Mixed use development with infill affordable housing - Oxford and Verona Street, Paddington

I am a local resident of Paddington and support the proposed development. The design is of high quality, responds appropriately to the surrounding character, and will bring renewed activity to the street. The mix of uses will activate and rejuvenate the existing retail frontages of Oxford Street and the dwelling mix reflects the diversity of the area. The scale of the proposed building is in keeping with surrounding development and I believe that the proposal will make a positive contribution to the local community.

The Verona project is a significant safety guard against the diminishment of culture along Oxford Street. The building design sensitively places cinema in an environment where it is noticeable and can be viable even in trying commercial conditions. This assures that a key community experience of watching film and performance with friends is secured for what might otherwise become a a placemaking nomansland between Glenmore Road and Taylors Square.

I object to the project on the grounds that the height and bulk of the building are incompatible with the surrounding area, particularly the transition to surrounding historic terrace houses on rose street.
A more reasonable proposal would have a height in line with the recently completed 25h Olympia building to align more closely with the Apartment Design Guide.
It feels like this is another development that is exploiting for affordable housing bonuses but will not provide genuinely affordable housing.
I have concerns about the additional traffic, loss of sun to surrounding area and lack of green open space including trees on that section of Oxford street.

Re: SUB-102600707) (SSD-87245208 Verona site) - Objection and request for Independent Planning Commission review

Date: 18/12/25
I object strongly to SSD-87245208 as currently framed and request that the Department refuse the proposal or require substantial amendment. I further request that this proposal be referred to the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) due to the scale of public interest issues raised, the cumulative impacts of similar SSDs in Paddington, and serious concerns regarding the integrity of affordable housing outcomes.

1. Net loss of genuinely affordable housing undermines stated policy objectives
The Verona proposal would result in a net reduction of genuinely affordable rental housing in Paddington. The site currently provides 27 one-bed affordable units renting at approximately $700 per week, whereas the SSD proposal would provide only 14 “affordable” units, secured for 15 years only, at 20% below the median market rent for Paddington, which will exceed existing rents in absolute terms (Reference Paddington Society Submission).
This outcome is inconsistent with the intent of the NSW Infill Affordable Housing Policy and related planning provisions, which seek to mitigate the loss of existing affordable rental housing, not accelerate it.

2. Demonstrated impacts on essential workers and public services
The attached Paddington Society submission demonstrates that nurses employed at St Vincent’s Hospital, Darlinghurst, a major inner city public hospital, already experience housing stress in Paddington. Even under conservative assumptions, early- and mid-career nurses renting modest one-bed dwellings are paying well in excess of 30% of gross income, with substantially higher stress for family-suitable dwellings (Reference Paddington Society Submission).
The evidence identifies predictable and documented consequences of reducing affordable housing close to major hospitals, including:
• displacement of staff from inner-city areas,
• longer commute times incompatible with shift work,
• increased fatigue and safety risk,
• reduced workforce retention, and
• greater reliance on agency and temporary staff.
These are public-interest impacts, not private inconveniences.

3. Cumulative impacts across multiple SSDs in Paddington
The Verona proposal is not isolated. The future proposal taking in the nearby 160 Oxford St suggests a pattern of multiple SSD proposals on large or amalgamated sites within the same geographic catchment, with each resulting in a reduction in genuinely affordable dwellings while claiming affordable housing bonuses.
The loss of affordable housing in high-amenity inner-city locations such as Paddington is effectively irreversible. Once displaced, essential workers will not be able to return at comparable rents. The cumulative effect of these SSDs risks systematic erosion of Paddington’s social structure, with long-term consequences for local services and community diversity.

4. Request for Independent Planning Commission review
Given:
• the net loss of affordable housing,
• the demonstratable public health and workforce impacts,
• the cumulative effect of multiple SSDs in the same area, and
• the clear policy tension between claimed benefits and actual outcomes,
I request that this proposal be referred to the Independent Planning Commission for review and/or determination, or at minimum for a public IPC hearing, to ensure transparent and independent scrutiny of these issues.

5. Minimum requirements if approval is contemplated
If the Department is minded to approve the proposal in any form, consent should require:
1. No net loss of affordable housing, with like-for-like replacement in the local area;
2. Affordable dwellings that are affordable in practice, not merely by reference to median rent discounts or reduction in market value which would be in any case unaffordable by the people displaced; and
3. Secure affordability for a duration that reflects long-term community and workforce needs, not short-term substitution.
Conclusion
Affordable housing in Paddington supports essential services, particularly inner-city healthcare. Reducing the supply of genuinely affordable housing in this location is contrary to the public interest, inconsistent with stated policy objectives, and risks compounding irreversible social and workforce impacts.
For these reasons, I request that SSD-87245208 be refused, or alternatively referred to the Independent Planning Commission and substantially redesigned to ensure no net loss of genuinely affordable housing.


