Shop top housing with infill affordable housing, Oxford and Nelson Street, Bondi Junction

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to express my strong objection to SSD-77175998 and to respectfully urge the Department to refuse this application on both planning and procedural grounds. I work in a nearby building and see daily how constrained and sensitive this area already is — I am seriously concerned about how this development would disrupt its character, increase traffic, and impact the overall liveability of the area.

Summary of Concerns
This proposal:

Exceeds the permissible height by 57%, creating excessive bulk and overshadowing;

Is entirely out of character with the surrounding low-rise built form and heritage context;

Would have unacceptable impacts on the amenity and heritage values of the area, especially Centennial Park — a nationally significant heritage-listed site;

Is located on a highly constrained site atop a ridgeline, surrounded by already congested roads.

This development simply does not merit variation from established planning controls. The unique characteristics of the site demand strict compliance with the Waverley LEP and broader planning objectives that protect heritage, scale, and public amenity.

Abuse of Planning Process — "Forum Shopping"
The developer, Westgate, appears to be manipulating the planning system by lodging multiple, inconsistent applications across different consent authorities:

The SSD application proposes 17 new units and a 57% height exceedance using affordable housing provisions.

Concurrently, a DA lodged with Waverley Council seeks to reduce the total number of units by amalgamating apartments — contradicting the supposed housing uplift justification.

A separate DA seeks to remove a heritage-listed Norfolk Pine, despite the SSD stating that the tree would be protected.

The developer’s use of the SSD pathway while simultaneously pursuing conflicting DAs through Council creates a fragmented and opaque assessment process. These proposals should be considered together by one consent authority. At present, the process lacks transparency and undermines community confidence in the planning system.

SSD Application Fails to Meet Threshold Criteria
The SSD pathway is not appropriate for this application. The $79 million estimated cost includes works already approved under a separate consent (the original 10-storey towers). This is contrary to Section 6(2)(b) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2021, which excludes costs associated with previously approved components.

Furthermore, to include these previous works under Section 26A(1A)(b)(i) of the Planning Systems SEPP, the proposal must deliver an additional 40 dwellings — yet this proposal delivers only 17.

By any objective reading of the legislation, this proposal fails to meet the SSD threshold and should be referred to Waverley Council or, at most, a Regional Planning Panel.

Inconsistent and Misleading Documentation
The EIS and its supporting documents contain serious inconsistencies and omissions. These include:

Heritage Impact Statement: Fails to assess or even acknowledge the impact on Centennial Park, despite its listing on the National Heritage List. The report wrongly claims that the EPBC Act does not apply.

Visual Impact Assessment: Initially acknowledges “moderate-high” visual impact from Federation Valley within Centennial Park (Viewpoint 3), but this is later omitted or downplayed in subsequent pages and reports.

Clause 4.6 Variation Request: Justifies a 57% height exceedance using visual impact findings from viewpoints outside the park (Views 1 and 2), completely ignoring the critical Federation Valley viewpoint. It also provides a contradictory and misleading summary of the Visual Impact Assessment findings.

It appears that material facts have been selectively presented or omitted, presumably to reduce perceived impacts. This is unacceptable in the context of a proposal affecting a nationally significant heritage place.

Misrepresentation of Development Impact
There are multiple examples where the EIS misrepresents findings:

The VIA notes the towers will be “highly visible” from Federation Valley, yet this critical sentence is omitted from the EIS summary.

Visual analysis appears to have been edited post-facto to soften its conclusions.

Crane heights currently installed on site match the unapproved taller towers, suggesting the developer is acting as though approval is a foregone conclusion.

This raises serious concerns regarding the accuracy and good faith of the environmental assessment process. Under section 10.6 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, knowingly providing false or misleading information is a serious offence, carrying penalties of up to $1 million.

Impacts on Centennial Park
The national heritage significance of Centennial Park — a landscape of exceptional environmental, social, and historical value — cannot be overstated. This proposal would:

Introduce high-rise towers visible from key park areas including Federation Valley;

Disrupt the park’s landscape setting and sightlines;

Set a dangerous precedent for other developments near nationally significant heritage assets.

It is unacceptable that both the Heritage Impact Statement and the Clause 4.6 Variation Request entirely fail to assess these impacts. This undermines the integrity of the planning process and the intent of heritage protection frameworks.

Conclusion
This proposal is deeply flawed — in planning logic, in its approach to heritage and amenity, and in the integrity of its application materials. It fails the threshold for SSD, misuses planning instruments, and is inconsistent with the community’s vision for the area.

I urge the Department to:

Refuse SSD-77175998 on the grounds outlined;

Require that all current and future proposals for this site be assessed comprehensively by a single consent authority;

Consider whether misleading documentation has been knowingly submitted in breach of the EP&A Act.

The community is watching this process closely. We expect transparency, adherence to planning rules, and the protection of our heritage and public spaces — particularly one as significant as Centennial Park.

Sincerely,
Genevieve Taylor

The proposed building height is completely unreasonable for Bondi Junction. This area already faces issues with congestion and overdevelopment, and allowing a taller building will only worsen these problems — causing more overshadowing, less privacy, and increased pressure on traffic and local services.

Bondi Junction has experienced incremental overdevelopment over time, with new buildings added one by one without proper long-term planning. This piecemeal growth has created visual clutter and a disjointed mix of structures that make the area feel overcrowded and messy. As a result, residents have lost access to sunlight, open space, peace, and privacy. The community is calling for thoughtful, high-quality design that prioritizes long-term livability over rushed, profit-driven projects. New developments should respect Bondi Junction’s unique character, heritage, and open spaces, protecting the parks and historic buildings that make this area special.

