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

Please see attached submission.

I have lived in Potts Point for over 20 years and was deeply saddened by this proposal for our community and those it directly affects. I am all for new developments but only if they are designed with careful thought & respect for the neighbouring buildings and their architectural context. We must also learn from past mistakes and not make them again. This development appears to only line developers pockets and house a select few. This comes at a huge cost to so many residents nearby that have called Potts Point their home for many years. The impact this will have on our Grand Dame Macleay Regis alone should be reason for refusal and complete re-working of the design, height & scale.
I wish to lodge an objection to this proposal based on the following issues:
1. Design is not in keeping with the streetscape and is definitely not in keeping with the Potts Point / Elizabeth Bay Conservation Area. As residents we all enjoy the history and beauty of Macleay Regis & other surrounding buildings like the Mayfair & Yellow House. The Chimes (1961) should never have been allowed especially when one looks at the photos of the beautiful Victorian terraces that were torn down. To right the wrongs of the past, this site (and all future sites) should not allow high rise developments, instead it should acknowledge that current plans are inappropriate & excessive for the area.
Were Macleay St wider, like the streets in New York, we could cope with high rise buildings on both sides of the streets but Macleay St is only 1 lane traffic each way and thus not far enough apart to not cause major impact to the visual character and sunlight / sky scape in the area. 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.

2. Impact the “actual build” will have on the area – this is only serving to line the developers pockets whilst we as a community have to live through a major build and the disruption it will cause. 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.

3. The cruel sunlight & iconic view loss to nearby residents, most notably at beautiful Heritage item, Macleay Regis & the Yellow House.This will cause significant overshadowing of many nearby apartments and also the surrounding footpaths used by all residents.This will have significant health / quality of life issues for many nearby residents.
My mother (78 years old) lives in Pomeroy and her apartment is located on the front façade side and she will lose hours of sunlight.
She spends more time at home now and I know this will affect her physical & mental health.

4. Wind tunnel - Ikon is an eyesore & created a major wind tunnel. I personally sold and moved from Rockwall Gardens (1a Tusculum St) because of this. I fear this building will do the same to the northern end of Macleay St / Wylde St & MacDonald Lane.

5. 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 have highlighted below what I believe is the clear reason this should be refused.
Looking at the South Sydney LEP 1998
The site is within the Elizabeth Bay/ Potts Point Conservation Area. and this proposal impacts on the heritage significance of the area and DOES NOT comply with objective (c) of the LEP.
(c) to ensure that building form including alterations and additions, is in character with the surrounding built environment and does not detract from the amenity enjoyed by nearby residents or the existing quality of the environment,

Please see attached PDF distributed on behalf of the Board of Macleay Regis Ltd

Subject: Objection to Proposed Development at 45–53 Macleay Street, Potts Point (SSD-934)

Dear Mr Garrett

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at 45–53 Macleay Street, Potts Point, as outlined in the application lodged under the State Significant Development (SSD) process.

I reside in the Pomeroy Building with my young daughter. We have an open terrace on Level 4 at the side of the apartment which joins the wall of the Macleay Regis.
I would be directly opposite the proposed development. The loss of the feeling of open space, the loss of view and the impact of afternoon shadows would devastate the amenity we currently enjoy, particularly as this serves as a play area for my young daughter and her friends and an entertainment area for myself and friends. The fact that the proposed apartments will look directly onto my terrace will destroy any privacy we currently enjoy. We will lose our privacy completely having several floors looking directly onto the terrace.

The proposed 13-storey development is completely out of scale with the surrounding neighbourhood. At 50.05 metres, it would tower over nearby buildings in a predominantly low- to mid-rise area, disrupting streetscape cohesion and overshadowing neighbouring properties. The proposal is incompatible with the desired future character of the area as outlined in local planning controls.

