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

I want to say that I object to this project as luxury apartments are a bad idea in our community due to the fact we have a severe housing crisis that will not go away for a decade.
Please consider our local front line workers who are directly involved in providing essential services during critical situations and emergencies.
Thank you.

(1) 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 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.

Please see attachment

I am an owner resident of the Macleay Regis, 10-12 Macleay St. I strongly oppose this application and as I am time-poor I am providing similar reasons to those provide re submission D/2022/960 noting lack of community consultation thus the repeat of previous concerns.

1. it will severely impact the light in my apartment and all western facing apartments
2. The windows facing the Chimes is the only source of natural light in the front end of my apartment
3. View loss from units within our heritage building (the Macleay Regis) to the outside, and also blocking of views of our heritage building from locations outside
4. Overshadowing caused by this development will also impact nearby residents/locals and their enjoyment of what has been a long-standing special boulevard feel at the northern end of Macleay St contributing to the charm of this historic precinct
5. the light and the iconic views were the basis for my purchase of this apartment and I can’t believe they are in jeopardy
6. it is a grossly over-scaled building that is inappropriate in this historic precinct
7. the proposed development will more than double the current size of The Chimes building which is, as mentioned above, inappropriate for this historic precinct
8. the additional population will create more waste, unsightly bins, odour and noise generated by additional waste collection
9. whilst there will be some parking facilities onsite, there will be some tenants who won’t have parking plus an increase in visitors thus placing additional demands on parking that is already extremely limited and in fact, almost impossible to secure.
10. The increased activity by this development will create more pedestrian and vehicle noise
11. SIGNIFICANT loss of affordable housing
12. Instead of 80 affordable housing options, reduced to just 9 for a period of only 15 years is making a mockery of the affordable housing project. It is a manipulation of the project to create wealth for others.
13. Excessive height and bulk
14. Loss of heritage

AND IN ADDITION:
1. Proposed development has been assessed as “major encroachment” impact on three trees by the arborist report.
2. The design of the proposed building is completely inappropriate in this historic precinct. It is excessive in size and visually intrusive.
3. It would override “sympathetic architectural hierarchy” by visually dominating the Macleay Regis and other buildings of significance.
4. The Chimes is a modernist building in a historic precinct and there is no sound reason to demolish it.
5. The building can be modified within its current envelope to a high standard with opportunity for commercial return.
6. The proposal to develop a massive building on this site will take away sunlight from the Macleay Regis. Light is critical for mental health and well-being.
7. The proposed building will also create unreasonable view loss from both directions.
8. Increased building mass will exacerbate existing wind tunnel .
9. Not only will it unreasonably impede natural light, sunlight and view, but it will encroach on the privacy of the west facing Macleay Regis apartments.
10. Proposed development envelope includes a hospitality / retail offer that will further encroach on the privacy of residents in addition to creating unreasonable noise in addition to negative service & access requirements.
11. The proposed 6 balconies designed for entertaining will impact privacy and will introduce unreasonable noise levels.
12. Proposed communal area will unreasonably increase noise levels.
13. Complete demolition of the existing building will impact the residents of Potts Point, in particular the neighbours, re vibrations, noise, dust, traffic congestion.

What a totally tone deaf proposal!!! It astounds me that something would get to this point in the planning process at a time where the country, but more importantly the Potts Point/Elizabeth Bay Area is has a crisis of housing availability, particularly affordable housing. The excessive height and bulk of the building, not to mention the frankly ugly design is not in keeping with the history of the area, the loss of heritage is already an issue in the area.

The excavation would be totally disruptive, as would the construction, and at the end of the day, Potts Point need less luxury three bedroom apartments, and more housing for people to actually live.

I object to this development.