Reference
1. Paddington Society, Submission on the Impact of Reduced Affordable Housing in Paddington on the Nursing Workforce at St Vincent’s Hospital, 2024 - summary of Verona proposal and existing affordable housing stock.

Wonderful to see more residential coming to Oxford Street, this is exactly what we need to allow more people to live close to the city with great transport. Also helps to activate Oxford Street retail and hospitality with more people living in the area. The design of this project is magnificent. To make a stronger contribution to the housing crisis, provide more affordable housing and bring more buzz to Oxford Street I'd love to see another two or three levels at least and more apartments, a site of this size and location could be taller.

OBJECTION TO STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT SSD-87245208
Development: SSD-87245208 - Mixed use development with infill affordable housing - Oxford and Verona Street, Paddington
Submitted by: Kate Armstrong
Address: Paddington NSW
Date: 18 January

I object to SSD-87245208 and request that the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure refuse consent or, in the alternative, refer the proposal to the Independent Planning Commission for public review.

GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION

1. NET LOSS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
I am a resident of Paddington and am concerned about the ongoing and cumulative loss of affordable housing in the area. While the proposal is described as delivering affordable housing, the material before the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure indicates that it would result in a net reduction of affordable housing on the site.

The Environmental Impact Statement indicates that the site at 13–15 Oxford Street currently contains affordable rental dwellings and that the proposal would involve demolition of those dwellings and their replacement with a smaller number of affordable units. Based on the figures presented by the applicant, this would result in a net loss of affordable housing compared to the existing situation.

2. INAPPROPRIATE STACKING OF PLANNING INCENTIVES
Notwithstanding this outcome, the proposal seeks significant increases in building height and floor space. The documentation indicates that the development benefits from the Oxford Street Cultural and Creative Precinct provisions under Clauses 6.60D and 6.60E of the Sydney LEP, which permit increased height and floor space controls relative to the underlying standards. The proposal then seeks to apply the Housing SEPP affordable housing incentives in addition to those already elevated controls. The combined effect is a substantially larger development envelope while delivering fewer affordable dwellings than currently exist on the site.

3. INADEQUATE AFFORDABILITY ARRANGEMENTS
The replacement affordable dwellings are proposed to be rented at a percentage below median market rent for Paddington and secured for a limited duration. Submissions before the Department, including the Paddington Society submission, indicate that median rents in Paddington are already high relative to essential worker incomes. On that basis, a discount from median rent does not necessarily equate to affordability for lower and moderate income households, particularly when compared to the existing affordable housing arrangements on the site. The proposed time-limited affordability period further limits the long-term housing benefit of the development.

4. IMPACT ON ESSENTIAL WORKERS
Submissions to the Department also raise concerns regarding housing stress experienced by nurses and other essential workers employed at St Vincent's Hospital. These submissions indicate that a significant proportion of income is currently required to meet rental costs in the Paddington area. Given the nature of hospital operations, including overnight and early-morning shift work, proximity between home and workplace is a relevant planning consideration. Increased travel distances for essential workers may reasonably be expected to contribute to fatigue, reduced workforce retention, and broader operational impacts on essential services.

5. FAILURE TO ADDRESS DISPLACEMENT OF EXISTING RESIDENTS
The Environmental Impact Statement does not clearly address the future of the households currently residing in affordable housing on the site. There is no clear relocation strategy, no documented commitment to priority access to replacement dwellings, and no assurance that existing tenants would be able to afford the proposed rents if offered a dwelling. The displacement of existing affordable housing residents is therefore a material planning impact that has not been adequately resolved.

6. TIME-LIMITED AFFORDABILITY OUTCOME
The proposed affordability duration is limited. Once this period expires, the dwellings may revert to full market rent. In the context of long-term workforce housing needs and cyclical housing market pressures, a temporary affordability outcome does not align with the stated policy intent of affordable housing provisions, which is to increase supply or, at a minimum, retain existing affordable housing stock.

7. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
This proposal should also be considered in its cumulative context. There are multiple State Significant Developments proposed or approved along Oxford Street that rely on affordable housing incentives while delivering limited or reduced affordable housing outcomes. The cumulative effect of these developments is likely to be a substantial erosion of affordable housing in an inner-city area that is strategically important for essential services.