The proposal seeks to demolish 80 existing, relatively affordable studio apartments in The Chimes and replace them with only 34 new apartments—a net loss of 46 dwellings. While 9 of these new apartments are designated as ‘affordable housing,’ they will only be so for 15 years, after which they can be sold or rented on the open market. This is not a long-term solution to the housing crisis; it is a short-sighted move that favors developer profits over community need.
The City of Sydney has policies that developments should not result in a net dwelling loss of more than 15%, yet this proposal would result in a loss of nearly 60%. Such a drastic reduction is unacceptable, especially in the context of ongoing displacement of lower-income residents from the inner city.

The impact on heritage and community character will be significant.
The Chimes, a 1964 modernist building by Hugo Stossel, is a contributory structure within the Potts Point Heritage Conservation Area (HCA). An independent heritage assessment supports its retention. The replacement of this building with a 50.05-metre-high tower—more than double the height of adjacent buildings like 4 Macleay—will permanently damage the character and heritage fabric of the area.
The Potts Point HCA has already suffered from recent demolitions, such as those at 11A and 13A Wylde Street. Continuing this trend risks eroding the unique architectural and social identity of the area.

The inclusion of ground floor retail, including cafes and open eating areas, in a quiet, residential part of Macleay Street introduces commercial activity that is not consistent with the existing zoning or neighborhood character. This would increase noise, foot traffic, and strain on local infrastructure.
The proposal’s three levels of basement car parking would require significant excavation in a dense, urban, and historically sensitive area. This raises concerns about structural impact on neighboring buildings, increased construction noise, and potential long-term environmental effects.


This application bypasses the City of Sydney through the SSD fast-track process, despite the council’s strong opposition. The project takes advantage of new affordable housing incentives not to genuinely address the housing crisis, but to gain approval for excessive bulk and scale. This is not in the public interest and undermines trust in the planning system.

For the reasons outlined above, I strongly urge the Department of Planning—or ideally, the Independent Planning Commission—to reject this proposal. This development fails to meet key planning objectives relating to housing affordability, heritage protection, and appropriate urban development. It benefits developers at the expense of long-term community needs, social equity, and local character.

It will certainly have a significant impact on the amenity the my young daughter and I currently enjoy


Kind regards
Rebecca Laurie

Please see attachment.

I would like to lodge an objection to the concept development application lodged by T&P Chimes Development Pty Ltd on the following grounds. I do NOT support this proposal. It is a “sneaky” attempt to use the law regarding affordable housing supply to circumvent proper planning process and detrimentally affect the local Potts Point area by removing 80 one bedroom and studio units occupied by long term, older residents and those renting on low incomes.
KEY OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSAL
(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 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. It is a short-term solution to the affordable housing crisis, which provides the developer with a massive windfall and will result in the further displacement of these residents after 15 years. It is also clear that no assessment has been made as to what social and infrastructure facilities if any are available in this densely populated area for these residents. Additionally, the 25 luxury apartments will not be affordable for lower income earners or/and essential workers who need to live in the vicinity of Sydney city. The original DA application had a mix of 1,2 and 3 bedroom apartments. This proposal has removed these while retaining the more highly priced 3 bedroom units aimed at wealthy purchasers at the expense of the current demographic of Potts Point.
There is additionally the possibility that once the DA is approved the developer will lodge a Section 96 or variation application to change the mix of apartments as it is doubtful that the type of purchasers being aimed at by the developer will want to live in a building with social housing.
This proposal cannot be considered in isolation, but in the context of significant loss of other affordable housing and to the detriment of the historical character of the Potts Point HCA resulting from recent development approvals, in other areas including 11A and 13A Wylde Street, Potts Point, and 51-57 Bayswater Road, Rushcutters Bay.
(2) Social Impact
The Potts Point area has historically had a large number of studio and one bedroom units, probably close to 70% of available housing. Many people who live in these units are single, a large number are women and many are elderly often with significant medical needs. If they are displaced by developments such as that being proposed by Time and Place they have few housing options available to them. Those that work in the city, in local businesses including restaurants and coffees shops or at nearby St Vincents Hospital will also be affected.
The replacement of the large number of units that serve the needs of single people or lone occupants with luxurious 3-4 bedroom apartments puts the social fabric of the area at risk of disappearing to become another Mosman or Double Bay.
(3) Loss of Heritage
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 20-30 metres. While this excess will be permanent, the trade-off (including 9 affordable apartments) will cease after 15 years.
As noted above the In-Fill Housing Legislation states that such a proposal “requires the consent authority to consider the character of the local area or the desired future character for areas under transition” The Potts Point HCA area in which the CHIMES is situated as quoted in books on the Art Deco and Modernist heritage of the Potts Point area is, “not just a collection of 20th century buildings but a clearly defined and preserved slice of Sydney’s physical and cultural history.
It should not be a place that is destroyed for high rise buildings that prioritise profit to developers. It should be a place to be preserved for affordability, a diverse community and for the cultural and historical value for posterity.
The excessive bulk and height of the proposed development will also overshadow other buildings in the immediate vicinity and detrimentally affect the available light into apartments near it, particularly 4, 6 and 12 Macleay St.
Contributory Significance of the CHIMES
An independent heritage assessment report submitted to the Sydney Council in December 2024, confirms that the CHIMES is worthy of consideration as a “contributory” building of postwar significance to the Potts Point HCA and recommended that it should be retained on these grounds.
See City of Sydney letter of 4/2/2025 in the above NSW Planning link at SEARS 2 – Agency feedback.
- the CHIMES was a “site located within the Potts Point Heritage Conservation Area. The City submitted an independent Heritage assessment report to Council in December 2024 recognising the significance of Interwar apartment buildings. The report concluded that the existing [ CHIMES] building contributed to the conservation area and is worthy of consideration as a “contributory “building. The application therefore must address the proposed demolition of a contributory item.”

