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

I object to the project as The Chimes is an architectural gem that needs to be preserved. It should be given a heritage listing, and not be up for demolition.

The project would mean less housing (a loss of 46 dwellings) and the devastating loss of affordable housing.

There has been a lack of community consultation. The Chimes is a stunning building across the road from where we live on Macleay Street.

See comments in attached document

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 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.
2
(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 do not support this Concept Proposal which involves the deliberate demolition of a large amount of vital local housing stock.

1/. SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
By demolishing 80 small low-cost, low-income homes in order to provide only 9 new affordable homes the housing crisis in our area would suffer a significant loss of 71 existing affordable homes. Worse, this proposal would enable the developer to withdraw the 9 affordable homes after 15 years resulting in zero vitally needed affordable homes on this site.

2/. THE DEVELOPER GAINS & THE HOUSING CRISIS IS MADE WORSE
This proposal would allow a developer to gain 25 hugely profitable, luxury apartments whilst removing 71 existing low-income homes. this does nothing to help the housing crisis. this does not make sense.

3/. FURTHER REDUCTION OF VITAL DEMOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY & LOSS OF ESSENTIAL WORKERS
Demolishing these 80 low-income studio homes will create a further loss of residents who are a part of the vibrant demographic mix currently enjoyed by all residents in this community. People who are essential workers providing services upon which the local community depends; young nurses, doctors, fitness and caregivers, teachers, sales assistants and hospitality workers for example. These people would be forced to move elsewhere to the community's detriment.

4/. LACK OF COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
Only residents living within 75 metres of this proposed development site were notified of this development application, and then only given about 3 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, including residents beyond the 75 metre radius, must be given proper notice and a more reasonable time to respond.

5/. MASSIVE INCREASE TO THE ALLOWABLE BUILDING ENVELOPE
By demolishing 80 affordable homes and adding only 9 new affordable homes a developer would be able to gain a 30% bonus enabling an increase of the allowable FSR from 3:1 to 4.29:1, an increase in height from a maximum of 35 metres to 50.05 metres
and an increase in the allowable Gross Floor Area to 5,529.8 square metres.
This massive increase in bulk would have huge and detrimental effects on nearby residents .

6/. EXCESSIVE HEIGHT & BULK CAUSING OVERSHADOWING, LOSS OF SUNLIGHT & VIEWS
The surrounding apartment buildings in this residential area running from Rockwell Crescent down Macleay Street to Wylde Street are generally no higher than 8 to 10 storeys, presenting a relatively uniform and charming streetscape. A 13 storey, 50 metre high building will destroy this heritage streetscape.
Worse it would set an unwelcome precedent for further intrusive development.
A 13 storey building with the bulk proposed in this concept proposal will radically increase, to their detriment, the overshadowing and loss of sunlight to neighbouring buildings. Apartment buildings which have been here for well over half a century are now threatened with significant loss of amenity.
The heritage listed art deco Macleay Regis building built in 1938 directly opposite The Chimes has 32 apartments which will be seriously affected. Sixteen of these apartments are one-bedroom apartments whose only windows face Macleay Street. They have no cross ventilation and depend upon air circulation coming from the open site across the street. The bulk of such a proposal would seriously affect the ventilation of these apartments and the residents health.
Furthermore, views enjoyed by the neighbouring apartment buildings to the city skyline for at least 50 years will be blocked for evermore. Important views from the city of these significant heritage buildings standing on the Macleay Street ridge above Woolloomooloo will be lost forever.

7/. LOSS OF SOCIAL & BUILT HERITAGE
The Chimes building at 45 to 53 Macleay Street has stood within the Council of the City of Sydney's Potts Point Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) listed under Schedule 5 of the Sydney DCP (LCP) (Local Significance) for 60 years. Whilst not a heritage listed item itself it has played a significant role in the existing streetscape and community, housing any number of residents who have contributed to our social history.
Designed by Hugo Stossell, one of several prominent emigre architects practising in Sydney after WW2, The Chimes building is a
fine example of Modernist Emigre architecture. A type of architecture answering the housing needs of a growing economy and a growing inner-city population which influenced the design of most of the apartment towers built in Sydney for decades afterwards and is a significant part of the history of our built environment.
An independent heritage assessment report provided to the Council of the City of Sydney in December 2024 stated that the postwar The Chimes building is contributary to the Potts Point HCA and recommended that it be retained.
Demolition of The Chimes and the erection of a high rise building in its place would have a detrimental impact on the Potts Point HCA and in particular to this part of Macleay Street which is quiet and surrounded by heritage listed victorian, edwardian and art deco buildings.