This proposed development would have a significant negative impact on Bondi Junction, which is valued for its heritage features and community atmosphere. The developer has not provided a clear explanation as to why the existing planning rules can’t be followed, suggesting this proposal is more focused on profit than on meeting community needs or fitting in with the neighbourhood.

I am also concerned about how the “affordable housing” label is being used here. We need development that genuinely fits the neighbourhood and supports livability — not just luxury apartments disguised with loopholes to bypass planning limits.

The apartments that are designed and proposed for this project site are not affordable housing and I can see no way that the developer would undermine the value of the rest of the apartment building, which has been sold as luxury properties, by retaining the proposed additional floors as affordable housing post approval of this development.

The significant visual impact that this apartment building will already have, surrounded by low lying federation homes on both sides will be enormous. Adding additional stories to a building that is already a significant impost on the skylines, adversely shadowing one of the most significant public domains in Sydney - Centennial Park should not be allowed.

Traffic in this location is already congested and adding additional car parking will increase this. Further, adding additional parking to the proposal indicates that the development is not to increase affordable housing in areas close to transport hubs, but rather for the developer to capitalise on government social policy objectives seeking to benefit the community for commercial gain.

This is also a key waking route for young children who are in catchment for Woollahra Public School. The additional risks associated with increased traffic is very real where there have been children hit by cars in recent years in this area crossing at traffic lights. As a parent of a child who walks this way to school, I have increased safety concerns.

The impact on the local area and community by increasing the number of units, number of cars and the visual impact on the area is untenable, especially where it is evident that this apartment building is not designed for, and nor will the additional apartments be sold as, affordable housing.

I object for the reasons outlined in the attached

I wish to formally object to the proposed development by Stargate subsidiary Westgate at Oxford and Nelson Streets, Bondi Junction, for the following reasons:

1. Excessive Height and Bulk
The proposed towers (43.8m and 56.6m) exceed the 36m height limit under the Waverley LEP, representing a 57% increase. This far surpasses the 30% bonus permitted under the SEPP for affordable housing and fails to justify why the standard controls are “unreasonable or unnecessary.”

2. Adverse Impact on Local Character and Amenity
The scale and bulk will dominate the streetscape, overshadow public and private spaces, compromise privacy, and erode the character of this established area.

3. Traffic and Safety Issues
The addition of 54 car spaces (64% above the originally approved number) will worsen congestion and strain local intersections. With just one carshare space and a 15% reduction in bicycle parking, the proposal undermines active transport goals.

4. Visual and Heritage Impacts
The development will significantly impact views from Federation Valley in Centennial Park, a nationally significant heritage site. The admitted visibility of the towers from this location highlights their inappropriate scale.

5. Risk of Overdevelopment Precedent
Approval would encourage further excessive developments under the guise of affordable housing, altering the low-rise village character of west Oxford Street.

6. Misuse of Affordable Housing Incentives
While affordable housing is essential, these incentives should not be used to bypass planning controls. The proposed increase appears to primarily benefit private, higher-end dwellings.

Conclusion
This proposal is inconsistent with planning controls, harmful to local character and amenity, and offers limited community benefit. I respectfully urge the Department to reject the application in its current form.

I am concerned about the impact on Centennial Park. There may be overshadowing and there will certainly be a major visual impact. I understand that the applicant's own consultant says the proposal will be highly visible from Federation Valley with the impact of this change being "moderate-high".
In my opinion the heritage value of Centennial Park, particularly Federation Valley where the Commonwealth of Australia was inaugurated, will be compromised by this development and the proposed additional height.
I urge rejection of the increased height.

The proposed height increase is well beyond the allowable limits. The visual impact as well as shadowing will be significant as well as more traffic in an already congested area.
This development is detrimental to the local area and heritage terraces in the surrounding west Bondi Junction area.

Please find my attached submission

I support this project given the lack of affordable housing in Bondi Junction, the proximity to transport and the density around the planned building site. It makes a lot of sense.

I am writing to lodge a formal objection to the proposed development by Stargate subsidiary Westgate at Oxford and Nelson Street, Bondi Junction, on the following grounds:

1. Excessive Height and Bulk
The proposed towers of 43.8m and 56.6m significantly exceed the 36m height limit set under the Waverley Local Environment Plan (LEP). This represents a 57% increase — far beyond the 30% height “bonus” allowed under the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) for affordable housing. The proposal is therefore inconsistent with both local and state planning intentions and fails to justify why the existing controls are “unreasonable or unnecessary” — a requirement for height exceedance.

2. Negative Impact on Local Character and Amenity
The excessive height and bulk will:

Dominate the streetscape and overwhelm the surrounding built environment.
Cast significant additional shadows, particularly across public spaces and neighbouring homes, reducing natural light and solar access.
Create overlooking issues and reduce the privacy of adjacent residential areas.
Erode the character and heritage values of this established urban area.
3. Traffic and Safety Concerns
The proposal will increase traffic congestion in an already busy and constrained part of Bondi Junction. The additional 54 car spaces (a 64% increase on the originally approved number) will put further pressure on already dangerous intersections and reduce pedestrian safety.

It is concerning that despite this increase, there is still provision for only one carshare space, while bicycle parking has been reduced by 15%. This directly contradicts sustainability and active transport goals.

4. Impact on Heritage and Views
The development will have a significant visual impact on the surrounding area, including Federation Valley in Centennial Park, a site of national heritage significance as the location of the proclamation of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901.

The developer has admitted the buildings will be “highly visible” from this area — a clear sign that the bulk and scale are inappropriate for this sensitive and iconic public setting.