The developer commissioned and paid for a Heritage Impact Statement (HIS), attached to the EIS (27/3/2025), in which it acknowledges that the site is in a heritage conservation area but disagrees with the updated 2024 independent heritage assessment report of 2024 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. In an unfortunate self-serving manner, it goes at length 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 nonsensical and misleading as it will dominate all surrounding buildings, block light to units in other buildings and destroy the “village atmosphere”.
Demolishing the CHIMES at 45 Macleay St and the erection of a high rise building in its place will have a detrimental impact on the Potts Point Heritage Conservation Area and in particular this part of Macleay Street which is quiet and surrounded by heritage listed and art deco buildings.
Possibly consideration should be given to retaining the building itself while redeveloping the car park area into additional housing. This would be a very feasible alternative as it is largely an open area.
(4) Proposed retail outlets including cafes and outdoor 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 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 proposal states “shop-top housing development” but then refers to ground floor and outdoor eateries. To include ground floor and outdoor eateries in the lower residential area of Macleay St is unnecessary and will generate undue noise from patrons and loud music. There is if anything, a sufficient number of cafes, restaurants, and bars in the Potts Point area and a revitalisation of the Kings Cross end of Macleay St with a focus on retail outlets such as clothing and home furnishing stores etc would be advantageous and do more to improve the needs of local residents within the 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) Lack of Community Consultation
This development application process allows insufficient time for non-expert residents to consider fully and comprehend clearly the voluminous documentation in support of it. There is genuine concern about the potential adverse implications for surrounding buildings and the amenity of neighbours in a design of this scale, which includes excavation to provide for three levels of underground parking.
Only residents with 75 metres of this proposed development site were provide notification 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 described as 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 considering my objections and I hope this development is not approved in its proposed form.

My wife and I own an apartment at 12-16 Challis Avenue.

We are shocked and disappointed by the proposed development at 43-45 Macleay Street.

1. We have just been informed of this development, having been contacted by other owners in our block on Sunday April 27th 2025 telling us about the plans and that objections need to be submitted by tomorrow, April 29th 2025.
We presume some communications were sent to us at the apartment address, but we have not seen these as we are overseas. I understand the communications sent are dated April 2nd 2025, so we would have had less than 4 weeks to review and respond, even if we had been in the apartment and seen the documents.
So we have not been actively consulted about this development before and we have various objections.