8/. UNNECESSARY & INTRUSIVE SHPOS & RESTAURANTS
The 'shop-top' description of this concept proposal would provide for the inclusion of unnecessary shops and restaurants in the huge area of the ground floor.
Only high-end, niche-market boutiques, not general shops, have ever succeeded in this part of Macleay Street below Challis Avenue. As a consequence most existing shop space is used for bars, restaurants and outdoor eateries.
Inclusion of shop space in this proposal will inevitably be used for restaurants and outdoor eateries of which there is already an over-supply.
Nearby residents already suffer from excessive noise coming from the existing wine bar and restaurants on the Challis Avenue corner of Macleay Street. All of these provide outdoor seating and the noise produced by the patrons late in the evening already prohibits sleep, especially in summer when residents' windows must be kept open for cooling. Any increased restaurant and outdoor use will further disrupt the enjoyment of residents and should not be permitted.
More restaurants are not required by the local community and attract non-local customers causing further traffic congestion and noise issues.

Contrary to the Concept Proposal, this proposal would substantially lessen the number of affordable dwellings in the area, by replacing 80 small dwellings in the current 'The Chimes' building to well less than half (only 25), for the most part luxury dwellings. The proposed inclusion of nine affordable dwellings (for a short period of time) is but a temporary measure to address current escalating pressures on government to solve the inadequate supply of housing in Sydney. It's a fake shortsighted measure and will not address the long term underlining needs of people across the spectrum, young and elderly, desiring to locate in this well serviced neighbourhood, close to hospitals, health clinics, community support arrangements, shops, excellent public transport options and the city. Eighty small affordable dwellings can put roofs over the heads of many more small/medium sized families than 25 spacious dwellings. The proposed structure will also be considerably taller, while not addressing in the long term the ongoing supply of affordable housing that the current building offers in the main. The State Government requires carefully thought through measure/s to ensure that a reasonable stock of housing remains available in this precinct to those less well off, as it has in the past. We have the ability and funds to do much better to ensure that decisions we take now embody a more empathetic and sustainable approach and not just driven by largesse.

1. Objection to development proposal at The Chimes, 45-53 Macleay St
I have lived in the Potts Point/Kings Cross/Elizabeth Bay/Rushcutters Bay locality for nearly 40 years and wish to object to the proposed demolition and redevelopment at The Chimes on the following grounds. Please do not publish my personal contact details.
2. Reduction in affordable housing
The demolition of 80 affordable small apartments and their replacement with mostly 3-bedroom units, along with only 6 “affordable” mostly one-bedroom apartments, worsens the current affordable housing shortage. Under the current rules, after 15 years, these “affordable” units will revert to market rates, likely displacing residents and yielding significant profits for the developer. Recent demolitions of low-cost apartments in the area have already resulted in a permanent loss of over 100 affordable small apartments, undermining the area's social diversity. Historically, this area achieved its notable density and social diversity due to the prevalence of compact studios and one-bedroom apartments. Despite claiming in the Concept SSDA Design Report (p. 81, ‘Density’, that the proposal includes ‘a variety of apartment types to cater for density’ (see https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/mp/01/getContent?AttachRef=SSD-79316759%2120250328T051213.925%20GMT), it reflects a consistent trend in local developments over the past 20 years to focus on large 3+ bedroom ‘luxury’ apartments, which theoretically could attract families, but due to their high ($3m+) cost, tend to be purchased by cashed up older empty nesters, self funded retirees and and investors, failing to achieve the desired diversity. It is instructive to look at sites such as https://www.urban.com.au/developments/potts-point-nsw-2011 to see the prevalence of similar, almost cookie cutter developments in this area featuring 3-bedroom apartments marketed with terms like 'exclusive', 'luxury' and 'boutique' – each replacing a greater number of smaller, cheaper apartments.
Specifically, I disagree with the assertion (Ref: 4K-1 on page 104, ibid) that ‘The apartment mix is appropriate’ and I also believe the proposed development fails to meet most of the 'Better Placed' objectives, particularly 'Better for Community' (ibid., page 7) which includes contributing to the economic diversity of the area by considering the needs of a significant portion of our community – singles and small families – evidenced by the absence of studio apartments and inclusion of only 4 x 1-bedroom apartments in the design. In my view, to earn incentives such as greater FSR, developers should be challenged to incorporate truly 'responsive' design solutions such as those used in Nightingale's development in Marrickville (also by SJB Architects). https://www.nightingalehousing.org/project/nightingale-marrickville that increase (not decrease) density, affordability and diversity of the local housing mix.
3. Impact on streetscape and local heritage values
Overall, I believe the proposal fails to meet policy objectives for design excellence or integration with the local context. The Chimes, a Modernist building designed by Hugo Stossell in 1964, is a landmark in the area and has been reassessed as a contributory heritage building. The proposed development, with a height of 13 storeys and significant additional bulk, is disproportionate to surrounding buildings and does not respect the existing urban fabric. The design fails to echo the character of The Chimes and instead resembles Art Deco buildings across the street. Furthermore, the assertion that the development respects the streetscape through the creation of ‘active frontages’ misinterprets the character of the northern part of Macleay Street, which is quiet, leafy, and residential. While there are a few small artisan shops in the heritage-listed Art Deco buildings across the street, they are distinct from the busier commercial strip further south. The closest restaurant, Yellow, maintains a restrained presence with limited hours.
I understand the ‘fast track’ process requires “requires the consent authority to consider the character of the local area or the desired future character for areas under transition”. I believe that proper, careful and detailed examination of the broad assumptions in the proposal will reveal an unacceptable diminishment of heritage values, and that therefore, allowing the proposed demolition of dwindling Modernist building stock which contributes substantially to affordability, density and social diversity, in favour of a substantially larger building that does none of these things, and which is based on a confected understanding of the local heritage and character, should not be approved.
4. Detract from local amenity
Residents are concerned that the new development will negatively impact their amenity through increased noise and demand for street parking, especially since only about 50% of residents will have access to on-site parking. The traffic flow assessment warrants closer scrutiny, particularly the provision of only 4 street parking spaces for customers, which could exacerbate competition for parking among local residents. Additionally, the assessment does not adequately account for the likelihood that the proposed 3-bedroom apartments will attract multiple car-owning occupants. The potential disturbances from construction, including noise and vibration during the excavation of underground parking, also raise concerns. To mitigate these impacts, the existing Modernist building should be fully retained, particularly its street-facing elements sans 'active frontage'.
5. Inadequate public consultation
I am also concerned about the limited public consultation surrounding this development application, which only notified close neighbours and allowed a mere three weeks for review of complex documentation. This falls short of what constitutes meaningful public engagement. I recommend that notice be extended to all local residents, with a more reasonable timeframe for responses. While I support “density done well”, this proposal is not aligned with that goal and should not proceed in its current form. A thorough assessment should ensure that developments maintain or increase the availability of lower-cost apartments rather than decrease them.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Yours sincerely

