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

See attached PDF document.
Many concessions have been made by the local community over the last decade regarding the proposed development of this site, and the consequent losses of amenity and heritage values and the degradation to our lifestyle in west Oxford Street, Centennial Park and the surrounding areas. This proposal will further exacerbate these negative impacts and is unreasonable and unnecessary. It violates multiple planning guidelienes. Please reject this proposal.

I object to the project because:
- The developer is using the State Significant Development route to see approval for adding more floors which exceed height limits by 57%. The SSD route is highly questionable as the estimated cost of the project improperly includes preciously approved works, inflating its value to meet the $75mil SSD threshold.
- The EIS and HIS submitted as part of the proposal ignore Centennial Park Impacts and fail to address significant impacts to local affected Heritage Conservation Zones [including ours, Mill Hill Conservation Zone]. The Heritage and visual impact assessments are deeply flawed and misleading failing to acklege significant heritage concerns including the nation heritage listen Centennial park stating incorrectly that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act does not apply.
- The developer is forum shopping by lodging inconsistent DAs through different planning pathways - all applications should be assessed together by Waverley Council.
- Whilst this development includes affordable housing, at 75% of local prices this development will NOT offer housing that attracts those on lower incomes.
-- Adding even further height to the North will destroy the character and amenity of the West end of Oxford Street. This is the last remaining stretch that offers a sunny, welcoming community hub which supports local shops and outside seating. It provides a rare sense of place, connection, and liveliness which is in contrast, much of Oxford Street has already been turned into a dark, wind-tunnel corridor dominated by overshadowing buildings. Allowing the extra height would extend that bleak environment, undermining local businesses and erasing one of the few vibrant, human-scaled parts of the area adjoining Centennial Park and Woollahra.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to strongly urge you to reject the SSD-77175998 proposal for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development is excessively tall, with disproportionate height and bulk that will overshadow and dominate the streetscape.
2. Its design is visually intrusive and conflicts with the surrounding low-rise, heritage-rich area.
3. It poses serious risks to both local heritage and residential amenity.
4. The site is highly constrained, bordered by already congested roads that present existing safety hazards.
Given the sensitivity of this location, strict adherence to the LEP development standards is essential. There are numerous environmental planning grounds for rejecting this proposal, including:
1. Its proximity to a nationally significant heritage site.
2. Its location within a precinct of low-rise heritage conservation areas.
3. Severely restricted access and egress due to surrounding busy roads.
4. Its conflict with several environmental planning objectives designed to protect local heritage character and community wellbeing.
Most importantly, approving this development would set a damaging precedent. It will accelerate the overdevelopment of Bondi Junction, undermining the unique character and social fabric of a community that has thrived for generations. And to what end? So a handful of wealthy individuals get a premium view, at the expense of public interest and local heritage.
I urge you to consider the broader implications and reject this proposal in the interest of preserving the integrity of this heritage area and the families and business who reside here.

I wish to lodge my strong objection to the proposal for the development 194 -214 Oxford Street Bondi Junction - on the following grounds:
• Incompatible with the surrounding area
The towers will be more than 50% higher than permitted under Waverley LEP and nearly double the affordable housing height bonus.
The height and the bulk of the two towers are totally out of character with the surrounding area in both Bondi Junction and Woollahra. This site is located immediately next to Centennial Park, opposite the historic Nelson Hotel, a low-rise affordable housing village, and the Waverley Bus Depot and.
The development is totally inconsistent in terms of height, bulk and scale with the residential precinct in the vicinity - the Mill Hill conservation area which is occupied by one and two storey residential buildings.
Compatibility the development application seems to focus inappropriately on compatibility with the Bondi Junction Town Centre. This comparison may have appropriate if the development was located east of Denison Street Bondi Junction, however it is not.
• Amenity
The approach to Bondi Junction, after travelling along tree lined Oxford Street Woollahra, with new developments which are only several storeys high, will be dominated by an ‘identifiable visual marker’ to Bondi Junction - a heavy, bulky mass.
The proposal will create an even worse visual impact on the overall amenity of the area, as a gateway to Bondi Junction and neighbour to Centennial Park.
The current height of the development encroaches on the views from Centennial Park. To allow an increase in height will exacerbate the encroachment – which is totally out of character with the remainder of the perimeter of the park.
Further, the proposed increase in height and bulk of the development will block sunshine and have certain areas on Oxford, Nelson and Grafton Streets in permanent shadow.
• Traffic and safety
The proposal will 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.
The Oxford and Nelson Streets intersection has become busy due to the significant increase in traffic along Grafton Street. A blind ninety degree turn in the road not far from the intersection has caused travelling along Grafton to become increasing difficult. There are often near missed collisions with the car in front or pedestrians crossing after coming off the nearby pedestrian overpass.
Vehicles from the development will have to enter traffic around near the bend and will be required to travel east, away from the city. This is highly likely there will be traffic rule infringements, as drivers attempt dangerous U turns in their vehicles.
The focus on the fact that the development is 650 metres from the train station which has featured so positively in the development approvals assumes that residents will walk that distance and catch the train. No evidence has been presented to support the proposition that residents that will live in the development will avail themselves of public transport.
However, the difficulties associated with the location raises concerns for both traffic and pedestrian safety.
• Parking
Parking around the development is limited due to the streets in the vicinity and their configuration - two very busy streets (Oxford Street and York Road), an awkwardly structured intersection and no access to St James Road from Oxford Street.
The parking spaces available in the area are used by residents, as many places do not have off street parking and employees of the Nelson hotel, other businesses and those visiting the bus depot park.
The overflow of cars owned by residents the development that cannot be garaged on site, cars of visitors to the site and tradesmen’s vehicles are already expected to and adversely affect residents and small business in the area.
The addition of more units in the development, more people and cars will further strain the parking difficulties for existing residents and businesses.
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.
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.