5. Precedent for Future Overdevelopment
If approved, this proposal will set a troubling precedent for excessive and unjustified height bonuses under the guise of “affordable housing.” We risk seeing similar towers along Oxford Street and the bus depot site, permanently changing the character of the west Oxford Street “village” and surrounding neighbourhoods.

6. Misuse of Affordable Housing Incentives
While affordable housing is essential, it must not be used as a loophole to bypass vital planning controls. The 30% height bonus is not automatic, and it should not be used to justify an unjustifiable 57% height increase, particularly when the vast majority of the additional yield appears to benefit private luxury dwellings.

Conclusion

This proposal is excessive, unjustified, and incompatible with the surrounding built and natural environment. It undermines local planning controls, threatens public amenity, and offers little in return to the local community. I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application in its current form.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to strongly object the proposal to increase the height of the development planned for 264 Oxford St, Bondi Junction. This is exceedance of LEP height limit by 57% is an act of greed, not goodwill and will have irreversible and devastating consequences to its surrounds. I urge you to protect the heritage of West Bondi Junction and the beautiful Centennial Park by refusing SSD-77175998.

In summary, the proposal is:
• far too tall, with excessive height and bulk that casts shadows and dominates the streetscape
• completely out of character with the surrounding low rise area, destroying the elements of the area that residents love
• will have excessive impacts on heritage and amenity, especially of Centennial Park
• is on a very constrained site surrounded by congested roads

The nature of this site means that compliance with the LEP development standard is entirely reasonable and necessary, and there are many environmental planning grounds to justify rejection of this proposal, including because the site is:
• on top of a ridge
• opposite an item of outstanding national heritage significance
• surrounded by low rise heritage conservation areas
• surrounded by busy roads, with access and egress severely limited
• subject to a number of environmental planning objectives designed to protect local heritage values and amenity.

We understand that the ten storey towers have already been approved but urge you to reject the additional six storeys which will be highly visible and create a terrible precedent.

NOT STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT
This proposal does not meet the criteria for state significant development (SSD) set out in s6(2) of the EP&A Regulation 2021 (because the estimated development cost includes the cost of the ten floors that are already approved). It also fails to meet the threshold in s26A(1A)(b)(i) of the SEPP (Planning Systems) 2021 - which refers to 40 additional dwellings and this proposal only proposes 17 additional dwellings.

The Department of Planning does not have power to deal with this proposal since it does not meet the threshold for SSD. It should refer the matter to Waverley Council. This issue is important because SSD does not have to comply with development control plans (DCPs). The proposed parking arrangements exceed the Waverley DCP maximum parking rate by 40% which will increase traffic (and profits for the developer!), even though the design integrity panel said there should be no net increase in parking.

WESTGATE IS FORUM SHOPPING
On 21 May 2025, residents learned that Westgate has now lodged yet another DA with Waverley Council (DA-400/2021/D) under which it seeks approval to amalgamate several apartments, converting 2br apartments into 3br apartments and reducing total apartment numbers by 6. The SSD application to the Department of Planning talks about boosting housing but this DA proposes to reduce it.

The developer appears to be forum shopping by splitting the requests in this way. The latest DA to Council does not even acknowledge the SSDA, talking about 70 apartments, rather than 85, and a height of 38m rather than a height of 56.6m. Council cannot consider this DA in any meaningful way when it relates to a proposal that is in the process of being fundamentally altered via another application and approval pathway. The DA reflects a development that the developer no longer wishes to pursue, as evidenced by the crane heights which are designed for the taller towers contemplated in the SSDA.

The two applications must be considered together. The Department of Planning should reject the SSDA and refer it to Waverley Council to deal with alongside DA-400/2021/D.

EXCESSIVE HEIGHT AND BULK
The proposed podium + ten storey “twin towers”, as approved in 2022, will be excessively tall and out of character for this part of Bondi Junction. At 37.54m, the approved buildings will already tower over the surrounding low rise heritage conservation areas, blocking the sun, casting shadows and greatly reducing amenity.

Adding 3 more storeys to the western tower and 6 more storeys to the eastern tower will make this effect far worse. The proposed height of the tallest tower will be 56.6m (not 54m, as per the EIS). This is 57% more than the height limit set out in the Waverley LEP. This must not be approved in the name of providing affordable housing. The Housing SEPP includes criteria that make clear that the 30% height bonus is not automatically available and that the proposal must be compatible with the local area.

The proposal is highly incompatible with this area and must be rejected. The Housing SEPP criteria refer to “the desirable elements of the character of the local area” or, for precincts undergoing transition, the “desired future character” of the precinct. Residents do not want this proposal. We want to preserve the heritage values and amenity of this area for all to enjoy. While affordable housing is important, it is also important that affordable housing proposals comply with the law.

The only party for whom the towers are desirable is the developer. The EIS seeks to downplay the impact of the proposal on the area. For example, the only image of the view looking west crops out the top of the eastern crane/tower (pictures 22-23 on p88 of the EIS). Other images are highly selective and not representative of this area which is rich in local heritage. Please come and see our neighbourhood for yourselves before determining that the proposal is compatible with this area.

CENTENNIAL PARK and local heritage
The Heritage Impact Statement for the twin towers (Appendix CC to the EIS):
- ignores the impacts on Centennial Park,
- wrongly states that the national heritage list is "N/A": Centennial Park is included on the national heritage list and described as having "outstanding heritage value to the nation"
- wrongly states that the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is not applicable and no other approval is required (wrong again! the EPBC Act applies: see point above)
- focuses primarily on protecting the heritage listed Norfolk Pine on Nelson Street (which Westgate has sought permission to remove via a DA to Waverley Council: this is not mentioned).
- fails to mention the Woollahra Heritage Conservation Area and the many heritage listed items which are just north of the site.
- totally downplays the impact of the proposal on the Mill Hill Heritage Conservation Area.

