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

I object to this proposal on the following basis:

(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. The residents will be 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.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 in which I live, and 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, in which I live, 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…”. There are a plethora of cafes and restaurants in the immediate area, including Yellow and then others up the street on the same block bordering Challis Avenue.
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. 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.

1. Significant Loss of Affordable Housing:
The proposal is replacing 80 affordable dwellings with just 34 apartments. This 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. Studio apartments in Potts Point / Kings Cross have always been a foothold for buyers and renters in the area, including myself. The loss of 80 of these will be determinantal to the area and therefore should be retained.

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.

The development will displace over 80 residents from the affordable apartments in the building, many of whom are elderly, disabled, or financially disadvantaged. Sydney is already in a housing crisis. 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 appartment with anything else in the current climate is criminal. The building may not be deemed important to area architecturally but it is important socially. It’s one of the last truly affordable places close to the CBD and home to many people who without will be severely displaced.

The currnet building comprises 80 studio/one-bedroom apartments with the development wanting to 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.
Whilst I support development, there needs to me a much great requiremetnfor afordable and social housing, particularly where the development plans to reduce numbers. This development decreases overall available housing in the area, rather than increase in and substantially decreases afforable and excludes all social housing.
We need more mixed housing allowing all demograpohs a chance to live in this suburb, close to work and amenities.
We don't need more elitist development where 80 current homes are compressed into just 25 homes. This is completely against government policy and community wishes.
Please stop this development and have it reimagined. If it is to go ahead, surely hundreds of homes could be completed within a 50m high building!!!!!

I object to any proposal that reduces the number of dwellings overall - it is criminal what is happening in this city, reducing the number of available dwellings and replacing them with fewer larger units at a much more premium price. And in a housing crisis. Appalling!

please see attached file .

A larger footprint (be it above ground) for a smaller number of residents and at a higher cost per resident (rent or ownership) is a nonsense in the current environment.

Please see attachment.

I object to this project on the basis that this is a disingenuous application of a state significant development. This matter should have been approved by the CoS as a standard development application, rather than refusal to the point where the developer intends to exploit the EP&A Act for something that will:
1) reduce the yield of living space in the suburb
2) only comply with affordability for a 15 year period
3) provide little-to-no public benefit.

It should be noted that I support the origional development, and would support this project if the project does not benefit from the SSD benefits (i.e. additional height). An additional 15 meters to this building is not in the interest of the community and surrounding neighbours who have complied with the EP&A Act.

This project is locally important, however, this project is not state significant.

I encourage the State Govt to encourage and support the City of Sydney to support a DA approval, within the controls of the EP&A Act so that this development can occur in a manner that is palatable to the community, and not misleadingly applying as an application as 'state significant'.

This is a ridiculous proposal. It would use legislation that seeks to increase affordable housing to knock down a perfectly functional building of 80 pretty affordable apartments and build a huge luxury apartment complex. This would be silly and wasteful. Why can't they fix up the existing building and add another one on the empty land? Or develop another site that doesn't already contain 80 affordable apartments.

I strongly object to the proposal. I think The Chimes should be preserved because it is a distinctive, modernist building that makes an important architectural contribution to the history of Potts Point (this is supported by an independent report to local council in December 2024). There are many local precedents for preserving and updating modernist buildings, such as The Gazebo and International Lodge. This building and buildings like it also tell the social histories of Potts Point, including the important stories of people whose stories aren't often told. The Potts Point and Elizabeth Bay modernist buildings that are primarily made up small affordable apartments tell my own personal, queer history. Three times in my life I have lived in buildings like The Chimes when I found myself needing to live in a quiet, safe, functional place to rebuild my life. The only other option available to me was to share with strangers, which I would not have felt safe doing. In these buildings, I found a refuge and great communities that were made up of people like me. We helped each other out. The Chimes tells my history and LGBTQ histories and it also continues to provide the kind of support I just described to new generations of LGBTQ people who face similar hardships. Of course, other histories and lives are also present here - from my experience, those of single parents, immigrants, and people from low SES backgrounds. The idea of replacing 80 affordable, functional apartments with 25 luxury ones and only 9 affordable ones for only 15 years via legislation that seeks to increase affordable housing is absurd and saddening.

Dear Sir/Madam

My wife and I live in 'Pomeroy' at 14 Macleay Street, Potts Point. We are deeply concerned about the scale of the proposed redevelopment of 'The Chimes' site. I understand that the developer is now trying to use the 'affordable housing' line of reasoning to further increase the height of the proposed development to 13 stories, which to me is just the developer taking advantage of this 'loophole' to increase the scale, value and return on investment to themselves.

Pomeroy is our 'forever' home. We are part of the community and we care about the area. In the past developers (such as Winten and Mirvac) have constructed quality apartment developments in Potts Point and Elizabeth Bay that have been both attractive and of an appropriate height and scale. I do not know the 'The Chimes' developer and whilst they obviously had no interest in providing affordable housing originally, they're now apparently very happy to do so because of the financial benefits. It has been suggested that 'greed' could well be their motivation rather than any altruistic considerations in relation to providing affordable housing.