As a general matter, I support this development. Sydney, NSW, and Australia are experiencing an extended housing crisis. This means we need to provide more housing at every opportunity. We need to prioritise the provision of more housing, which benefits everyone in the community.
Ultimately, more intense housing provision, at higher densities supports better environmental outcomes. It also supports more vibrant communities, and makes active and public transport more viable.

This project in particular has a number of characteristics that mean that it is well worth supporting. This development is proposed for a location that has excellent public and active transport links, providing:

- Frequent buses
- Bondi Junction train station a short walk away, and
- Active transport down Oxford St.

This project will provide significant activation of an area of Oxford St that will enhance the local amenity for everyone, whether already living in the area or who will live in the development. We know that increased density leads to a more vibrant environment, supporting local businesses and helping the local area to thrive.

The local area has excellent amenity, with Centennial Park a short walk away, and ready access to the CBD, the beaches and the harbour. The proximity to the park should be treated as a positive, high density on the fringes of urban parkland only improves it, not detracts from it.

While there have been some concerns expressed about overshadowing a small corner of Centennial Park, these concerns should be dismissed. This project hardly has a major effect on an important part of the park. The suggestion that this is a critical area of the park is spurious, mainly being taken up by a reservoir with no public access.

It is critical that developments such as this one are approved. Concerns about impact on “local character” fail to consider the views of future residents, and the benefits that more housing will provide for locals, future residents and for everyone in Sydney.

If there is one issue with this project, it is the sheer volume of parking being provided. This is excessive for such a well-connected area, and only adds to the cost of the project. However, this is not a reason to reject the proposal. Instead, the proponent should be permitted to reconfigure the basement to provide more bicycle and car share spaces.

I object to the proposed development by Westgate in Bondi Junction, which seeks to exceed the 36-metre maximum building height permitted under the Waverley Local Environmental Plan by up to 57%, with proposed towers reaching 43.8m and 56.6m.

The proposal appears to exploit affordable housing provisions primarily to justify the construction of luxury apartments with park and harbour views in one of Sydney’s most affluent areas. Bondi Junction is not a location where genuine, long-term affordable housing is likely to be delivered at scale—particularly not in buildings offering premium views. There is a significant concern that the so-called “affordable” units will only be temporarily affordable. Developers may meet requirements by renting or selling these units to family or associates for a short period, then selling them later at full market price. This loophole means the community misses out while developers gain permission to build much larger buildings than appropriate.

Key concerns include:
Excessive height and bulk: The proposed towers would dominate the surrounding streetscape, reduce sunlight, and impact privacy for neighbouring properties.
Visual impact on Centennial Park: The development would intrude on key views from Federation Valley—a nationally listed heritage landscape of major cultural significance.
Increased traffic and congestion,: Already dangerous intersections would face further strain, exacerbating traffic delays on an overburdened road network.
Insufficient infrastructure: Public transport is at capacity during peak hours. Local supermarkets and essential services are frequently overcrowded and understocked—particularly on weekends.
Severe parking strain: Street parking is already difficult to find, and this development would further reduce availability.
Cumulative overdevelopment: This proposal adds to ongoing high-density development with no meaningful infrastructure upgrades.
Precedent risk: Approval may open the door to further oversized developments along Oxford Street and nearby areas

As a local resident, I experience these challenges daily. Public transport is overcrowded, traffic is worsening, parking is limited, and local amenities are under strain. The West Oxford Street precinct is a lower-scale residential transition zone between Bondi Junction and Centennial Park. It is valued for its heritage character, access to green space, and human-scale streetscape. Oversized towers are incompatible with this environment.