While the Heritage Impact Statement just ignores the impact on Centennial Park,
the Visual Impact Assessment says the towers will be “highly visible” from Federation Valley, where the Commonwealth was proclaimed in 1901, and the impact of the additional floors on this viewpoint is “moderate to high". The EIS fails to mention this.
Appendix F, p12, says the impact on Centennial Park is "perceivably minimal" and relies on analysis from two viewpoints which are actually outside the Park; the view from within the Park is not mentioned. This is very concerning. There are many other inconsistencies between the EIS and its appendices. For example, the EIS says the maximum height is 54m but Appendix F says it is 56.6m.

Including false or misleading information in a planning application is against the law: s10.6 EP&A Act. This conduct should not be tolerated.

CENT PK MANAGEMENT PLAN: NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON VIEWS FROM PARK
It is clear from the name of the development (“Centennial Collection”) and the marketing material that views of and proximity to Centennial Park are a key drawcard. If approved, this proposal and the dangerous precedent it sets will privatise views for the wealthy few and socialise the loss of amenity and heritage values for everyone else. This is contrary to the Plan’s conservation management plan which states:

Centennial Parklands needs an appropriate physical and visual curtilage including its skyline. It is important that new structures and landscape elements erected in the vicinity of the Centennial Parklands do not negatively impact on the historic precinct, nearby heritage streetscapes/areas, the setting of Centennial Parklands and views to and from Centennial Parklands.

The Plan states that planners are "to ensure the protection of an appropriate physical and visual curtilage to Centennial Parklands. These instruments are to provide a consistent approach by the adjoining local government areas with respect to building heights, density and planning policies."

Height limits of 9.5m to 11m apply to all other land around the Park. (These are set out in the LEPS of the City of Sydney, Randwick, Woollahra and Waverley – with the exception of the twin towers site). The original height limit for this site was 15m but this was changed, at the request of the current developer, to 36m. The developer now wants to build to 56.6m. This is excessive and must not be allowed.

Your predecessors showed enormous foresight when they reserved this Park for the enjoyment of all. Protecting green spaces, especially ones with such outstanding heritage significance, will become increasingly important as our population grows. Please protect Centennial Park by rejecting this excessive and greedy proposal.

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT (CTH)
The SEARS included the following:
"Any development likely to have a significant impact on matters of National Environmental Significance will require approval under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). This approval is in addition to approvals required under NSW legislation. It is your responsibility to contact the Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water to determine if you need approval under the EPBC Act." (https://www.dcceew.gov.au/ or 6274 1111).

Let this be your legacy. Reject this proposal and protect our heritage and park.

Sincerely,
Liam Kirk

We are totally opposed to this project overshadowing centennial park and making the view from our heritage park abhorrent. I can’t believe this could ever be considered.

Dear Madam/Sir
I write to urge you to refuse SSD-77175998 for the following reasons.
NOT STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT
This proposal does not meet the criteria for state significant development (SSD) set out in s6(2) of the EP&A Regulation 2021 (because the estimated development cost includes the cost of the ten floors that are already approved). It also fails to meet the threshold in s26A(1A)(b)(i) of the SEPP (Planning Systems) 2021 - which refers to 40 additional dwellings and this proposal only proposes 17 additional dwellings The Department of Planning does not have power to deal with this proposal since it does not meet the threshold for SSD. It should refer the matter to Waverley Council. This issue is important because SSD does not have to comply with development control plans (DCPs). The proposed parking arrangements exceed the Waverley DCP maximum parking rate by 40% which will increase traffic (and profits for the developer!), even though the design integrity panel said there should be no net increase in parking.

WESTGATE IS FORUM SHOPPING
On 21 May 2025, residents only learned that Westgate has now lodged yet another DA and (only had until 27 th May to make submissions about the project) with Waverley Council (DA-400/2021/D) under which it seeks approval to amalgamate several apartments, converting 2br apartments into 3br apartments and reducing total apartment numbers by 6. The SSD application to the Department of Planning talks about boosting housing but this DA proposes to reduce it. The developer appears to be forum shopping by splitting the requests in this way. The latest DA to Council does not even acknowledge the SSDA, talking about 70 apartments, rather than 85, and a height of 38m rather than a height of 56.6m. Council cannot consider this DA in any meaningful way when it relates to a proposal that is in the process of being fundamentally altered via another application and approval pathway. The DA reflects a development that the developer no longer wishes to pursue, as evidenced by the crane heights which are designed for the taller towers contemplated in the SSDA.
The two applications must be considered together. The Department of Planning should reject the SSDA and refer it to Waverley Council to deal with alongside DA-400/2021/D.

EXCESSIVE HEIGHT AND BULK
The proposed podium + ten storey “twin towers”, as approved in 2022, will be excessively tall and out of character for this part of Bondi Junction. At 37.54m, the approved buildings will already tower over the surrounding low rise heritage conservation areas, blocking the sun, casting shadows and greatly reducing amenity. Adding 3 more storeys to the western tower and 6 more storeys to the eastern tower will make this effect far worse. The proposed height of the tallest tower will be 56.6m (not 54m, as per the EIS). This is 57% more than the height limit set out in the Waverley LEP. This must not be approved in the name of providing affordable housing. The Housing SEPP includes criteria that make clear that the 30% height bonus is not automatically available and that the proposal must be compatible with the local area.