SITE ADDRESS: 45-53 MACLEAY STREET POTTS POINT
This Submission is written in objection to Concept Proposal for Mixed Use with Affordable Housing – 45-53 Macleay Street, Potts Point.
To Whom It May Concern:
I have lived in the Potts Point/Darlinghurst/Elizabeth Bay area since 2013 and choose to do so due to the interesting and diverse range of characters which call it home. In 2017, I purchased the flat where I currently reside - 12 Macleay St, Potts Point.
My Key Objections to this Proposal are outlined in the attached PDF document.
Resident 12 Macleay St

Please find attached an Objection to this proposal SSD-79316759.

Hello, I am a long term resident in the neighborhood and have watched it morph from a relatively affordable residential suburb into a over priced, bland slice of Sydney. This development exemplifies the change. The 13 storeys is much higher than surrounding buildings and will cut off what light falls on Macleay Street. There are far fewer apartments scheduled to be be built here - from 80 to less than half that as I understand it. How does this address the housing crisis? Which bit is meant to be affordable? I strongly object to this development.

Objection to Chimes redevelopment. 28 April 2025
Application number: SSD-79316759
Address: 45-53 Macleay Street, Potts Point

This submission is from:

Indira Naidoo
Mark FitzGerald


We strongly oppose this new proposal to redevelop 45-53 Macleay Street Potts Point known as ‘The Chimes’.

This proposed redevelopment reduces the apartment numbers in The Chimes from 80 to 34 – a reduction of 57% - and should therefore not qualify as ‘State Significant’.

As Sydney - and the country – grapples with an unprecedented affordable housing crisis it is ludicrous that REDUCING the number of affordable apartments in an historic landmark building could be considered ‘state significant’.
Potts Point once envied for its socio-economic mix of residents is seeing the fabric of its village-life torn apart as more and more affordable apartments are replaced by luxury condominiums. Long-term residents are being forced out with nowhere to go. We need to REVERSE this trend not speed it up.

The developer says 9 apartments will be retained as ‘affordable’ but this is only for 15 years and does not account for the existing 80 affordable apartments that will be lost under these new proposals.

We are also very concerned about the demolition of a significant piece of heritage architecture.
The Chimes building is a Modernist building designed by architect Hugo Stossel 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 a contributory to the Potts Point HCA, and recommends that it be retained.

In addition to the loss of affordable housing and heritage value, the new proposed building will cast terrible shadows and bulk across nearby streets from the additional 4 storeys that amount to an extra 15 metres of height.

Light and direct sunlight are already precious commodities on Macleay St and Challis Ave given the long shadows and wind tunnels created by existing apartment stock. We need developments that are sensitive to the light aesthetic and quality of life of local residents not redevelopments that force the community to jostle for the little light that does get through.