2. We are appalled at the scale of the proposed development which is enormous and out of all proportion with the other buildings in this part of Potts Point. It will be severely detrimental to the local area and the street scape. Various 'pictures' in various documents show how the proposed building compares with the existing one. The increase in size for the new building is ridiculous and incongruous.

3. The table on pages 60-62 of the 'H - Design Report' document show a significant (40% ?) reduction in the sunlight to our apartment, which is unacceptable.

4. Page 9 of the 'EIS AA - Architectural Plans - Reference Scheme' document shows an "Open Common Area" on level 3 of the development, with an outdoor gym, pool, tables, etc.. We expect that this will lead to a lot of additional noise impacting the area, day and night, and this Open Common Area will overlook other buildings in the area, including ours. This will adversely impact privacy for ourselves and many other residents and owners in the area.
This open, shared area should be moved to a lower level, where the noise and privacy impacts would be reduced.

5. We note from page 18 of the 'Environmental Impact Statement' that a proposed development was submitted 15 September 2022 to the City of Sydney Council for a smaller development (eg a 35m and 9 storey high building). This has not obtained approval and is the subject of a Land and Environment Court appeal in May 2025. This new proposal is for a building that is 50m and 13 storeys high, so significantly higher and larger.

Subject: Feedback on SSD-79316759 – Proposed Development at 45-53 Macleay St, Potts Point
As an owner of the neighbouring property at 12-16 Challis Avenue, I wish to express my concerns regarding the proposed development outlined in SSD-79316759.
I would also like to mention that I agree with the submission put forward by Mark Galbraith, also of 12-16 Challis Avenue, who is our Chairman.

Firstly, I am deeply concerned about the lack of adequate notice. I am currently overseas and had a neighbour not notified me, I would have missed the deadline to lodge my submission. The notice came out on the 2nd April, with a deadline of the 29th April, however 2 weeks were effectively lost with Easter and ANZAC day holidays. Also, no consultation has been arranged. This proposal should be open to a public discussion.

Upon careful review of the submission, I have identified the following key issues:
1. Dramatic loss of Sunlight – The information provided shows a loss of approximately 25% to my apartment. This document does not detail which months this loss is and the information contained within it is not complete and cannot be relied upon.
2. Lack of Environmental Impact Statement – I cannot see one in the list of documents provided, which I find astonishing.
3. Proposed Building Foot print is not in keeping with the neighbourhood.
4. Impact on Privacy and Noise Levels The inclusion of an open common area on level 3, as depicted in the architectural concept drawings, raises significant concerns. The proposed amenities—outdoor gym, pool, and communal seating—are fully open on all sides. This configuration compromises the privacy of surrounding residents, as it enables direct visibility into levels 1 through 4 of adjacent buildings. Furthermore, the use of such facilities is likely to generate substantial noise, both during the day and night, which will echo throughout the vicinity. I propose relocating these amenities to the ground floor or basement to mitigate these concerns. While sunlight access may be cited as a challenge, it should be noted that the new building's overall structure would already obstruct sunlight to neighbouring properties.
5. Affordable Housing Concerns The submission advocates for increased building height and density on the premise of providing "additional" affordable housing. Currently, the existing structure accommodates 80 studio apartments, which serve as affordable housing for shift workers and others in need. However, the proposed design only introduces 4 one-bedroom units—far short of the necessary quantity to truly expand affordable housing options. To justify the increased height and density, the project must provide housing units that exceed the current capacity.
6. Preservation of Sightlines According to planning requirements, a clear line of sight from McDonald Street to the Yellow House artwork screens must be maintained. The concept designs fail to meet this criterion. Specifically, the addition of a 107-square-meter apartment in the southwest corner on level 2 obstructs this sightline. I recommend removing this apartment from the plans. Additionally, the level 3 amenities should similarly be relocated to the ground floor or basement, as outlined in my first point.
7. Architectural Harmony with the Neighbourhood The existing building scale and design align well with the character of the neighbourhood. The proposed structure’s increased density and scale, is not in keeping with our neighbourhood. It will stand out in the streetscape and on the landscape from afar.