CENTENNIAL PARK and local heritage
The Heritage Impact Statement for the twin towers (Appendix CC to the EIS):
- ignores the impacts on Centennial Park,
- wrongly states that the national heritage list is "N/A": Centennial Park is included on the national heritage list and described as having "outstanding heritage value to the nation"
- wrongly states that the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is not applicable and no other approval is required (wrong again! the EPBC Act applies: see point above)
- focuses primarily on protecting the heritage listed Norfolk Pine on Nelson Street (which Westgate has sought permission to remove via a DA to Waverley Council: this is not mentioned).
- fails to mention the Woollahra Heritage Conservation Area and the many heritage listed items which are just north of the site.
- totally downplays the impact of the proposal on the Mill Hill Heritage Conservation Area.

While the Heritage Impact Statement just ignores the impact on Centennial Park, the Visual Impact Assessment says the towers will be “highly visible” from Federation Valley, where the Commonwealth was proclaimed in 1901, and the impact of the additional floors on this viewpoint is “moderate to high". The EIS fails to mention this.

Appendix F, p12, says the impact on Centennial Park is "perceivably minimal" and relies on analysis from two viewpoints which are actually outside the Park; the view from within the Park is not mentioned. This is very concerning. There are many other inconsistencies between the EIS and its appendices. For example, the EIS says the maximum height is 54m but Appendix F says it is 56.6m.
Including false or misleading information in a planning application is against the law: s10.6 EP&A Act. This conduct should not be tolerated.
CENT PK MANAGEMENT PLAN: NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON VIEWS FROM PARK

It is clear from the name of the development (“Centennial Collection”) and the marketing material that views of and proximity to Centennial Park are a key drawcard. If approved, this proposal and the dangerous precedent it sets will privatise views for the wealthy few and socialise the loss of amenity and heritage values for everyone else. This is contrary to the Plan’s conservation management plan which states:
Centennial Parklands needs an appropriate physical and visual curtilage including its skyline. It is important that new structures and landscape elements erected in the vicinity of the Centennial Parklands do not negatively impact on the historic precinct, nearby heritage streetscapes/areas, the setting of Centennial Parklands and views to and from Centennial Parklands.

The Plan states that planners are "to ensure the protection of an appropriate physical and visual curtilage to Centennial Parklands. These instruments are to provide a consistent approach by the adjoining local government areas with respect to building heights, density and planning policies."
This development from the get go does not respect any aspect of Centennial Park which is the peoples park.

Height limits of 9.5m to 11m apply to all other land around the Park. (These are set out in the LEPS of the City of Sydney, Randwick, Woollahra and Waverley – with the exception of the twin towers site). The original height limit for this site was 15m but this was changed, at the request of the current developer, to 36m. The developer now wants to build to 56.6m. This is excessive and must not be allowed.

Your predecessors showed enormous foresight when they reserved this Park for the enjoyment of all. Protecting green spaces, especially ones with such outstanding heritage significance, will become increasingly important as our population grows. Please protect Centennial Park by rejecting this excessive and greedy proposal.

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT (CTH)
The SEARS included the following:

"Any development likely to have a significant impact on matters of National Environmental Significance will require approval under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). This approval is in addition to approvals required under NSW legislation. It is your responsibility to contact the Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water to determine if you need approval under the EPBC Act." (https://www.dcceew.gov.au/ or 6274 1111)
The only reference to the EPBC Act in the EIS relates to biodiversity. The EIS states at p115: " no Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) are likely to be affected by the development." We disagree.
The Matters of National Environmental Significance - Significant impact guidelines state on page 21 that: "An action is likely to have a significant impact on historic heritage values of a National Heritage place if there is a real chance or possibility that the action will: … involve the construction of buildings or other structures within, adjacent to, or within important sight lines of, a National Heritage place which are inconsistent with relevant values".
Approving the current proposal would have significant adverse impacts on the heritage values of the Park, which is a national heritage place, and as such must be referred to the Commonwealth Minister under the EPBC Act. It is clear from the EIS that this has not occurred. The Heritage Impact Statement even states that the national heritage list is not applicable, despite the fact that Centennial Park is on it. This is not good enough. This proposal must be rejected.
TRAFFIC
The site is surrounded by congested roads which are already at capacity. We are shocked that the developer is still relying on traffic surveys done in April 2021 during COVID when most people were still working from home and traffic was well down on normal levels.
These towers will already be too big. They should NOT be allowed to get 57% taller than the Waverley LEP permits.

This proposal is far too tall for this area Bondi junction made the newspapers a few years back about what not to do when it comes to building apartment blocks. It’s been destroyed, this developer many years ago added an additional 5 storeys to a development which they did not have approval for so how can we trust this developer and the information they have submitted in this latest DA.

Please reject this application , reject it for Centennial Park as it will have excessive impacts on an outstanding national heritage significance , it will have excessive impacts on local heritage areas and amenity, add more pressure on already surrounded congested roads and the neighbouring Woollahra village.
Yours sincerely
A deeply concerned citizen

My very strong objection is because the proposal will
1. result in towers that are more than 50% higher than permitted under Waverley LEP and nearly double the affordable housing height bonus.
2. create even further significant traffic congestion in Oxford, Nelson and Grafton Streets. The road and footpath are extremely dangerous since installation of the bike lane which has also reduced the capacity for vehicular traffic.
3. the increasing height and bulk of the development will block sunshine and have certain areas on Oxford, Nelson and Grafton Streets in permanent shadow.
4. create an even worse visual impact on the overall amenity of the area, including as a gateway to Bondi Junction and access to Centennial Park.
5. Set a precedent for future development applications that wish to overlook & impact on Centennial Park that is open green space for many many people across Sydney.
6. The existing old pine tree ( that was required to be retained as part of the current development application has suddenly started to deteriorate markedly so already impacting on green space in the area.
Both Local residents and Council were unanimous in their opposition to the development which was overturned on appeal. Please do not impose on the residents any more.