The proposed development reduces the number of housing units in the area, it does not provide any permanent affordable housing and is out of character and scale for the location

* Demolishing the current 80 affordable studio apartments and replacing with (34 luxury 3 bedroom apartments) plus a mere 9 social housing apartments for a very LIMITED 15 year period only in exchange for a massive 30% increase in size of the development is unconscionable and does nothing long term to the provision of affordable housing in the area.
* The size of the development is completely contrary to the historic character of buildings in that part of Potts Point which is part of the Potts Point Heritage Conservation Area.
* Increasing the size of the development to 13 storeys (50.05 metres) height is excessive and significantly out of proportion to surrounding buildings.
* There has been a complete lack of ‘community’ consultation. Providing notification of the development to only residents within 75 metres of the development is hardly community consultation. Why were not all the residents in the surrounding streets, including Rockwall Crescent, not informed given many of the residents in Rockwall Apartments / Rockwall Gardens (in Tusculum Street) look across at the proposed development site (The Chimes) and would be concerned at the massive increase in size from what currently exists.
* The increase in height of the existing building from 11 floors to 13 floors (in exchange for a 15 year only commitment by the developer to provide affordable housing) does not take into consideration the loss of views towards the harbour from apartments in buildings positioned both south and east of the proposed development. Considerations of overshadowing and loss of natural light with the increased building height must also be addressed by the planning authorities as water views are highly prized

1) There was inadequate community and neighborhood consultation. My home is less than 200 metres from the site and I did not receive any official notification of the proposed development. There should be more community consultation in respect of a project described as a state significant development.
2) Replacing 80 low cost studio apartments with 34 apartments makes a mockery of Government policies to increase affordable housing. The 9 "affordable" apartments are only protected as such for 15 years, after which time they can be sold off on the open market. The Potts Point area is a diverse one and we need affordable accommodation options for police, nurses, fire persons, teachers and others who help support our community and make it diverse.
3) The proposed building is excessive in height and bulk and out of character with neighbouring buildings. The existing "Chimes" building offers a softer streetscape that should be maintained.
4) this area does not need more cafes and restaurants, there is already an abundance within less than 100 metres from the site. There are not that many establishments with longevity in the area. Also, that part of Macleay Street is basically residential. We do not need to bring more and more people into what is already one of the most densely populated areas of Sydney.
5) The plans propose three (3) levels of underground parking which will require major excavation works not to mention the impact of construction on the surrounding area. Macleay Street was closed on numerous occasions to allow the construction of two (2) apartments on top of an existing building, this significantly impeded traffic flow often at peak times and sometimes made it impossible for emergency services vehicles to get through.
I am not a new resident of this area, having owned property in Elizabeth Bay and Potts Point since 1979.

I object strongly to this massive overdevelopment of 45 - 53 Macleay Street. The scale of the building will dominate not only neighbouring Macleay St but specifically McDonald Street which is a quiet residential neighbourhood with maximum height levels of 4 stories only.
McDonald Street is a tree lined cul de sac with very few parking spaces, and the garbage trucks back into the street to empty bins as they can't navigate the turn. With the increase in residents, this will mean extra bins, more cars and more pedestrians and noise pollution. I believe the residents of McDonald Street will be the most affected by scale and footprint of this building. We cannot afford to lose any parking spaces. I firmly believe this development will bring no benefits to the local community and will be detrimental to our way of life.

I am writing in opposition of this project. Despite there being the same amount of bedrooms in this new building the number of people living in this building will decrease. Housing is already hard enough to find in this area and demolishing houses that are in a perfectly acceptable condition to build a new luxury building with fewer apartments and inhabitants is both environmentally and ethically improper.
Thank you for your time