8. Shadow Line Accuracy The shadow lines presented in the concept drawings appear to inaccurately reflect the current building’s impact. If these inaccuracies are carried forward into the calculations for the proposed building, the projected shadow effects cannot be relied upon. It is crucial to correct these discrepancies to ensure a transparent and accurate assessment of the development’s environmental impact.

The Chimes development affects me directly because my apartment faces the Chimes.

COMPLETE BLOCKAGE OF AFTERNOON SUN AND REDUCTION IN NATURAL LIGHT
A main objection for me is the bulk and scale of the proposed building. It will block direct sunlight that now lights up most of my living spaces for much of the afternoon. In some seasons sunlight reaches far back, illuminating more than half of my apartment. This will stop with the proposed Chimes building. The shadow cast by a higher and bulkier Chimes will obliterate all afternoon sun and my apartment will be darker and much colder in winter.

It will be much worse for other west facing apartments in the middle of the Macleay Regis building. There will not be the requisite hours of sunlight for many of them and the sunlight that they will get will be at an oblique angle. It will not stream straight into their windows as it does now in the afternoon.

9 FLOORS OF APARTMENTS IN THE MACLEAY REGIS WILL HAVE DIRECT SUNLIGHT BLOCKED
Currently the open space above the Chimes garage and parking lot allows all the west facing apartments in the Macleay Regis to be filled with direct afternoon sun. The proposed development will block this completely. I have photographed the MR facade in different seasons to record when it gets full sun across the west face of the building. It’s very clear that there will be a negative impact for about 30 apartments in the MR building. A proposal that reduces the amenity of neighbouring apartments should not be approved.

COLDER AND DARKER APARTMENTS NEGATIVELY AFFECT QUALITY OF LIFE
The loss of sunlight in winter will radically affect MR residents’ quality of life. Without winter sunshine flowing in, apartments will be much colder. There will also be a reduction in natural light generally. Darker units will require more daytime lighting and in winter, more heating. Both will increase electricity bills. Essentially, living will be made less pleasant and more expensive.

SOME 30 RESIDENCES WILL BE BADLY AFFECTED
MR’s one bedroom apartments (2 per floor) only have west facing windows that look towards the Chimes. They have no other aspect or source of natural light or sun. If the bulk and height of the Chimes is increased as proposed, approximately 30 apartments on 9 floors will be negatively affected, with MR’s one bedroom apartments the most severely compromised.

EXCAVATION AND CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
The complete demolition of The Chimes and the excavation for underground parking will have a huge impact on surrounding residences. The amount of trucks required to service the proposed demolition and construction will present an unreasonable impact on immediate neighbours, remembering that this is a very densely populated area.

It should also be remembered that Macleay Street is the main artery between the St Vincent’s Hospital, Kings Cross Police Station, the Fire Station and Garden Island. Macleay Street is a busy street but has only one lane in each direction. It services a lot of traffic to the Eastern suburbs. Construction trucks entering and exiting the Chimes building site during an extended demolition, excavation and construction period will present an untenable impediment to traffic, transport and emergency vehicles. There would be unreasonable security, health and safety, and traffic impacts placed on local residents and businesses.

UNSYMPATHETIC DESIGN - EXCESSIVE HEIGHT AND BULK
Any new development on the Chimes’ site should have a smaller footprint, a lower height and more respect for the architectural history of this unique area. The heritage buildings surrounding this site deserve a more sympathetic building than the one proposed.

The large scale of the proposed building encroaches on the streetscape and adjacent small buildings. The Chimes should be set back slightly to accommodate the mature trees that line Macleay Street. A small setback would also create a more appropriate footpath for this highly pedestrianised area. Footpaths need to be wide enough to not only to cater for increasing numbers of pedestrians but also for more wheeled vehicles that now consistently use the footpath. This includes bike traffic which has increased exponentially.