On a more personal basis, my wife and I currently have iconic views of the Harbour Bridge and Opera House. These views provide us with much pleasure, as does the view of dappled sunlight filtering through the London Plane Trees. If the proposed development is allowed to proceed, not only will we (and hundreds of other residents living in 'Pomeroy', 'Macleay Regis' (12 Macleay St) and 'Harbour View' (6 Macleay St)) lose our beautiful view as mentioned but ourselves and so many others shall also lose sunlight and sky views as a result of the proposed massive scale of this development - and Potts Point certainly doesn't need any more shaded wind tunnels.

My wife and I request that this 'Concept Proposal' (for what I understand to be an additional three stories) be rejected on the basis of loss of views and general loss of amenity for existing residents. Whilst I understand that the developer is trying to maximize their return (that is, make as much money as possible) from this development, I don't think they should be allowed to do so at the expense and to the detriment of existing residents, whose quality of life will be severely impacted.

Thank you for taking my concerns and objection into consideration.

RE: OBJECTION TO CONCEPT PROPOSAL FOR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT WITH IN-FILL AFFORDABLE HOUSING – 45-53 MACLEAY STREET, POTTS POINT
Application No SSD-79316759
Location: 45-53 Macleay Street, Potts Point (SP934)
Applicant: T&P CHIMES DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD
Consent Authority: Minister for Planning and Public Spaces

Dear Minister,

I am writing to register my strongest possible objection to the proposed development at 45-53 Macleay Street, Potts Point (Application No SSD-79316759). As a resident of The Chimes, I am deeply invested in the future of this community, and I believe this proposal represents a profoundly negative and destructive path forward. It is not an exaggeration to say that this development threatens the very fabric of our neighbourhood, and its approval would constitute a grave error in planning.

The following points outline the fundamental flaws that make this proposal utterly unacceptable:
1. The Eradication of an Existing Community:
• The Chimes is not simply a structure; it is home to a diverse community of 80 residents. These are individuals, couples, and even small families who rely on the building for shelter, security, and a sense of belonging. To refer to their dwellings as mere "units" is to fundamentally devalue their lives and experiences.
• The proposal to demolish The Chimes and replace it with a paltry 28 "luxury" apartments represents not a reduction in housing, but an outright eradication of homes. This is a callous disregard for the existing residents, who face displacement and the potential loss of their community support networks.
• The complete absence of meaningful resident consultation throughout this process is a stark illustration of the developer's disregard for the human consequences of their project. There has been no attempt to engage with residents, to understand their needs, or to mitigate the harm this development will inflict.

2. The Aggravation of the Housing Crisis:
• Sydney is currently in the grip of a severe housing crisis, characterised by a shortage of affordable dwellings and escalating rents. This proposal actively worsens this crisis by reducing the overall housing stock and replacing affordable options with high-priced apartments.
• The claim that this development will contribute to "affordable housing" is a cynical exercise in public relations. While the proposal mentions dedicating 15% of the total gross floor area to affordable housing units, there is no guarantee that these units will be genuinely accessible to those who need them most, and the overall effect of the development will be to diminish the total housing stock.
• It is stated in the Statutory Compliance Table ( See B - Statutory Compliance Table.pdf) that "The proposal will provide housing to address a growing and critical need for residential development and contribute to alleviating the existing housing crisis in New South Wales”. However, the reduction in the number of dwellings contradicts this claim.

3. The Violation of Residents' Rights and Wellbeing:
• This application demonstrates a shocking disregard for the rights and wellbeing of existing residents. It offers no protection against displacement, no assistance with relocation, no guarantee of the right to return, and no safety net to cushion the impact of this upheaval.
• The emotional, psychological, and financial burden placed on residents by the threat of eviction and displacement cannot be overstated. This is not simply a matter of bricks and mortar; it is a matter of people's lives, their security, and their sense of place.
• The documents provided in support of this application fail to adequately address the social impact on vulnerable residents, demonstrating a lack of empathy and a prioritisation of profit over people.

4. The Irresponsible Nature of a Vague Proposal:
• It is deeply concerning that such a destructive act as the demolition of a residential building is being considered based on a "concept proposal." Approving demolition without detailed plans and guarantees is an act of gross irresponsibility.
• The lack of specificity in the proposal should not be used as a loophole to justify a project that will have profound and irreversible consequences for the community.

5. The Unconscionable Human Cost:
• The proposal represents a direct threat to the stability and security of residents of The Chimes. The potential for displacement creates immense stress, anxiety, and fear.
• The social disruption caused by the destruction of a community has far-reaching consequences, breaking down support networks and damaging the social fabric of the neighbourhood.