My key concern is the sanctity or corruption of the overall planning system. This project has been through a long and high-profile planning process, including extensive consultation, resulting in a project that, while not pleasing all, is a reasoned compromise based on evidence and argument.
This amendment, if approved, invalidates all previous work during that process and tells all parties who participated in good faith that their efforts and arguments were futile. And begs the question, why would anyone participate in planning consultation again?
There appears to be no prompt for this change other than a change in councillors. And the notion affordable housing will be supplied in a building with apartments selling at up to $13 million is laughable.

With ground floor retail + 10 storey residential towers, the already-approved development will be much taller than, and out of character with, surrounding low rise shops and residences - including the Mill Hill heritage conservation area, Woollahra heritage conservation area, the heritage listed Nelson Hotel (and many other heritage listed homes) and Centennial Park, which of course, is of national significance as the birthplace of the Commonwealth in 1901 (they'll actually have a great view of the spot from the penthouse!).

AMENITY and HERITAGE
The proposed additional storeys will result in bulk and scale that is completely out of character for this part of Bondi Junction and contrary to the objectives of the Waverley Local Environmental Plan (WLEP).
Under the WLEP, height limits are designed to establish a transition in scale between [the Bondi Junction town centre] and adjoining zones to protect local amenity and establish building heights that are consistent with the desired future character of the locality.
This proposal does not meet these objectives. If approved, it will result in towers that dominate the streetscape, cast shadows, destroy the amenity of sunny west Oxford St, and be "highly visible" [developer's own words] from Centennial Park. Approval would also create a terrible precedent that other developers will seek to follow, for a wall of high rises along Oxford Street that will essentially block winter sun from a large swathe of homes south of Oxford Street - and will look ridiculous.
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) seeks to downplay the proposal's impact on local amenity and heritage. It says the maximum height of the eastern tower will be 54m but in fact the maximum height will be 56.6 (source: Appendix F to the EIS). The EIS includes images that do not show the extent of the impact (eg figures 27 and 28 which don't show the top of the taller tower).

The architectural drawings show how out of character with surrounding low rise buildings this proposal will be, especially with an additional 3/6 storeys.  The developer has had ten storeys approved; we ask the Department of Planning to say no to the additional floors, esp the 6 floors on the eastern tower.

CENTENNIAL PARK
The developer's own consultant said the proposal will be "highly visible" from here and "the impact of change of the proposed development from this viewpoint is considered to be moderate-high". (Appendix M, p25)
The proposed increase in height is completely at odds with Centennial Park's Conservation Management Plan which says:
"Centennial Parklands needs an appropriate physical and visual curtilage including its skyline. It is important that new structures and landscape elements erected in the vicinity of the Centennial Parklands do not negatively impact on the historic precinct, nearby heritage streetscapes/ areas, the setting of Centennial Parklands and views to and from Centennial Parklands."
If this proposal is allowed then a terrible precedent will have been set. Already the same developer has expressed interest in redeveloping the bus depot site and other developers will no doubt want to build similar towers around the Park, maximising views and profits while eroding heritage values and amenity, and further congesting overloaded streets and infrastructure.

The height limits for all other land around Centennial Park are in the range of 9.5-11 metres. The twin towers site used to have a height limit of 15m but the developer had that changed to 36m. Now they are seeking to go to 56.6m. This is excessive and unacceptable - and the site being on a ridge makes the impact even greater.
Concern about height was recognised by Waverley Council when it made a Development Control Plan (DCP) for the twin towers site in 2020 with input from residents. It stated that no further height and floor space ratio (FSR) increases should be allowed for this site. While not legally enforceable (because DCPs are at the bottom of the hierarchy of planning instruments), this clause reflects the view that more height increases should NOT be allowed on this site. The Department of Planning should respect this intent and preserve the current LEP height limit.
Centennial Park was created as a gift to the nation. Let's preserve its beauty for future generations to enjoy.

TRAFFIC
The 2021 traffic data is not only out of date, it was taken during the low-volume COVID period.
To comply with the DOP requirements, the developer must provide current traffic data and examine the performance of nearby intersections. As a regular user of Oxford Street and Syd Einfeld Drive, it is apparent there are times when this junction is gridlocked and unable to cope with further traffic

Other points:

(1) The Housing SEPP (State Environmental Planning Policy) gives a "bonus" height allowance of up to 30% in return for affordable housing inclusion. This is NOT AUTOMATIC.  The SEPP says: "Development consent must not be granted to development under this division unless the consent authority has considered whether the design of the residential development [including the “bonus” floors] is compatible with—
(a)  the desirable elements of the character of the local area, or
(b)  for precincts undergoing transition—the desired future character of the precinct."

In other words, the consent authority has to consider whether this is an appropriate site for allowing normal height controls to be exceeded. It's inappropriate. This is a highly constrained site and local roads and other infrastructure are already at capacity. While the developer is proposing a 21% increase in the number of apartments, it is also proposing a disproportionate 64% increase in the number of car spaces [but still only 1 carshare space and 15% less bike spaces], which will worsen traffic.   
Hundreds of residents opposed the original DA so 36m towers were clearly not considered "desirable elements", at least by residents. 56 metre towers are even more problematic.

