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

I believe this development will lead to

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

And

2. 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.

Thank you

I oppose this project because it will result in less affordable housing in our community. The proposed project will demolish 80 relatively affordable studio apartments in The Chimes building and replace them with just 34 more expensive apartments.

The Chimes building itself, designed by architect Hugo Stossell, is an important part of our neighbourhood's history. It would be real loss if it was knocked down.

Potts Point has many long term residents being pushed out cause developers see the potential in the suburb and want to make it exclusive. There’s already shortages of affordable housing without this creating more. There suburb needs to remain for everyone not just the wealthy cause Baird pushed everyone else out

I oppose the planning application to demolish 80 apartments in Chimes 45-53 Macleay St and replace with fewer apartments, especially reduce the affordable housing.

The reduction in affordable housing will reduce the availability of housing in our neighbourhood and the diversity we value.

The current studio apartments are not labelled affordable, but in practice, the current mixed residents who need affordable housing reflects the available small studio space. Removing this option for 80 households will change the character of our neighbourhood.

I’ve been a Resident at the Pomeroy on Macleay Street for the past four years, and I’m writing to express my growing concern about the proposed redevelopment of ‘The Chimes’ site, especially in light of the recent spate of development applications being lodged in our immediate area.
Potts Point is a neighbourhood with a distinct charm—its human scale, its layered history, and the delicate balance it strikes between urban living and a sense of calm. What has always stood out to me about this community is the thoughtful way it has evolved over time. Many buildings have enhanced the area by respecting its rhythm, proportions, and existing streetscape. However, this latest proposal, along with the recent DA for 61–63 Macleay Street directly opposite our building, feels like part of an intensifying trend toward overdevelopment that risks tipping that balance entirely.
One of the quiet joys of living here has always been the connection to open sky, filtered sunlight, and a genuine sense of space. These qualities are becoming rarer in Sydney, and they are not just aesthetic; they contribute meaningfully to our wellbeing. The scale being proposed for ‘The Chimes’ would severely reduce that openness—not only for residents in our building but across the surrounding streets. This isn’t simply about the height; it’s about the disproportionate footprint and visual impact on a precinct that already feels under pressure.
The cumulative effect of these large-scale proposals is difficult to ignore. We’re now facing two significant developments within metres of each other. I genuinely wonder whether enough consideration has been given to how this concentration of construction—and the longer-term shift in density—will affect the daily rhythm of Macleay Street. The small businesses, local cafés, and community life that give this neighbourhood its unique identity will undoubtedly feel the strain, not just during the building phase, but well beyond.
From what I understand, the Developer is seeking to leverage affordable housing incentives to justify a major height increase. While I absolutely support the need for more inclusive housing across Sydney, there is a concern that such provisions are being used to bypass normal planning expectations, rather than genuinely integrate housing diversity in a way that respects the context.
I want to be very clear: my concerns are not about resisting growth or change. In fact, I welcome progress that is measured, respectful, and in keeping with the unique nature of this area. But when development starts to overshadow the very qualities that make a place worth living in, I believe we all have a responsibility to pause and reflect.
I sincerely hope that Government takes a holistic view of what is being proposed—not just at ‘The Chimes’, but in the broader context of what’s already occurring in this part of Potts Point. As residents, we ask that our voices and lived experience be part of the conversation—not as a roadblock to development, but as advocates for the long-term integrity of this neighbourhood.

this is an affordable resident building that houses over 80 people.
Reducing housing stock is the opposite of what is needed and there is no need for business development to happen in this part of my neighbourhood.

1. This proposed development will result in an unacceptable loss of 46 apartments. The 9 affordable apartments proposed will not make up for this loss and will most likely cease to be affordable after only 15 years. At a time of an an acknowledged housing crisis this area is seeing the loss of more than 150 affordable apartments as a result of porpoises or recently approved developments. This can not be allowed to continue.
2. I note the developer has a parallel development application via City of Sydney which does not include any affordable apartments. They seem to be ‘having a bet each way’ but with no genuine interest in making a positive contribution to the housing crisis in Sydney.
3. This part of Potts Point does not need cafes and outdoor eating areas. It is traditionally a residential area only, as the commercial precinct effectively ends at Challis Avenue.
4. The proposed building is too big, about 15-20 metres higher than existing surrounding buildings. As such, it will be conspicuously large and imposing and not complementary to the area.
5. The Chimes is a Modernist building, designed by Hugo Stossel who is responsible for the design of 7 other builds in the area. It is considered by City of Sydney as contributing to the Potts Point Heritage Conservation area and as such should be retained.