This development proposal smacks of a cynical money-making exercise with little regard for our community or the vulnerable people who struggle to find housing in Potts Point.

We oppose this redevelopment proposal and assert that this application should be rejected.

Indira Naidoo and Mark FitzGerald
1303/7 Rockwall Cres
POTTS POINT NSW 2011

In this climate of a housing crisis the demolition of 80 affordable and liveable flats to build 28 luxury apartments in unconscionable. The demolition of a contributory building in the community alone should make this proposal unacceptable to council. Overshadowing, view loss and dangers to neighbouring buildings related to excavation all make this a proposal to reject. As a resident of the area I find it alarming that the council's lip service to the diversity and liveability of the area is constantly overridden by approval of development applications to reduce housing, reduce affordability and reduce the overall amenity of the place by approval of such applications.

Formal Objection to 45-53 Macleay Street Redevelopment (SSD-10830)

To Whom It May Concern,

I write to lodge a strong objection to the proposed redevelopment of 45-53 Macleay Street, Potts Point (Project ID: SSD-10830). As the owner-occupier of a unit on Macleay Street — an immediately adjoining property — I have conducted a thorough review of the application materials, including the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Concept Plan.

The proposal, as currently submitted, is deeply flawed, poorly considered, and fundamentally incompatible with the needs and rights of existing residents, as well as with the established character of Potts Point.

My principal grounds for objection are as follows:

1. Safety and Security Risks:

The proposed open-air gym on the third floor of the new development appears to be at the same height as the rooftops of 57-59 Macleay Street. Based on the drawings and plans provided, it is feasible for individuals to exit the gym area and access adjoining rooftops, including my private balcony.
This is a serious and unacceptable breach of residential security, creating potential for unlawful access to my home and others. The proposal fails to address or mitigate this grave safety risk.

2. Severe Loss of Light to My Home
My apartment is a two-storey townhouse unit. The lower floor depends entirely on a single external light source facing the Chimes site. The redevelopment would obliterate this light, plunging the entire floor into near-permanent darkness.
I have reviewed the EIS and accompanying architectural documents and found no reference to light impact studies that consider this critical impact on my home on the ground floor level at all. Furthermore, inadequate detail for the upper level is given as privacy issues and the way people are forced to live when their privacy and security are compromised, were not taken into account. This omission is unacceptable under planning best practices and renders the application incomplete.

3. Significant Privacy Breaches
The proposed windows and open-air gym on the Chimes site face directly towards my home. This will result in direct sightlines into my living spaces, an untenable invasion of privacy. No serious mitigation measures (such as high-level glazing, screening, or reorientation) are proposed.

4. Lack of Genuine Affordable Housing Commitment
The application uses the concept of "affordable housing" to justify significant height and density increases. However, it provides no binding commitments to deliver any specific quantity or type of affordable housing, nor any assurance that affordable units will be retained in perpetuity.
Without enforceable conditions, this claim is meaningless and misleading. Proposal mentions "up to 20%" but there’s no enforceable mechanism tied in this stage.

5. Questions Regarding Developer Collaboration
The proximity of the proposed third-floor gym and pool to 55 Macleay Street (Whitehouse Developments) raises legitimate concerns regarding possible undisclosed cooperation between developers, particularly regarding shared facilities or mutual benefit arrangements.
There is no disclosure of these potential conflicts of interest in the application materials.

6. Noise and Amenity Impacts
The scale and intensity of the proposed communal facilities (gym, pool, rooftop terraces) will generate unacceptable levels of noise, impacting the peace and quiet expected in a residential neighbourhood.

7. Destruction of Iconic Views
My unit currently enjoys sweeping views of Sydney Harbour, including the Opera House and Harbour Bridge. The proposed height and bulk of the new development will destroy or significantly diminish these views, which are not only a personal amenity but a key element of the local area's character and value.

8. Overburdening of Local Infrastructure
The application does not adequately address how increased population density will impact existing local services — including parking availability, waste management, and traffic flow — all of which are already under strain. No meaningful mitigation strategies are proposed.

9. Unsustainable Demolition Practices
The Chimes is a structurally sound building. Demolishing and replacing it, rather than adaptively reusing or upgrading it, contradicts the City's stated commitments to sustainability and climate responsibility.
Tearing down existing viable structures creates unnecessary emissions and landfill waste.

10. Lack of Meaningful Community Benefit
The token inclusion of retail shops and vague "public art spaces" does not constitute a meaningful or proportional public benefit. There is no serious provision for public open space, community infrastructure, or services that would genuinely offset the significant harm this development causes to existing residents.