The footprint of the new Chimes ignores the needs of this busy street. It indicates that the developer has not taken the time to understand how this neighbourhood functions and is proposing something that would have a negative impact on the area.

THE LOSS OF DWELLINGS, SMALLER AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND RESIDENTIAL DIVERSITY
The Chimes redevelopment will reduce housing stock in Potts Point, particularly rental properties. The current Chimes building contains smaller, lower cost apartments. Many are rentals. These should be protected not eliminated.

There are now 80 apartments in the Chimes but only 34 in the proposed new building. This represents a tremendous loss of smaller, affordable dwellings. While a few apartments are intended to be designated ‘affordable housing’ this will only be for a short period, just 15 years. At best, this only pays lip service to the need for more affordable housing. Instead, the configuration of the new Chimes will reduce density, increase gentrification and change the inclusive nature of Potts Point’s distinctive demographics. The loss of studio and one bedroom apartments in Potts Point must be stopped.

LOSS OF HERITAGE
The new Chimes’ architectural design is heavy footed and inappropriate for this historic neighbourhood. It dwarfs the smaller heritage buildings next door and overpowers everything around it. It ignores the lower scale of the surrounding street scape, that is McDonald Street and McDonald Lane, as well as Challis Avenue. The historic Queen Anne-period terrace houses on Macleay Street, next door to the Chimes, and the row of terrace houses directly behind it, as well as the small scale apartment buildings on McDonald Street, like Mayfair, will all suffer from its imposing bulk. The Mayfair apartment building will be forced to face an industrial scale garage entrance, worthy of Kmart. Narrow, quiet and park like McDonald Street will become a de facto truck entry. For all these hundreds of residents basic amenities like daylight, sunlight and airflow will all be affected. Commercial activity will be introduced. Noise will increase. Traffic will increase. There will be a tremendous loss of amenity for all surrounding properties, something that should not be approved.

PROPOSED COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY - CAFES AND RESTAURANTS ARE INAPPROPRIATE IN THIS RESIDENTIAL STRIP
The Heritage Impact Statement from the developers says this area has a ”residential and leafy character”. Their proposed ground floor and outdoor eateries will destroy this. Nonetheless, the developer is proposing this. I urge the consent authority to carefully consider the character of the local area, because it appears the developer has not.

Commercial outlets run counter to the stated “residential and leafy character” of this particular section of Macleay Street. The proposed commercial enterprises at street level will require a massive increase in supply, delivery and garbage trucks to service them. There will be undue noise from patrons and loud music generated by the proposed bar/restaurant/cafes. There will be more horns blaring in protest as taxi and Uber drivers stop to service patrons. None of this is in keeping with the ‘character of this quiet leafy’ section of Macleay Street, as stated in the developer’s Heritage Impact Statement.

The inclusion of hospitality and retail businesses including street level cafes/restaurants will have a negative impact on immediate neighbours. If anything there is an oversupply of cafes and restaurants in the Potts Point area. There are 5 just a block away.

IN CONCLUSION
This development does not serve this area well. It is unsympathetic to the unique streetscape of Macleay Street and will have a severe negative impact on surrounding residences.

There is a concerning trend in Potts Point that is reducing the level of housing stock. Smaller units are being replaced by large, expensive luxury apartments. This runs counter to the need to increase accommodation, particularly in dormitory suburbs close to public transport. Potts Point is exactly that. It has always been a unique source of smaller and affordable accommodation within walking distance to the city.

This area is a model suburb for low rise, high density living. Residents want to keep it that way.

