. The loss of 46 dwellings does not just mean the removal of 46 x reasonably priced shelter. The flow-on effects of a lack of affordable accommodation, and the housing insecurity and homelessness it creates, has a devastating impact on individuals and communities.

Opposition to SSD Application 79316759 by Executive Committee SP 9941

Please see attached submission