6. The Contradiction of Government Objectives:
• The NSW Government repeatedly states its commitment to affordable housing, social inclusion, and the preservation of communities. This proposal flies in the face of those stated objectives.
• Approving this development would send a clear message that the government prioritises the interests of developers over the wellbeing of residents and the preservation of existing communities.

Beyond these fundamental objections, I wish to emphasise the following critical concerns:
• Social Vandalism: The proposed development's scale and design are completely out of character with the surrounding area. The "Area Schedule”(See - CC - Reference Scheme Area Schedule.pdf) indicates a 12-story option, and the "Concept Envelope Drawings" (See - G - Concept Envelope Drawings.pdf) illustrate the bulk of the proposed structure. This jarring intrusion into the streetscape disrupts the existing harmony and damages the unique character of Potts Point. This constitutes a form of social vandalism, destroying the intangible but vital qualities that make this neighbourhood a desirable place to live.  
• Heritage Vandalism: The demolition of The Chimes and the construction of a massive, out-of-scale replacement represents a profound act of heritage vandalism. The Heritage Impact Statement (See - X - Heritage Impact Statement.pdf) acknowledges that the existing building contributes to the heritage significance of the area . This proposal disregards the historical significance of the existing building and diminishes the overall heritage value of the Potts Point Conservation Area.
• Environmental Vandalism: The Remediation Action Plan reveals the presence of soil contamination on the site, requiring extensive excavation and removal of contaminated material. The plan identifies Carcinogenic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons (TRHs) in fill at two locations. This process carries significant environmental risks, including the potential for pollution and disruption. The proposal fails to adequately address these risks or to provide sufficient safeguards. (See - O - Remedial Action Plan.pdf)
• Infrastructure Strain: The increased density resulting from this development will place an unbearable strain on local infrastructure. Traffic congestion, parking shortages, and pressure on public transport will worsen, further diminishing the quality of life for residents.

In light of these overwhelming concerns, I implore the Department and the Minister to take the only responsible course of action:
• Reject SSD-79316759 outright. This proposal is fundamentally flawed, ethically bankrupt, and detrimental to the public interest.
• Uphold the principles of responsible planning. Prioritise the wellbeing of residents, protect existing communities, and ensure that development serves the broader public good, not just the profits of developers.

I urge you to consider the profound consequences of this decision and to stand with the community against this destructive proposal.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of The Chimes

The current building at the site in question contains 80 units. From what is visible from the submitted documents, and to the best of my knowledge, I can see that the proposed new building is to include 32 units of which 4 are 1-bedroom apartments, and the overwhelming majority 3-bedroom apartments.
Considering the location and the anticipated price at which these apartments will sell I find it hard to see how this is affordable housing.
Almost doubling the footprint of the building and reducing the number of units from 80 to 32 is only working against affordability and the general housing constraint in Sydney, especially when looking at smaller apartments of which there are very little.

I understand that the building is not up to standard in many ways nor is it very sightly. A redevelopment is therefore needed, however there should be a way to include at least 60 units in the new building, which would still leave ample 3-bedroom trophy homes at the upper end of the building (Those that will be used twice a year, or maybe even only once at New Years Eve, and are otherwise empty because owners don't actually live in Sydney, or they are used as AirBnBs like in neighbouring buildings.)

This development proposal and the supporting documentation is unfathomable.
Clearly 80 studios with carparking represent some of the more affordable housing in Potts Point, yet it is proposed & supporting documentation suggests that the inclusion of just 4 one bedroom apartments and 3 two bedroom apartments will have a positive impact on affordable housing.
While there may be some lots allocated to housing programmes it is clear that the intention of this development is a continuation of the change of demographics occurring in the neighbourhood from developers chasing luxury apartment profits. The majority of the existing residents will not be able to find comparable housing in the area and this development will only serve to further drive up pricing in the local rental market.
The additional bonus height may only be proposed to include 1 additional level, however the overall height dwarfs the current building - not to mention the width. While the existing site is subjectively unattractive, what is being proposed will fill an air and light corridor and clearly impact building like the Regis.
As a very long term resident of the street and neighbourhood, I strongly object to this development and the gentrification it clearly embodies. I find it particularly absurd that there are organisations that having been engaged by developers, sign off on the obvious significant loss of affordable housing as a positive for affordable housing.
Our neighbourhood has far too many buildings being redeveloped for luxury sales and too little consideration for where existing locals could live within the community.
As a final and separate comment: I believe this site represents one of the few practical locations in the neighbourhood for the government to purchase and develop true affordable social housing. Instead of 35 mostly three bedroom luxury apartments there could be more than 100 one & two bedroom apartments if the proposed new dimensions were utilised differently. Unfortunately for developers that negates the opportunity to turn an existing building of studio apartments into an opportunity for $15-20m penthouses.
What a waste of an opportunity for society this development proposal represents.

The current building brings no visual benefit to the streetscape and in fact the garage area is visually ugly. I support this application and its willingness to bring a percentage of affordable housing in its development