1. This proposed development will result in an unacceptable loss of 46 apartments. The 9 affordable apartments proposed will not make up for this loss and will most likely cease to be affordable after only 15 years. At a time of an an acknowledged housing crisis this area is seeing the loss of more than 150 affordable apartments as a result of porpoises or recently approved developments. This can not be allowed to continue.
2. I note the developer has a parallel development application via City of Sydney which does not include any affordable apartments. They seem to be ‘having a bet each way’ but with no genuine interest in making a positive contribution to the housing crisis in Sydney.
3. This part of Potts Point does not need cafes and outdoor eating areas. It is traditionally a residential area only, as the commercial precinct effectively ends at Challis Avenue.
4. The proposed building is too big, about 15-20 metres higher than existing surrounding buildings. As such, it will be conspicuously large and imposing and not complementary to the area.
5. The Chimes is a Modernist building, designed by Hugo Stossel who is responsible for the design of 7 other builds in the area. It is considered by City of Sydney as contributing to the Potts Point Heritage Conservation area and as such should be retained.

As per attached file, I strongly object to this project!

This project would involve the significant reduction in affordable housing currently offered by The Chimes. That will result in a less diverse population in the neighbourhood. The proposed building will be much higher than the current site and will interfere with the view from my apartment. I am concerned that the construction noise and dust will very negatively impact on my quiet enjoyment of my apartment.

My objections are that this project removes affordable living space from an area (Potts Point) where rental and cheaper stock is already heavily impacted.
We have already seen affordable living removed from the area by projects that decrease the number of living spaces to make fewer spaces available for sale to the wealthy.
This is already creating rental shortages in the area.
The bulk and scale of the proposed project is out of proportion and scale for what is represented as the 'Paris" end of Macleay Street
and is an unloved, unwanted project that has not had enough scrutiny through community consultation.

Shame on the developers adding to the housing crisis across Sydney,NSW and Australia.

I strongly object to the Concept State Significant Development Application (SSD-79316759) for the proposed redevelopment of 45-53 Macleay Street, Potts Point. My objections are based on the following key concerns:
1. Significant Loss of Affordable Housing: The proposal involves demolishing an existing 12-storey residential building that contains 80 relatively affordable studio apartments. It plans to replace these with only 34 apartments, of which only nine are designated affordable housing. This represents a net loss of 46 dwellings, or almost 60%, which is a drastic reduction in the number of homes. Such a significant loss is inconsistent with the policies of both the NSW Government and the City of Sydney to increase the supply of affordable housing. The City of Sydney considers it imperative that new developments not result in a net loss of more than 15% of dwellings.
2. Limited Term of Affordable Housing: The nine affordable housing units included in the proposal are offered for only 15 years. After this period, these properties can be sold or rented on the open market, potentially displacing residents and failing to provide a long-term solution to the affordable housing crisis. This short-term fix benefits the developer significantly through increased height and floor space.
3. Excessive Height and Bulk: The proposed 13-storey building, with a maximum height of 50.05 metres, is excessive and significantly out of proportion with the surrounding buildings on this part of Macleay Street, which typically have an average height of approximately 20 to 30 metres. While this excessive height will be permanent, the benefit of just nine affordable apartments is temporary.
4. Detrimental Impact on Heritage: The existing building, "The Chimes," is a Modernist structure designed by architect Hugo Stossell in 1964. It has been identified in an independent heritage assessment report provided to the City of Sydney in December 2024 as contributing to the Potts Point Heritage Conservation Area, recommending its retention. Demolishing The Chimes and erecting a high-rise building will detrimentally impact the Potts Point Heritage Conservation Area, particularly in this quieter, more residential section of Macleay Street, surrounded by heritage-listed and Art Deco buildings.
5. Inappropriate Proposed Retail Outlets: The proposal includes ground-floor retail space with cafés and 'open eating areas' in a quiet, predominantly residential part of Macleay Street. This contradicts the area's existing character, which the Sydney Development Control Plan (SDCP) describes as having a "residential and leafy character." There is already an oversupply of cafés, restaurants, and bars in the wider Potts Point area. This inclusion primarily aligns with the fast-track State Significant Development process rather than addressing a community need.
6. Insufficient Community Consultation: The community consultation undertaken for this State Significant Development application appears inadequate. Only residents within a 75-metre radius of the site were notified, and they were given a relatively short period to review extensive and complex documentation. Given the scale of this development and its potential impacts, a more meaningful and broader consultation process should have been conducted.
7. Concerns Regarding Construction and Excavation: The proposal includes substantial deep excavations for three levels of basement car parking. This raises concerns about potential adverse implications for neighbouring buildings' structural integrity and amenity during the construction phase.
8. Potential Exploitation of Affordable Housing Incentives: There is concern that the applicant is primarily seeking to exploit the State Government's affordable housing bonus, which allows for increased height and floor space, without genuinely committing to a significant and long-term increase in affordable housing. This undermines the intended purpose of these new regulations.
For these reasons, I strongly urge the consent authority—preferably the Independent Planning Commission, given the significant number of anticipated objections—to reject this Concept State Significant Development Application. The proposal represents a substantial loss of existing affordable housing, an excessive and out-of-character building form, a detrimental impact on the heritage conservation area, and inadequate community consultation. It does not serve the local community's best interests nor contribute meaningfully to addressing Sydney's long-term affordable housing needs.