8. INCONSISTENCY WITH DEPARTMENTAL POLICY
The Department’s Infill Affordable Housing Practice Note (December 2023) indicates that development standards may be applied flexibly where this assists in delivering affordable housing outcomes. However, this principle necessarily assumes that a proposal delivers a net public benefit in terms of affordable housing supply. Where a development results in a net loss of affordable housing while benefiting from significant planning incentives, that assumption does not hold.

9. SELECTIVE APPLICATION OF PLANNING CONTROLS
I also note that the EIS identifies a shortfall between the number of parking spaces ordinarily required under the Housing SEPP and the number proposed. While the applicant relies on Sydney LEP provisions and the Department's practice note in this regard, the selective reliance on different planning instruments, claiming Housing SEPP incentives while seeking to avoid associated requirements, raises questions about the internal consistency of the proposal's planning justification.

CONCLUSION
For these reasons, I request that the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure refuse SSD-87245208 or refer the proposal to the Independent Planning Commission for public review. The proposal raises issues of clear public interest relating to affordable housing retention, essential worker accommodation, and the cumulative impacts of development in the area. Independent scrutiny is warranted given the disconnect between the claimed policy objectives and the outcomes identified in the assessment material.

I support the project

Recently opening the hotel adjacent to this property, I am a huge support and advocate of the revitalization of Oxford Street. The hotel has been so well received amongst the local neighborhood and community it would be amazing to continue the success with affordable apartments adjacent to the hotel.

I'm Managing Director of Central Element the Developer of 25hours Hotel and the neighbour that's adjacent to the subject development.
I'm writing on behalf of Central Element in full support of the Verona mixed-use development on Oxford Street Paddington.
The development proposal has utilised brilliant architecture from Tim Greer that pays homage to the area with its classic and sympathetic heritage character blending well with our building and completing the island from South Dowling to Verona corner. We believe the development will complete the activation of Oxford Street to this important pocket of the Paddington neighbourhood and bring good quality housing and economic activation that will crystalise benefits to the community and beyond.
The proposal should be supported during this critical time in the community as we experience a housing crisis with limited supply of quality and affordable homes for the community to enjoy the neighbourhood of Paddington. There should be more proposals of this high design excellence of housing in Paddington and Oxford Street to support the future community to enable them to live and enjoy the village amenity on its doorstep.

This has been needed for years. Especially excited to see Golden Age Cinema as part of the offering. This will connect Paddington and Darlinghurst along Oxford Street seamlessly

I am the owner of 265-267 Oxford St Darlinghurst, known as The Beacham Hotel and support the development application.
The proposal is a well designed, mixed use development. It will improve activation of the business strip by adding quality residential accommodation as well as affordable housing and importantly reactivation of the Oxford St street frontage at 13-15 Oxford St which is currently a dead spot in the commercial strip. The height of the building is in keeping with the surrounding buildings and is still of a human scale. The high quality and design of the development will complement the existing buildings and improve the amenity for local businesses.

I believe it will add value to the area. The former Verona Cinema site at the corner of Oxford and Verona Street has become dilapidated and this development will add value in keeping with other recent hotel openings along Oxford Street.

Whilst I support the development of an underutilised space, I suggest that the actions of the owners have contributed to the current commercial unviability of the site by its failure to upkeep and to lease the properties. The property could be developed within its current envelope without the need for extensive excavations which jeopardise historic terraces already made unstable (and as yet unrectified) by the previous development at 1 Oxford Street.

We are concerned about the reduction in light and air to Rose Terrace residents and that many windows on the 'shadowing' diagrams are not shown as orange or yellow and that the habitable rooms in Rose Terrace Properties are incorrectly shown or deleted from these diagrams.

There has been a significant reduction in rear aspect to the properties 14-20 Rose terrace since the 1986 development that resulted in a stark brick wall being built as the rear boundary. This should be rectified and it is unclear, to the untrained eye, what level the propose green space at the rear of the building is - is it at the hight the current gardens at Rose Terrace or is it above or below. It would also seem likely that the proposed green planted area may not get sufficient sun, when considering the height the proposed building, to sustain a suitable green area.

14 Rose Terrace, owner occupied by an elderly resident for over 30 years has not been addressed in the planning documents - possibly because of their inability to address the 'engagement' phase as their disabilities were not taken into account to enable them to do so.

There are particular concerns about the excavation of 3+ storeys below the properties in Rose Terrace as well as the noise and dust such extensive project will generate.

The bulk of the development is of concern as it exceeds the heights and build of all surrounding buildings. It creates significant overlooking of Rose Terrace on multiple levels to the rear of the development. Rose terrace is now subjected to significant amounts of late night noise from a roof bar at 1 Oxford Street and there is a concern that the terraces on the rear of the building will cause significant further noise pollution. We would also like to raise worries about noisy plant rooms and air-conditioning that will increase noise pollution and ambient heat to existing residents.