Hi NSW Major Projects,

I am Potts Point home owner and I am opposing this proposed development, 45-53 Macleay St, Potts Point. I believe that the disruption caused by construction and the development outcome will not result in a social or built environment benefit in the area. This proposal is an issue on its own, as well as in the context of rapid and frequent developments overwhelming Potts Point and Elizabeth Bay. Please see itemised issues below:
1. As the government's housing agenda concedes, there is a severe shortage of affordable housing in Sydney and in particular, in harbour-proximate and inner city suburbs such as Potts Point. As you are aware, the market rent for newer apartments in the area are higher than those in older buildings. As such, removing an older-style building and replacing it with a new one will drive rents up, forcing lower and middle-income earners out of the area. Despite a policy-acknowledged housing crisis, the proposed development does not aim to increase the number of apartments. Its promise of meeting the 15% state requirement for affordable housing is too small to offer any realistic benefit to people on low and middle-incomes. In the absence of any additional, voluntary affordances for equitable housing, the developer's goal of 15% affordable housing presents like an opportunistic way to build additional floor space.
2. The social impact of developments such as this is substantial and irreversible. 45-53 Macleay St is home to many older residents, for whom relocation will be financially and psychologically traumatic.
3. The social fabric of Potts Point - as is acknowledged by place-making efforts of your government and City of Sydney - rests on its social diversity. What makes streets and parks lively and bars and cafes operational, are people of all ages and income scales. Developments such as this will permit only wealthy residents - or indeed, no residents at all, as the units may be used as unoccupied investments.
4. The built heritage of Potts Point - as acknowledged by its density of heritage-listed buildings - at a neighbourhood scale, lies in its diversity of older buildings. While this site may not be heritage listed, its surroundings buildings are. Erecting a new building will be anachronistic and at scale, reduce Potts Point's unique historical landscape and make it indistinguishable from newly-developed suburbs that lack a sense of place.
5. The construction impact from demolishing and erection of a new building will bring sound and air pollution to the street. This type of development is also highly unsustainable. Can your agency unequivocally agree that the developer's assessment that wholesale demolishing and building anew is the most environmentally sustainable building approach? Our state is falling too far behind international sustainability and design standards.

Many thanks for your consideration,
Nina

I strongly object to this proposed development for the following reasons:
Unacceptable Loss of Affordable Housing:
It is impossible to justify replacing 80 relatively affordable studio apartments with a mere 34 apartments, 25 of which will not, in any sense of the word, be affordable. Such a proposal directly contradicts the stated aims and policies of Federal and NSW governments, as well as the City of Sydney to provide more homes, and more affordable ones.
City of Sydney now recognises that any new developments should no result in a greater than 15% net loss of dwellings. While its hard to understand how any net loss is acceptable as it is not consistent with growing housing supply, proposal would result in a net loss of almost 60%.
It’s acknowledged 9 apartments will be ‘affordable housing’, but there will be a net loss of 46 dwellings, almost 60%. In addition, it’s understood these 9 apartments will only be required to be for 15 years, after which they can be sold or rented on the open market, and the residents then likely forced to move.
How is this any long term solution to a housing crisis? While Sydney’s population will inevitably be significantly greater in 15 years time, there will be 9 less affordable dwellings available.
Inclusion of these affordable apartments for a limited time enables the developer potentially to building a significantly bigger building than it could otherwise. This is addressed in more detail below.
This proposal cannot be considered in isolation, but must be assessed in the broader context of the impact on the character and culture of the local community as a result of the diminution in relatively 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 21C Billyard Avenue/10 Onslow Avenue, Elizabeth Bay. A total net loss, by my count, of 46 dwellings.
A disproportionately large building
Most buildings in the immediate vicinity of this proposed development site are only about 20-30 metres high. It‘s understood the applicant wants to build up to 50.05 metres high. It will stand out conspicuously and not at all aesthetically.
While this excessive height might be permitted in consideration of the provision of 9 affordable apartments, the actual result will be a significantly larger and imposing building, but one which , ironically, contains fewer apartments overall.
This blight on the streetscape, if permitted, will of course be a permanent fixture. Unfortunately, the 9 affordable apartments won’t be.

Loss of Heritage
While the applicant contends otherwise, I believe City of Sydney has expert heritage advice that The Chimes makes a significant contribution to the Potts Point Heritage Conservation Area and, as such, should be retained. I support that view.

This unique Heritage Conservation Area already seriously under threat, and being seriously depleted, as a result of development approvals to demolish contributory buildings in the area, including Green Gables and Elysee at 11A and 13A Wylde Street.(City of Sydney DA ref no D2023/707). Again, this is an issue that cannot be considered in isolation but in the context of other development applications and approvals in the Heritage Conservation Area.