11. Excessive Height, Scale, and Bulk
The proposed massing is grossly disproportionate to the surrounding low-rise character of Macleay Street. The building will tower over neighbouring properties in a manner that is visually overbearing and wholly inappropriate for the location.

12. Overwhelming and Oppressive Living Conditions
From my unit, the development would create an environment of visual oppression and claustrophobia. The proposed mass will loom unacceptably close, diminishing both mental wellbeing and quality of life for current residents.

Conclusion:
This redevelopment proposal is unsafe, incompatible, and damaging to the fabric of Potts Point. It prioritises developer profits over resident welfare, sustainability, and community values.

I respectfully but firmly urge the City of Sydney and relevant planning authorities to reject this application in its current form. A redevelopment of this site must be more respectful of its context, its neighbours, and its environmental responsibilities.

Name and address withheld for privacy but formally supplied with the objection.

CONCEPT PROPOSAL FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITH INFILL AFFORDABLE HOUSING 45-53 MACLEAY STREET, POTTS POINT

LOSS OF HERITAGE
The existing building at 45-53 Macleay Street, is a fine example of 20th Century design and merits preservation. The façade composition is rational with exposed slab edges and columns clearly reflecting the structural system of the building. The use of polychrome brick, concrete and aluminium façade framing highlight the authentic properties of the materials without extraneous decoration in the classic vocabulary of late modernism. Integral concrete window hoods for shading demonstrate nascent passive environmental design strategies that have become a fundamental aspect of contemporary design philosophy. The modulation of the glazed elements clearly mirrors the functionality of spaces within the apartments with large glazed areas allowing maximum natural daylight and views for all residents. The design of the Chimes reflects the ambitious objectives of the post war period which sought to democratise access to city housing while maintaining excellent amenity. The contribution of the Chimes was part of the creation of the contemporary Potts Point community. Its loss would be an irreversible injury to the urban design history of a vibrant part of our city.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING
45-53 Macleay Street contains eighty (80) affordable apartments which have supported a diverse community of people for half a century. The demolition of eighty small apartments and the proposed replacement of eighteen (18) affordable units represents a backward step. The vast majority of the proposed accommodation will be large luxury apartments which only add to the undesirable trend of homogenous gentrification and the erosion of the access to low cost housing in close proximity to central Sydney.

EXCESSIVE BULK AND HEIGHT
The western side of Macleay Street has a distinct architectural character which is lower in scale than the eastern side. While the existing Chimes building is atypical, the existing height is consistent with the adjacent built forms, and it’s design permits view corridors to be maintained. The proposed increase in height will amplify the already atypical impact of a tall building in close proximity to typical Victorian terrace scale structures west of the site. The proposed replacement building volume is self evidently taller and bulkier and does not represent an improvement to the existing urban design character. View corridors around 45-53 Macleay Street will be reduced as a consequence of the adoption of this proposal.

DENSITY
Potts Point is one of the most densely occupied areas of the country and this has been the case of many decades. The intent of SEPP 2021 is to increase housing supply and to improve affordability without undesirable impacts on existing communities. The proposal will have the opposite effect as it will reduce the total number of residences in Potts Point and will replace more than 50% of site’s existing smaller units with expensive luxury apartments. This represents a reduction in density and an erosion of the sustainable current mix of smaller and large apartments. It should be noted that Potts Point does not have a shortage large of high price apartment accommodation and that there has been a steady loss of smaller apartments in the locality though strata renewal developments. The blanket application of the bonus provisions in SEPP2021 to an area such is Potts Point, and in particular to this proposal is not justified as many of the overarching objectives of the SEPP will be undermined.

OVER SHADOWING
The increased height and bulk of the concept proposal will have a detrimental impact on the access to solar amenity of existing residences in the area. The majority of the surrounding buildings were constructed prior to the requirement in SEPP65 for a minimum two (2) hours solar access for living areas and external balconies/terraces. As a result, most older apartments do not meet this standard. The additional height and bulk that is proposed will further reduce the access to sunlight of those apartments that currently enjoy less than the minimum level of amenity. The aggregate outcome will be that more apartments will suffer worse amenity than those that will have acceptable access to sunlight. A proposal that deliberately reduces the amenity of neighbouring residents must not be given consideration for approval.