(2) A 30% increase under the Housing SEPP (IF agreed by the dept of planning) would increase the height from 36m to 46.8m. This is enough to allow an additional three storeys (as proposed for the western tower) but, because the development is not allowed to overshadow too much of Centennial Park, the additional floors proposed for the western tower are set back from the western edge of that tower. To make up for this, Westgate is seeking a height increase of 57% on the eastern tower (nearly double the 30% contemplated in the Housing SEPP).

Again, approval for this is NOT AUTOMATIC. To get approval, Westgate must demonstrate that—
(a)  compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, and
(b)  there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard.
In deciding whether to agree to the exceedance, the consent authority must also consider the public interest.

The EIS, Appendix F, argues that the added height will improve the look of the proposal and will not result in negative visual impacts - but this is contradicted by the visual assessment report (Appendix M) which says the visual impact on Federation Valley will be "moderate-high". Appendix F does not mention this impact, instead saying "visual impact [on Centennial Park] is perceivably minimal". This misrepresents the impact and ignores the consultant's assessment that the additional storeys will make the proposal "highly visible" from Federation Valley (whereas the 10 storey towers would be far less visible).
Appendix F also says that the WLEP transition objective (i.e. that building heights should transition from the town centre to protect amenity) is not applicable. I disagree. The principle that building heights should transition from the town centre towards Centennial Park remains important, as evidenced by the DCP clause saying no more height increases should be allowed on this site. (Appendix F refers to the DCP but does not mention this clause.) The Department of Planning should not ignore this objective. If it does and this proposal is approved, developers will seek to build tall buildings all along west Oxford Street and this area is already at capacity.
Another consideration is that the already approved towers did not comply with the Apartment Design Guide standards relating to communal open space (the standard is 25% and the development only included 4%), landscaping etc. The addition of 15 more apartments will make this non-compliance even worse. We've seen the impact of such short-changing in Green Square and Moore Park, where the City of Sydney is trying to claw back green space after developing without thought or care.
I also note that the developer has previously said the issue of housing affordability in Sydney was "more of a macro policy issue, and we do not feel we can resolve this alone in one housing development project".  (SMH 28/11/2021) Westgate is only proposing to include 17 affordable apartments now because, if approved, it will be able to sell 15 additional 3br units worth many millions. The affordable housing tenants will be asked to leave after 15 years.

Submission in Opposition to the Proposed High-Rise Development in Bondi Junction

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed high-rise development, and the cynical plan to massively increase an already-approved development that has attracted massive community opposition. While urban growth and development are necessary, especially near the Bondi Junction mall and in proximity to the train station, this particular proposal disregards critical concerns around affordability, community impact, and urban aesthetics. It prioritizes luxury residences at the expense of equitable housing access, undermining efforts to maintain a liveable and inclusive city.

Affordable Housing Concerns

Housing affordability is one of the most pressing issues facing our city. The current proposal disproportionately allocates units for luxury apartments, significantly exceeding the limits necessary to ensure affordability for lower-and middle-income residents. The expansion prioritizes exclusive, high-end residences while failing to provide meaningful solutions for housing insecurity. Rather than addressing the increasing demand for reasonably priced homes, it exacerbates existing affordability issues. Bondi Junction needs more accessible and genuinely affordable housing options for essential workers, young families, and vulnerable community members - rather than subsidised luxury apartments masquerading under the "affordability" label.

Moreover, the soaring cost of living already places immense financial strain on residents. This development sets a precedent that favours profit-driven ventures over policies designed to promote inclusivity and affordability. If the city continues to approve such projects, it risks fostering a housing market that caters exclusively to the wealthy, further alienating those struggling to afford stable living conditions.

Additional Concerns

Beyond affordable housing, several other significant issues highlight why this proposal should not proceed:

Height & Bulk: The project drastically increases building height, creating an imposing visual presence that dominates the surrounding streetscape.

Shadowing Impact on Centennial Park & Environmental Concerns

Centennial Park is one of Sydney’s most treasured green spaces, providing vital ecological, recreational, and aesthetic benefits to the community. The excessive height of the proposed development will cast long shadows over key areas of the park, reducing sunlight exposure and potentially disrupting local biodiversity. Prolonged shadowing can negatively impact plant growth, alter microclimates, and diminish the park’s usability for visitors who rely on open, sunlit spaces.

Beyond the physical impact, there are concerns that the development may breach Commonwealth environmental laws. Centennial Parklands has a strong environmental policy aimed at conserving biodiversity, protecting heritage, and promoting sustainable land use. Any development that undermines these principles risks violating regulatory obligations and setting a dangerous precedent for future urban expansion. Authorities must ensure that environmental assessments are conducted rigorously and that any potential breaches of Commonwealth environmental laws are addressed before approval is granted.

Character & Heritage: This development conflicts with the historical and architectural integrity of Oxford, detracting from the area's established character.

Bicycle Parking Reduction: The proposal eliminates 17 bicycle spaces despite the city's push for sustainable, low-impact transportation options.

Community Liveability: Increased density without careful urban planning leads to congestion, strained infrastructure, and a diminished neighbourhood experience.

Conclusion

This proposal represents a clear deviation from responsible urban development. A thriving city must balance progress with sustainability, affordability, and community values. Approving this development would prioritize financial gain over the well-being of residents, worsening an already alarming housing affordability crisis.

I urge planners to reconsider and reject this proposal in favour of an approach that genuinely supports equitable housing access, maintains the character of our neighbourhoods, and respects community concerns.