In the previous building of 1 Oxford street there was very little consideration given by trades to local parking restrictions as we would expect that all construction vehicles should be parked on site rather than in already busy local streets. And that existing parks ( including those of Rose terrace and South Dowling Street) and public amenities , not be affected by the development.
Request that all existing footpaths, including Oxford Street outside the development, be kept clear and in good order - noting the lack of a crossing of oxford street that is accessible to disabled residents when coming from South Dowling Street and moving East.

The development team engaged in a positive way with the Society and the local community, and we commented on aspects of earlier documentation with similar comments to those now submitted. We trust that the Department’s Assessment team will take our concerns during the assessment.

I was interrupted by an urgent call and am unsure whether I attached the pdf of The Paddington Society's 2 page submission, which I was in the process of re-naming because it had too many characters

see attached

As a resident of Napier St, Paddington, I have concerns about the proposed development.
While I commend the strategic approach to the development and the inclusion of affordable housing, a height limit in keeping with the recently completed Olympia Hotel would be much more appropriate.
My greatest concern however, is the pressure that will be placed on Verona Street from a congestion perspective. The Transport Impact Assessment gives the impression that there will be minimum impact without considering any street but Oxford St Paddington. Two basements of car parking – 50 car spots is unnecessary in an area that the Transport Impact Assessment states has 8 bus routes and 2 railway stations less than 1.2 km away. The development should be reduced to 1 level of car parking. Not only does this not fit in with the City of Sydney’s Sustainability ethos, but Verona St and Iona Lane will not be able to handle the amount of traffic generated by 50 vehicles and all the deliveries. There will continuously be delivery trucks arriving on site.
Verona Street and Iona Lane are already struggling to manage traffic with narrow streets, little parking, rubbish bins, illegal dumping from the current unit blocks, the construction projects that never end and delivery trucks and people parking over private driveways. I recommend another Traffic Impact Assessment be developed that considers:
• The width and length of Verona St and Iona and Rosebud Lanes
• Parking available along these 3 streets
• That it is not legal to enter Oxford St from Verona Street and that Iona Lane is incredibly narrow
• That Iona Lane and Rosebud Lane are incredibly narrow
• Rubbish is left out behind Berkelouw Books (19 Oxford St Paddington) because there is nowhere to store it on site
• There is internal parking for Oxford House on Iona Lane which blocks up the lane and then Verona Street
• Two cars park on Rosebud Lane near Don Pedros (10 Oxford St)
• It is one way from Napier st to Iona Lane, but not from Iona Lane to Napier St. This is another area that gets congested.
The new development will have a council truck coming once a week to pick up residential waste and then the commercial premises can have 5 collections a week separately. Noting that if you look at the sweep path analysis, it will not be possible for another vehicle to enter next to the Council Rubbish truck in the loading dock while it is collecting rubbish, causing congestion, nor will a vehicle be able to use the Waiting Bay while the Council rubbish truck (and potentially delivery vans) is entering or leaving the loading dock. Conversely trucks will not be able to enter the property while the Waiting Bay is occupied. Ideally the rubbish truck would reverse back into the site and this should be shown in the sweep path analysis. Is the intent for the Council truck to turn back into Verona Lane and out to Oxford St or via Iona Lane once it leaves the site. How will delivery trucks etc be able to enter the site? Will then entry not require a swipe card?
It is blatantly incorrect to state that ‘access for deliveries and waste collection will not cause an interruption in the flow of external traffic. All loading will take place wholly within the premises with no deliveries, loading or unloading occurring on the street’
I am also concerned about how the builder/developer proposes to utilise Verona St during construction. The proposed work zones are (except for one other spot) are the only parking spots on the street. The waste collection proposed for the development should be considered now and should be within the site of the construction. It is a large site. Drawing no. a 052, 17/11/2025 places it on the footpath/street of Verona Street and A 103, 17/11/2025 places is slight near the entry. It should be back further back into the site and should be larger in size, with different bins for different materials.
In addition, the management plan should consider the management of the residential area including opening hours for the pool.
Thank you for your consideration

Recent developments along Oxford Street have breathed life into the street and Paddington. There are so many empty shop houses. With the advent of online shopping and air-conditioned shopping centres, the glory days of long strips with bustling shops are in the past. This development beautifies an otherwise run-down street and complements the heritage elements.

I fully support the development of more affordable housing. We need more homes in well located areas. This site is well located to transport and local amenities.