This Chimes proposal fails the test in so many areas and should not be approved.

this is now the FOURTH time I have attempted to put my objection in via the portal. each time I have attempted to save or continue my submission I have lost everything and had to start again. the process for objecting is very difficult and not user friendly - not only a 3 week turn around, and very complex papers to try to decipher - not helped by a difficult portal submission process

1) Loss of affordable housing
-80 studios and 1 bedders to be demolished
- social housing inclusion is only for 15 years and just pushes the problem down the road
-sale of social housing after 15 years for market price increases profit to developer
-not an isolated demolition/ replacement with luxury apartments - I can see both The Chimes and 11A Wylde Street from my apartment - this is a terrible trend for the area as it totally changes the mix of housing in the area from one that is far more inclusive to one that only suits the very wealthy

2) Height and bulk
I object to the compensatory height increase the developer gets for inducing some social housing - this is already a model of high density mid height buildings with most up to 10 stories - a 50M height is excessive and there is a danger that it then becomes a precedent for other inappropriately hight buildings

3)Heritage
-The council has only recently acknowledged the need to recognise 20C buildings
- independent advice to the council that The Chimes should be listed as part of the heritage precinct
-architect Stossel is renowned, this is a post war apartment building designed for local working people

To whom it may concern,
I would like to lodge an objection to the concept development application lodged by T&P Chimes
Development Pty Ltd on the following grounds. I do NOT support this proposal. It is a “sneaky”
attempt to use the law regarding affordable housing supply to circumvent proper planning process
and detrimentally affect the local Potts Point area by removing 80 one bedroom and studio units
occupied by long term, older residents and those renting on low incomes.

1. Significant Loss of Affordable Housing
Replacing 80 affordable dwellings with 34 appartments . This is not consistent with NSW Government and City of Sydney policies to increase affordable housing. 25 of 34 appartments are luxury appartments. In addition once DA is approved the developer could lodge a variation application to change the mix of appartments increasing the number of luxury appartments.

Many people who live in Potts Point need affordable appartments to rent or buy. These people either work in the city, restaurants or cafes in the area or St Vincent’s hospital.

2. Loss of Heritage
Excessive height. 13 storeys and 50 metres high is out of proportion to surrounding buildings.(average height 20-30 metres). It is important to conserve the existing village and charm of historic Potts Point.
I have seen many changes over the years and council should be giving serious consideration to this heritage conservation area. Once destroyed it is lost forever.

3. Proposed retail outlets( cafes etc)
There is no shortage of cafes and restaurants in Potts Point. It is a residential suburb… why more cafes. Already there is limited parking in Potts Point …why have more retail ventures with no one able to park and visit…it does not make sense.

For the above reasons, I object to this development application.

I wish to lodge a formal objection against the submission SP934 at 45-53 Macleay Street Potts Point proposing the demolition of 80 studio apartments and the construction of a 13-storey building comprising just 34 apartments.
This proposal raises serious concerns regarding housing policy, heritage conservation, and community amenity. My objections are as follows:
1. Major Net Loss of Affordable Dwellings
.
Replacing 80 affordable studios with only 34 apartments represents a net loss of 46 dwellings—a reduction of almost 60%. This is in direct conflict with both NSW Government and City of Sydney housing policies, which aim to increase affordable housing stock, not diminish it. The City of Sydney has made clear that new developments should not result in more than a 15% net loss of dwellings—this proposal far exceeds that threshold.
2. Misuse of ‘Affordable Housing’ Provisions
.
While 9 of the new apartments are proposed as ‘affordable housing’, this classification only applies for 15 years, after which they can be sold or rented at market rates, displacing residents and eliminating any long-term affordability. This is a short-term concession traded for a permanent increase in building height and density, handing the developer a significant financial windfall with little enduring public benefit.
3. Excessive Height and Scale in a Heritage Area
.
The proposed building would stand 13 storeys and 50.05 metres high, well beyond the scale of the surrounding area, where most buildings range between 20 to 30 metres. In particular, neighbouring buildings like 4 Macleay Street are only 25 metres high. This is completely inconsistent with the Potts Point Heritage Conservation Area (HCA), which values human scale, architectural cohesion, and respect for the area's historic character.
4. Loss of Sunlight, Natural Light, and Views
The scale and proximity of the proposed 13-storey building would lead to significant overshadowing, reducing sunlight and natural light to surrounding buildings, including existing apartments that currently enjoy good access to daylight. The loss of views for many residents—particularly those in the immediate vicinity—would also dramatically diminish the liveability and amenity of their homes. These changes would severely affect quality of life for people who have long called Potts Point home.
5. Disregard for Local Oversight and Community Voices

By lodging this as a State Significant Development, the applicant circumvents local planning authority—the City of Sydney, which opposes this proposal—and avoids meaningful community consultation. This undermines local planning frameworks and reduces accountability to residents.
6. Erasure of Housing Diversity.