I am the owner and resident of an apartment, in a 1930’s Art Deco building on Macleay Street, Potts Point. It is situated opposite the CHIMES building in the quiet, residential part of Macleay Street in the Potts Point Heritage Conservation Area (HCA), surrounded by heritage listed and art deco buildings of similar height (approximately 25-30 meters).
I wish to place on record my strong objections and individual and particular concerns to this ill-considered concept proposal, which is with all due respect, a despicable attempt by a developer to exploit the NSW government legislative reforms, which are intended to increase affordable housing. The proposal does exactly the opposite and is pitched to gain huge profits. If approved, this proposed development will create a precedent which will allow such regrettable exploitation to continue and will result in exacerbating the housing affordability crisis in NSW.
I respectfully request that the NSW DPHI and the Minister take note of all valid objections, in the public interest, in their assessment of the developer’s application and refuse this proposal. Objections on some key issues:
1. Housing Affordability
Contrary to the NSW In-Fill Affordable Housing Policy, and at a time of a severe housing shortage crisis, this proposal will reduce affordable housing by 46 dwellings, as it plans to demolish the existing 80 affordable studio apartments (each 38 sqm) in, the Chimes building and replace them with 34 apartments, 25 of which will be three-bedroom luxury dwellings. While 9 will be managed by a community provider for social housing, tenants, this is only for a minimum period of 15 years, after which they will go back to be rented or sold on the open market at profit.
Significantly the proposal exploits the new NSW government legislative reforms intended, ironically, to provide more affordable housing to mitigate the housing crisis, by using it to provide a token 9 units for social housing for a limited period and to gain in exchange, massive 40% increases in height and floor space, above what is permitted by the local environment plan, while reducing affordable housing by 60%. 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” ( an aim of the NSW policy).
Therefore, this application to build a 50.05-meter-high building, almost double the height of the current building and those buildings in its vicinity and to expand the development envelope to massive proportions only stands to make a windfall for the developer and should be refused.
This ’fast track’ application has been submitted directly to the NSW DPHI, bypassing local council assessment and determination. This prevents the government from gaining valuable knowledge and insights that the council can provide, to the assessment of such a proposal. This local knowledge is of vital importance as the proposal will have a direct adverse impact on this Potts Point historical suburb, its diverse community and most significantly on the government’s aim to increase affordable housing.
2. Social and Environmental Impact
This proposal, if approved, will leave the 80 low-cost housing residents from the Chimes, with few or no options to find affordable housing (as they will not have access to the luxury apartments or to social housing) close to the city and other amenities and create another layer of a housing affordability crisis.
This will also change the diverse social fabric of the Potts Point community which has the highest percentage of people (90%), living in apartments. Additionally, 60% of these residents are in rental accommodation, the majority of which are studios and 1-bedroom units.
On an individual level given the location of my building, and its proximity to the Chimes site, myself and other residents in the vicinity, will be directly and adversely impacted, by the massive height and bulk dimensions of the proposed redevelopment. It will be almost double the height and width of the residential buildings around it and poses numerous environmental and health hazards to us residents.
For instance, the excess height and bulk will mean that many units (including mine), adjacent to the site will lose a considerable amount of sunlight during the winter months in particular. Additionally, the demolishing, drilling and deep excavations and related construction and environmental issues such as dust, noise, traffic, concerns re damage to buildings, damage to infrastructure (water, electricity and internet lines in the area), will impact adversely on residents.
It will be especially difficult for the many older retired residents who live in these buildings and for those who work from home, as these categories of people are often in their units for most of the day.
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, there are no noisy commercial outlets, except for a quiet antique and florist shop. The Sydney Development Council Plan (SDCP) states that: “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 in a narrow pathway within close proximity to the social housing apartments on the lower floors and to other buildings, mean that residents in these dwellings will be adversely affected. This 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.”
3. Construction and Excavation for Car Parking
The plan to engage in deep excavations to provide 3 levels of basement car parking is of serious concern. Firstly, it means long periods of loud and incessant drilling deep into that site.
Further the development application process allows insufficient time for non-expert residents and perhaps even the council to consider fully and comprehend clearly voluminous documentation in support of it, 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.
The proposal to provide for 58 car parking spaces, defies logic (as the redevelopment will only have 34 apartments) and it also goes against the government’s aims to reduce traffic congestion, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, in the CBD and its vicinity. Further most residents in Potts Point do not own cars and the majority of buildings do not have parking facilities. Given the fact that the suburb has several services and that the CBD and, in its environs, can be reached by public transport or by walking, people do just that.
The above concerns need to be weighed against the proposed loss of affordable housing and the falsity of the proposal that it is providing affordable housing outcomes to justify these huge increases in height and bulk of the redevelopment.
4. Heritage and Environment
The Potts Point suburb is demarcated as a heritage conservation area (HCA), reflecting its historical and cultural value in Sydney. The Sydney Council’s recent independent heritage assessment report has further demarcated this Macleay Street/Wylde Street, area in Potts Point, as a “quiet residential area closely surrounded by heritage listed and art deco buildings”.
Significantly this NSW In-fill Housing policy also states that a proposal under this legislation - “requires the consent authority to consider the character of the local area or the desired future character for areas under transition” In the context of the Potts Point HCA this has clearly not been considered. The Chimes stands in the Potts Point Heritage Conservation Area (HCA). The City of Sydney, updated independent heritage assessment, notes that Modernist post war buildings in the HCA are of architectural and historical value and that Chimes is worthy of consideration as a “contributory “building of postwar significance to this HCA and should be retained. The developer’s commissioned heritage expert cites the council’s assessment and states he does not agree with it. Clearly it is reasonable to conclude that an independent heritage assessment should be given more weight.
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 is not a place to destroyed for high rise buildings that prioritise profit to developers, but a place to be preserved for affordability, a diverse community and for the cultural and historical value for posterity.(See City of Sydney letter of 4/2/2025 -SEARS 2 re CHIMES). 5. Lack of Community Consultation: Only residents with 75 meters of this proposed development site were provided notification in a limited time during a School/Easter/Anzac holiday period and the prior survey was ad hoc and very limited. The proposal does not meet the criteria or aims of the NSW In-Fill affordable housing policies, as a development that should obtain the proposed massive increases in height and floor space and should be refused.