Please scale back the height width and depth, the height and the foot print of the proposal. It is too big. Please keep it the same envelope height width and depth of the existing building.

The scale and loss of affordable housing is of significant concern. The development is unconscionable at a time of housing crisis and developments like the proposed will amplify the crisis.
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.

(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.

My key objection to the Development Proposal is the significant loss of affordable housing.
In the middle of a housing crisis how can this be considered?
The current building contains 80 affordable studios. The plan to replace with only 34 apartment of which 25 are luxury dwellings is completely unacceptable and will cause many more residents to have to leave the area to make way for the rich, causing a loss of community and diversity in the neighbourhood and causing financial distress and mental health impact for those needing to relocate.

Other objections are:
Loss of Heritage
Excessive height and bill
Construction and Excavation
Lack of Community Consultation

Regards
Louise Iselin

See attached

See attached

This proposal should be determined by the Independent Planning Commission instead of the Department of Planning.
The project significantly compromises:
- Loss of Affordable Housing
- Impacts and post construction on the community and neighbour amenity and needs to be assessed accordingly. The fact that City of Sydney firmly oppose the proposal is good reason for IPC review.
- Loss of heritage fabric to an architecturally significant area. Reuse should be considered as opposed to blanket planning incentives which now promote demolition and loss of built form. Highly unsustainable practices as a result.
- The community is very upset about the proposal and want it properly assessed by IPC if not City of Sydney who will challenge current non-compliances for a better outcome for all.
- clear lack of community consultation.
-

I totally support this project. It provides affordable housing within the architectural design. I do not believe that the current property is supposed to be devised anyway in architectural merit to the area.

I object to the proposal. The housing shortage is not an excuse to rush the assessment process and to bypass the City of Sydney,
which is opposed to the development. Given the significant negative implications of the Proposal, it should be properly considered and determined ideally first by Council but at least by the Independent Planning Commission (which often holds public hearings and provides a second look over the Department’s assessment), instead of the Department of Planning. It is wrong to fast-track this Proposal given its significant implications, lack of community consultation and especially because it is at odds with the NSW Government's stated objective of increasing housing supply. Fast-tracking amounts to cheating and a corruption of due process.

MY KEY OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSAL ARE:

1. Lack of Community Consultation:
Only residents within 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.

2. Significant Loss of Affordable Housing:

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.

Replacing 80 affordable dwellings with just 34 apartments is not consistent with NSW Government and City of Sydney policies to
increase affordable housing.

3. Loss of Heritage
It seems that Heritage considerations are being given little weight in recent development approvals and appeals to the Land and Environment Court. A very bad precedent has been set by recent approvals which if carried forward unchecked will fundamentally change the heritage and diversity character of Potts Point for the worse. The area is heading towards open slather for development.

An independent heritage assessment report provided to the City of Sydney in December 2024 says the Chimes building is
contributory to the Potts Point Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) and recommends that it be retained. The post war building is a Modernist building designed by architect Hugo Stossell in 1964 and one of seven of his buildings in the
area.

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.

4. 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.

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.

Conclusion:

This proposal should not be approved.

It certainly should not be approved in its current form and through a rushed, fast-track process with little or no proper assessment and community consultation.

If it is to be approved:
- it needs to be after an appropriate period of neighbour and community consultation and careful, detailed expert assessment; and
- the approval must be in a significantly modified form and with strict conditions attached to: maintain the key heritage features, reduce the overall reduction in residences, significantly increase and make permanent the affordable housing component, reduce the height to that of neighbouring buildings and to robustly protect neighbouring buildings and owners/residents during the demolition, construction and excavation stages.