We don’t need another cafe
The proposal to include ground floor and outdoor eateries is both unnecessary and will like generate undue noise from patrons and loud music in what is currently a mostly quiet residential-only part of Macleay Street.
Potts Point simply does not need more restaurants, cafes or bars. This element of the proposal seems to be included only because it’s a requirement to come within the fast track state government approval process, and not to address any genuine community need.
There is no “café/outdoor eating crisis” in Potts Point. So, if providing more housing and more affordable housing is the actual goal of the state government, this ground floor area designated for commercial outlets could, if the development is otherwise allowed, be used to provide a greater number of affordable apartments.
Inadquate Community Consultation
In conclusion, I must protest the fact that only residents with 75 metres of this proposed development site were notified of this development application, and then only given about three weeks to fully understand it and lodge submissions. If this is really a proposal of state significance then everyone potentially adversely affected must be advised and given a reasonable opportunity to respond.
A ’fast track’ process intended to create much needed additional housing is one thing. But a fast track process that will result in a net loss of housing cannot be justified.
The application should be rejected.

.

I object to the proposal on the following grounds:
Significant Loss of Affordable Housing - Replacing 80 affordable dwellings with just 34 apartments contradicts NSW Government and City of Sydney policies aimed at increasing affordable housing. With a net loss of 46 dwellings—nearly 60%—this proposal far exceeds the City’s 15% cap on losses. Only 9 units will be affordable, and only for 15 years, after which they may be sold or rented at market rates. This risks displacing residents and granting the developer a long-term windfall. The proposal must be viewed in light of ongoing affordable housing losses across the area.
Loss of Heritage - The proposed demolition of The Chimes and construction of a high-rise will significantly undermine the heritage character of the Potts Point HCA, particularly this quiet stretch of Macleay Street, which is defined by heritage-listed and Art Deco buildings. The ‘fast track’ process requires consideration of local character, which is increasingly at risk following recent approvals to demolish other contributory buildings, including 11A and 13A Wylde Street.
Excessive height and bulk - The proposed 13-storey, 50.05m development is excessively tall and out of scale with surrounding buildings, which average 20–30m in height. This permanent impact is not justified by the short-term benefit of just 9 affordable units limited to a 15-year period.
Lack of Community Consultation: Notification was limited to residents within 75 metres and allowed only about three weeks to review extensive, complex documents. This falls far short of genuine community consultation for a so-called ‘state significant development,’ which warrants broader notice and more time for public response.

Whilst I am not opposed to redevelopment of the said site I do think this proposal with its additional height and scale will be detrimental to the lived environment of the area. The planned increase in the height and scale especially will not only provide serious overshadowing and destruction of sunlight to residents in surrounding buildings, cafes and public spaces, it will throw shadow over the whole of what has always been known as the “Paris “ end of Macleay street.
Whilst people in Potts Point predominately live in one bedroom or studio apartments, because of its location, it can hardly be seen as an “ affordable “ area in which to live. Given the number of apartments this developer is planning to offer, 15% of the total would be purely a token number of so called affordable apartments which one can imagine would only be the size of a matchbox.
I urge to NSW Government to reject this proposal and have the developer resubmit a more reasonable one that compliments and enhances our beautiful neighbourhood.

A developer is proposing to demolish The Chimes building of 80 studio/one-bedroom apartments and replace it with a 50.5 metre-high building of 25 luxury three-bedroom apartments and only 9 affordable housing apartments (affordable housing for only 15 years). This proposal absurdly takes advantage of affordable housing legislation to greatly reduce affordable housing stock! It also seeks to demolish a nice modernist building and replace it with a huge, high-rise building that is far taller than anything around it.

It’s simply too high. Approval should be conditional on maintaining the existing envelope.

Potts Point does not need another studio/1bedroom apartment building replaced with unaffordable luxury 3 bedroom apartments that towers of the existing building and surrounding original art deco and terrace houses in the area. This highrise plan will caste shadows over the area and change the landscape.

In a national housing crisis, we cannot afford to lose such a significant number of lower cost apartments and displace residents. It would be a major loss to the area losing the heritage building and the housing

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
(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 reasonable time to respond.

Please note that the Urbis report I referred to in my submission made earlier today is the “ Visual Impact Assessment and View Sharing Report “ .

Thank you

Simon Perrott