Please see attachment

Dear Sir/Madam

RE: Development SSD -79316759. Chimes, 45-53 Macleay Street Potts Point

I wish to write in protest to the above Development.

While I am all for constructive development and change, in this instance, I consider that the height and scale of this application is far beyond the bounds that should be allowed in this particularly engaging part of Potts Point, referred to by many as the “Parisian End”. It is in contrast to other Developments that have been made in the area, which have contributed to our Community, by bringing many wonderful people here that have chosen Potts Point for their home.

I have lived nearby in Macleay Street for over 20 years and despite the noise from the current Bars, Restaurants and Rubbish Collections, I love living here.

Kindly find below some of my reasons for objecting;

1. The extra 30% of Height Allowance + 10% for Design Excellence if allowed to the Developer will make this a monstrously large building. It will completely dominate the landscape and the surrounding structures.

2. The developer appears to be using the desire for “Affordable Housing” to obtain this extra height. There is no consideration for those of us that have lived her for years. This is purely a financial gain for the Developer with nothing to be gained by the people who have paid their Rates and Taxes and made Potts Point/Elizabeth Bay their home. And in doing so have become part of a like minded family and community.

3. I and many others surrounding this intended structure will suffer loss of views (some Harbour Bridge, Harbour and Opera House). Others will definitely lose light. I am not directly opposite but will lose precious light that comes to me from the skyline above the current Parking area of the proposed Development (which will then become 13 stories or so, in height). There will also be incredible shadowing due to the scale and height of this building, if approved in the current form. This will impact me severely as I am in my eighties and spend a great deal of time in my apartment. I would understand if the same height, as the current building, was proposed for this Application.

4. Commercial and Residential Rubbish Collection. This is one of my biggest problems at the moment with the current Restaurants on and around Challis Avenue and Macleay Street. The Commercial collectors (to my knowledge and per Sydney City Council advice) are supposed to collect before 10.00pm but I am regularly woken at all hours of the night, often 1.30am and 3.30am. We now apparently could have another 3 Restaurants (bringing the total to 4) operating on the strip between Challis Avenue and McDonald Street. Imagine the noise and disruption from Garbage collection.


5. Wind. Having almost been blown up the street, near Woolworths, on a windy day recently (due to the height of building in that area) I can just imagine what will happen as you turn the curve to come into Macleay Street if this Application is approved.


6. Noise and Parking. Another large Restaurant added to the three that could be operating in this small street section will be intolerable with the coming and going of Patrons. And it is impossible to find parking now, imagine what this will do to this Community.

I have had discussion with many residents recently over this Proposal and they all are astonished that we are looking at such an increase in height and all the other problems that will come if this Application is approved in its current form. Everyone is mentioning the same concerns, loss of light, views, overshadowing, wind, the lot. It appears to be a consensus from all.

Please listen to those that love this area and DO NOT APPROVE THIS APPLICATION.

Regards.

I wish to strongly object to the proposal SDD-79316759 45-53 Macleay St Potts Point (SP934)
I object on the following grounds -
1) The idea that this development has any major scope for affordable housing is just not true.
2) As a resident of this area I believe this development will have a hugely detrimental impact on ALL aspects of life in Potts Point.
3)The negative effects include the loss of light and air flow for all surrounding buildings.
4) The shadows cast by this building would dramatically impact my apartment and indeed the whole street - including the lovely plane trees. What light could I expect to have through my windows?
5) The building would certainly NOT be in keeping with the surrounding apartment blocks.
6)The intrusion of shops underneath would be noisy etc and change a residential area to business - this is not fair to the many residents.
7)There is not enough parking now - what impact would this have on the residents and the broader community.
Surely it is the role of the council to protect and support the residents - this development appears to be an opportunity for a few to the terrible detriment of the many.