The developer has not demonstrated why the 36-metre height limit should be waived. The project is out of step with the local area and does not offer sufficient benefits to justify the excessive scale.

The proposal appears to be driven by commercial interests rather than genuine community need or strategic merit. I respectfully urge Council to reject this application to protect the character, liveability, and sustainability of the Bondi Junction area.

I object to the increase in height as this will bring the building even more out of character with the surrounding area. It will be highly visible from all directions and increase the shade. The added number of residents will also worsen the traffic situation on Oxford and Nelson Street and the intersection.

I am writing to object to those elements of SSDA application SSD-77175998 being:
i. the increase in vehicle parking, despite this being inconsistent with the Waverley Council determination and in contravention to the Design Integrity Panel’s recommendation; and
ii. the bulk and scale being disproportionate to the 30% increase in height as a result of the affordable housing provision,
as outlined below.

Regarding item ‘i’, the application provides no valid reason to substantiate a request for an additional 54 car spaces in response to the provision of 17 affordable units. Neither the EIS, nor the architectural statement, respond to the DIP’s recommendation for no net increase, which is otherwise consistent with the Waverley Council DA determination.

Further, the TIA does not reflect the situation of the location or the local infrastructure. This is evident by the TIA:
• fails to conduct a single traffic survey in the location;
• relies on 2021 data, a time in which the Waverley LGA was subject to covid-19 imposed lockdown;
• utilises a year on year traffic increase of 1.5% since 2021, despite this being demonstrably false due to the increase vehicle movements post lockdown;
• fails to incorporate infrastructure changes since 2021, such as the removal of a vehicle lane in lieu of a Waverley Council bicycle path initiative;
• fails to account for the applicant’s development at 362 Oxford Street, which diverts traffic onto Grafton and Oxford Streets; and
• fails to account for the neighbouring ‘Origami’ development, which diverts traffic to Grafton Street,
which, together, indicate a failure to account for sensitivity analyses on travel volumes, capacity and changes in the area and thus, a failure to adhere to the NSW Government’s Guide to Transport Impact Assessment.

Further, it is noted that whilst the TIA fails to account for the Waverley bicycle initiatives the Green Travel Plan does not. Instead, it recognises these benefits yet the application fails to encourage car share (with no changes), EV charging (despite the emissions targets) or bicycles (by reducing the proposed quantities).

As a local resident that understands these streets and the intersections directly, it is deeply concerning that an applicant can seek to exclude such important data. The concept that an expanded basement should be rewarded with more pollutants is not conducive to a healthier community.

Regarding item ‘ii’, I am objecting to the total height that is being sought as it is:
• a material and inappropriate increase on the affordable housing ‘30% bonus’;
• disproportionate to the surrounding amenity; and
• not consistent with Oxford Street’s design street wall, which increases towards the ‘town centre’ of the train station.

The concept of affordable housing is supported and should be encouraged. However, seeking to exploit this need via an opportunity to seek increases that are upwards of 150% of the policy’s intent is disingenuous. The applicant (and by virtue, CHP) can provide a solution without detrimentally impacting the community.

Such disregard to the policy is further compounded when it is identified that all affordable housing options are on the lowest levels, being those most impacted by acoustic matters, odours and the least amount of direct sunlight, which the application confirms with respect to those that do not meet the ADG.

Planning Objection - SSD-77175998

Key Concerns
Height and Scale Issues
• The proposal seeks to add 6 additional storeys to existing approved 10-storey towers
• Maximum height would reach 56.6 metres (not 54m as stated in the application)
• This represents a 57% increase above the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) limit of 36 metres
• The buildings would be completely out of character with surrounding low-rise heritage areas
• Located on top of a ridge, making the visual impact even more severe

Legal and Procedural Problems
• Not State Significant Development: Doesn't meet the legal criteria for SSD as it only proposes 17 additional dwellings (threshold is 40)
• Forum Shopping: Developer has simultaneously lodged a separate application with Waverley Council to reduce apartment numbers whilst seeking approval to increase height elsewhere
• False Information: Application contains misleading height figures and omits key heritage impacts

Heritage and Environmental Impacts
• Centennial Park: Directly opposite this nationally heritage-listed park with "outstanding heritage value to the nation"
• Heritage Impact Statement incorrectly claims national heritage listing is "not applicable"
• Would be "highly visible" from Federation Valley in Centennial Park
• Fails to assess impacts under Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
• Surrounded by heritage conservation areas that would be adversely affected

Planning Policy Breaches
• Waverley Development Control Plan: Specifically states "no additional height or floor space ratio above LEP controls will be considered for these sites"
• Contradicts LEP objectives for appropriate height transitions between zones
• Exceeds Waverley DCP parking limits by 40%, increasing traffic congestion