The replacement of smaller, more affordable studio and one-bedroom apartments with larger, likely high-end three-bedroom units significantly reduces housing diversity in the area. This makes the suburb less accessible to single occupants, key workers, pensioners, students, and lower-income residents, who currently depend on smaller and more affordable options. It risks further transforming Potts Point into an exclusive enclave, rather than a mixed and inclusive community.
7. Inappropriate Retail Inclusions
.
The proposal also includes retail outlets, cafes, and outdoor dining areas, which are unsuitable for this quieter, residential section of Macleay Street. This would bring noise, traffic, and commercial activity into a neighbourhood that was not designed to accommodate such uses, disrupting the peace and residential character valued by existing residents.
In summary, this proposal is a loss for affordable housing, a threat to local heritage, a blow to housing diversity, and a misuse of planning incentives. It offers only temporary public benefits in exchange for permanent private gain, and should be rejected outright.

I live outside the area but can't believe that in this era of housing crisis, a project is being considered which not only reduces the number of people which can be accommodated on the site, but will eliminate any affordable housing after 15 years.
This seems to be totally contrary to the New South Wales Government's official policies on dealing with the housing crisis.
Thanks for your consideration.

Please refer to attachment

ignificant 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 resultingfrom recent development approvals in the area, including:
• 11A and 13A Wylde Street, Potts Point
• 51-57 Bayswater Road, Rushcutters Bay

This community was built on diversity, and the current development, including this one, is destroying that. It does not provide for those who rent, who cannot afford to buy their own home but need somewhere to live. Close to their work, close to their community, close to support services. Please stop overdeveloping and homogenising this area of historical and community importance. Long term renters deserve the same respect and rights as property owners.

I object to this development on the grounds that:

- the increase in height and mass is excessive, going way beyond the current City of Sydney limit of 35 metres. I believe this will have a major impact on the surrounding streets and buildings - casting shadows and increasing the wind tunnel in Macleay St.

- Macleay St already has enough cafes and restaurants in the vicinity - the end of Macleay St where the development is located is residential.

- the claim that it will provide affordable housing is risible. Rather than being windfall for affordable housing, it will be a loss, given the number of apartments will be reduced from some 80 to some 34. Only the developer will benefit. The development clearly exposes a gaping loophole in the NSW government's affordable housing policy that needs to be revised.

My objection is about the tragic consequences that might occur to the surrounding homes. T&P never intended to build affordable housing.
Everyone thinks it would be impossible to buy an expensive unit here.
It would be for the rich and privileged. I have suffered acute illness
from severe injuries in the past 3 years which impede my mobility.
I have received two large dossiers with affidavits from the Strata Management, the project lawyers, and the lawyers of T&P Developers
threatening me to sign the consent for Strata Renewal of SP 934 and
agree to sell my unit at the price they chose.
At different times, their price changed dramatically, Up & Down, which
made me suspicious. They gave me time to decide until the 29th of April 2025. If I don't comply, I'll be condemned and prosecuted.

I would agree to sell my unit for 40 years for a fair price, and a document to sign for the sale of my unit, but not through a phony
contract that's riddled with trickery. The premise for selling is because of the reconstruction of the building, and not a sale from person to
person where the value of the contents a necessary for the new owner. Shall see a solicitor about this.

It's inconceivable that these people could have the power to destroy
a person by their fallacious perception that this person is of a little
value.

May God have mercy on their Evil soul.

I object to this project as it would mean a lost of heritage - the chimes is a significant building. provided a diverse housing product allowing for low cost housing - built form works within the existing urban fabric.