My objections to SSD-79316759: Concept proposal for mixed-use development with in-fill affordable housing: 45-53 Macleay Street, Potts Point

I am an owner and resident of Yellowhouse, 57-59 Macleay Street. I have lived in this residence for almost 17 years, and in the area for 34 years. It is in this context that I make my first objection which is to the hypocrisy of calling this development, in any way, ‘affordable housing’. The concept proposal is to demolish Chimes, a building which offers 80 studio units of what is actually affordable housing, to erect an exclusive and expensive block of 34 units, with a small nod to one bedroom units of ‘affordable housing’ which will all sell for in excess of a million dollars. In no way does this reflect the expressed need for affordable housing which exists in the City of Sydney in 2025. This concept proposal is a more than 50% reduction in the number of units on a much larger amount of land. This seems contrary to this government’s policy.
Chimes is a block which occupies a small footprint on a large block of land. It is not intrusive, has a lot of empty space around it, and fits into the aesthetic of the area. It does not dominate, and it permits views around it and through it. The concept proposal suggests that Chimes is a building of no importance or interest, but that isn’t true. It is a modernist work, by a well-known architect, and personally I find it pleasing. The concept proposal, on the other hand, is as ugly a building as I have ever seen. Its excessive height and width mean that it looms over the neighbourhood, completely blocks out views of many and has no perceived architectural merit. It is not in keeping with its surroundings. My own building, Yellowhouse, when it was developed, had art works included both front and rear for public viewing. The Michael Johnson screens on the back were designed to be seen from Macdonald Street and at present this is possible. They are something that people do come to see in the neighbourhood, but they will be unseen from Macdonald Street with the new development. I mention this because this area values its heritage, and Chimes is a part of that heritage.
The enormity of the proposed development also creates shadow lines over much more of the neighbourhood. Some apartments will lose all their direct sunlight for hours of the day. According to the concept proposal I will be affected for at least two of the early morning hours. In the concept proposal it is hard to know in what season the tests were carried out, making assessment difficult, however, it is a given that many apartments have a reduction in their amenity for the advantage of a few. Residents bought their apartments with a given amount of sunlight, something very important to well-being.
Once again, unnecessary retail and hospitality has been suggested for an area which is residential and quiet. There are already empty shops and spaces in Macleay Street. There is no demand for any extension of the retail/hospitality sector any further down Macleay Street. This type of development would not add anything to this area, but it would negatively affect many.
Privacy is an interesting concept in inner city Sydney. Some would argue that you can’t expect privacy if you live in a densely populated area. I would suggest that at present there is very little loss of privacy created by Chimes, which is placed neatly in a corner of its block. The new concept proposal which occupies so much more of the block will take privacy from many more people. This has not even been a consideration, and it may not be officially something which needs to be considered, but it will affect the amenity of many of those who at present enjoy a life without this intrusion. In the concept proposal my unit is specifically considered as not having any ‘direct’ intrusion into my views or my unit. If I stand at my window and look directly out, this is true, but on my balcony if I turn even slightly to my right, I lose privacy and views. I consider this use of ‘direct’ to be typical of the cynical way that this concept proposal has been written.
One level of the concept proposal has what is described as an outdoor gym. It appears to be part of a whole floor for use of the residents, with one corner as an outdoor gym. It is, I think, on the same level as my bedroom. Of course, I have no idea of the hours of use, but it is likely to include early morning workouts which will create noise and disturb all those whose bedrooms are within range of this outdoor gym. It seems unnecessary and sure to cause future concern and complaint. Once again, the few affecting the many. Many of these complaints also apply to the swimming pool. In an earlier iteration of the development the pool was in the Macdonald Street/ Macdonald Lane corner, but I note that it has been moved to the corner nearest the back of 55 Macleay Street. This means that it is much closer to the many more units which back onto this area, and nearer to the amphitheatre created by a circle of buildings around the back of Yellowhouse. Quite simply, noise is increased by the effect. The pool will create much more noise and complaints in its new position.
These are my major concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on SSD-79316759.

Pieta van de Ven
Potts Point

I wish to register my strong concerns to the above proposal, namely in regard to:

1). Affordable housing shortfall
2). Demographics of the area
3). Size of the development and its impact on the urban area
4). Traffic and environmental impact.

please see attachment for full details

Objection to proposed development due to the reduction in number of affordable Studio and 1 Bedroom Units, with the creation of larger "Penthouse Style" units, thus changing the demographics of this unique part of the Potts Point/Elizabeth Bay Area.
There have been a number of similar instances in Onslow Avenue and one currently under construction at 1 Onslow Place. The completed dwellings in two instances that I am aware of have not been occupied in any normal sense since construction.
Developers seem to lean toward this style of development due to the profit motive rather than what may be better for the community long term and as a whole.