This development as approved was already oversize for the location. In defiance of the LEP height limit the site was excised from the LEP by Waverley Council in a move the assisted no-one but the developer. The traffic, visual pollution and destruction of a heritage area was disregarded despite strong opposition by residents.
Now we have an even greater height being sought on the spurious grounds that it will include affordable housing.
The Waverley local government area has the second-highest housing density in NSW. Bondi Junction is one of Sydney’s first, and busiest transport-orientated development (TOD) precincts. Already 83 per cent of residents live in mid-to-high density housing. Council and residents have done their bit by coping with high density living. There must be a cap on further development.
See attached for comprehensive objections

Dear Madam/Sir,

I write to strongly object to the proposed development application SSD-77175998 submitted by Westgate for the addition of six luxury floors and 15 units to the already approved twin towers at Bondi Junction.

As a local resident, I recently undertook a modest renovation to my terrace home—an entirely standard dwelling—simply to bring it in line with what many other houses on the street had already done. The process was incredibly difficult, marked by repeated delays, endless documentation, and stringent conditions. It is astounding that, while individual residents face such intense scrutiny for basic improvements, a developer is attempting to push through a massive and clearly non-compliant high-rise development by exploiting loopholes and fragmenting its applications.

This inconsistency erodes community confidence in the planning system and suggests that there are two sets of rules—one for residents, and another for developers.

In summary, further reasons to why I strongly oppose the Westgate proposal:
• Exceeds the Waverley LEP height limit by 57%, creating excessive height and bulk that will overshadow surrounding areas and dominate the streetscape;
• Is completely out of character with the surrounding low-rise, heritage-sensitive neighbourhood;
• Will have serious and lasting impacts on local amenity and view corridors, especially from nationally significant Centennial Park;
• Is proposed on a highly constrained site, atop a ridge and surrounded by narrow, congested roads;
• Seeks approval under a pathway it does not qualify for, undermining the integrity of the planning process.

Key Grounds for Objection
1. Misuse of the SSD Pathway
The proposal does not meet the SSD threshold. The $79 million estimated cost includes previously approved works, which violates Section 6(2)(b) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation. The true cost of the new works falls below the $75 million requirement, and the proposed 17 additional dwellings are well short of the 40-dwelling threshold under the SEPP. This application should be assessed by Waverley Council or a Regional Planning Panel—not the Department of Planning.
2. Fragmented and Inconsistent DAs
Westgate has submitted multiple, conflicting applications:
• The SSD seeks to add 15 apartments;
• A concurrent DA to Waverley Council proposes removing 6 apartments;
• A separate DA requests the removal of a heritage-listed Norfolk Pine, contradicting the SSD’s claim that it would be protected.
These inconsistencies suggest forum shopping and are clearly designed to obscure the true scope of the development. This prevents any authority from making a clear and holistic assessment.
3. Heritage and Environmental Impact Overlooked
The Heritage Impact Statement:
• Fails to mention the inclusion of Centennial Park on the National Heritage List;
• Incorrectly states that the EPBC Act does not apply;
• Omits significant nearby heritage zones, including the Woollahra and Mill Hill Conservation Areas;
• Contradicts the DA to remove the Norfolk Pine.
4. Misleading Visual Impact Assessments
The Visual Impact Assessment is inconsistent:
• It acknowledges that the towers would be “highly visible” from Federation Valley in Centennial Park, with a “moderate to high” impact;
• Then downplays that same impact as “perceivably minimal” in subsequent documentation;
• Ignores Viewpoint 3 (the only one actually inside Centennial Park) in its argument for breaching height limits.
These inconsistencies seem aimed at minimizing objections, not accurately representing environmental consequences.
5. Inappropriate Site for Overdevelopment
The location:
• Sits prominently on a ridge, exacerbating visual impact;
• Is adjacent to national and local heritage areas;
• Is ringed by low-rise homes and already overburdened roads;
• Is poorly suited to additional bulk, height, and density.
6. Planning Integrity at Stake
Approving this development would set a dangerous precedent. It would reward developers who game the system by splitting applications, manipulating assessment pathways, and ignoring local planning controls. Meanwhile, individual homeowners like myself are held to the strictest standards. The contrast is not just unfair—it is damaging to public confidence in the planning system.

Conclusion

This proposal is excessive, procedurally unsound, and environmentally irresponsible. It fails to meet the SSD criteria, misrepresents key facts, and threatens the integrity of the planning process. I urge the Department to refuse SSD-77175998 and return the matter to Waverley Council for appropriate, transparent assessment in accordance with local planning instruments.

Thank you for considering this submission.

I am not against all development and supports affordable housing, but this proposal is excessive. - It exceeds the LEP height limit by 57% even though the affordable housing rules contemplate an increase of just 30% (which is not automatically given) and there is a clause in the Waverley development control plan (DCP) saying no more height increases should be allowed on this site. - It exceeds the DCP max. parking rates by 40% and seeks to "turn off" the DCP by categorising the devt as state significant (even though it does not meet the criteria). Even the more generous parking rates in the HOusing SEPP are exceeded by 16%. This is about profit and will worsen traffic. - It says the impact on Cent Park is "perceivably minimal" and that the park is not listed on the national heritage list. This is just wrong. - Perhaps most importantly, it will set a terrible precedent. Some people have reacted to our concerns by saying this is just one developement and we should not worry, but it will be the first domino to fall, paving the way for others, including potentially the bus depot site (which Westgate has already said they are interested to develop) and all along Oxford St - including at the top of Mill Hill Rd where I live

I do not support the proposal of a 55 metre height increase for Stargate!
Now the magnitude of this undertaking has come to light we can see it will dehumanise the landscape.
The approach to, and the entirety of Centennial Park, in particular its northern end will be disfigured by this proposed huge, impersonal construction.
If the proposal is approved it will be another blunder in Sydney's tragic architectural history.
Another brutal act of urbanicide!