Traffic and Access Issues
• Site surrounded by already congested roads at capacity
• Traffic analysis based on outdated April 2021 COVID-era data
• Developer proposes 64% increase in parking despite Design Integrity Panel recommending "no net increase"
• Bicycle parking reduced by 15%

Centennial Park Protection
• Park's conservation management plan requires protection of views to and from the park
• Height limits around the park are 9.5-11 metres for all other developments
• This site's original 15-metre limit was increased to 36 metres at developer's previous request

I object to the proposal because:
• The approved 10-storey towers are already excessive for this location
• The additional height would create a terrible precedent
• The proposal fails to meet legal requirements for state significant development
• Multiple planning policies and heritage protections would be breached

I strenuously object to this project.

This proposal will add additional height, bulk and scale in going well beyond what has been already approved, and is appropriate. The proposed additional 3 stories on the western tower and 6 stories on the eastern tower will create buildings that are completely out of character with the local area and contrary to the objectives of the Waverley Local Environmental Plan. These towers will dominate the streetscape, cast shadows and be highly visible from many parts of Centennial Park.

Photos shown in the EIS downplay significant visual damage caused by these towers. The photos are cut off and don't show the full height being proposed, in a deliberately misleading effort to downplay the significance of the height request. It will be a significant impediment to building liveable neighbourhoods which would encourage more residents to live there in future.

This is also a very narrow site right on the corner of a major road and intersection. It is not the place for large buildings overshadowing all roads, houses and Centennial Park. Waverley Council DCP also refers to no further height and floor space ratio should be permitted on this site. It will be way out of character for the surrounding area.

The developers own consultant has referred to the proposal as "highly visible" (Appendix M, p 25) from Centennial Park. This is completely contradictory to the Centennial Park Conservation Management Plan, which is designed to provide clear views in the vicinity of Centennial Park.

Please do not approve this application.

Dear Madam / Sir,

I write to ask you to refuse application SSD-77175998. Affordable housing is important, but it must be done in accordance with the law, and the Housing SEPP says that consent cannot be granted unless the proposal is compatible with the local area. I understand that the ten storey towers have already been approved but urge you to reject the additional six storeys. In summary, the proposal is:

- Excessive in that it exceeds the LEP height limit by 57% even though the affordable housing rules state an increase of just 30% (which is not automatically given). There is a clause in the Waverley development control plan (DCP) saying no more height increases should be allowed on this site. This proposal is not compatible with the local street scape or appropriate on a site that is atop a ridge and overlooks a place of outstanding national significance. It will be highly visible and create a terrible precedent.

- ⁠It says the impact on Centennial Park is "perceivably minimal" and that the park is not listed on the national heritage list. This is not the case. Centennial Park is included on the national heritage list and described as having "outstanding heritage value to the nation"

- ⁠ ⁠It exceeds the DCP maximum parking rates by 40% and seeks to "turn off" the DCP by categorising the development 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 in the area

- Some people have reacted to our concerns by saying this is just one development and we should not worry, but it will be the first domino to fall, paving the way for other developments to follow. If approved it will set a terrible precedent. Westgate have already shown interest in developing the bus depot site & developers would also be interested in developing all along Oxford St including at the top of Mill Hill Rd.

Please take on board the the submissions made & feeling of the local community & uphold the rules.

Kind Regards

Larissa Spencer

I strongly object to the proposed modification of this new development. The proposal to add additional floors onto what is already going to be the largest building in the area is offensive and extremely upsetting. In particular, I would draw the panel's attention to the fact that the provided reports detailing the visual, social and traffic implications of these changes are neither complete nor accurate. The raising of Tower B to be 56.6m high is particularly damaging to the local surrounds and has a dramatic visual impact that has not been accurately outlined in the submission. I own a property on Nelson Street, immediately to the north of the proposed towers. The Visual Impact Assessment by Keylan is incomplete and inaccurate. It does not access the visual impact of the proposed new height from properties such as mine on Nelson Street, instead choosing to examine the impact from Woods Avenue and Forth Street to the North. Both of these locations are much further from the proposed new building and much less impacted. The magnitude of the visual impact to residents such as myself and many others on Nelson Street to the proposed additional height must be considered high. Using Keylan's own assessment matrix (table 4 of their report), Nelson Street is a heritage area (therefore sensitive), the visual impact of the proposed new levels is not at all compatible with the low rise housing in the area and the magnitude of impact is very high. The proposed new levels will have windows and balconies that directly look into our bedrooms and garden and the new levels will totally dominate the outlook from our property.

In addition to the high magnitude visual impact of the proposed changes, particularly the dramatic increase of height to tower B, I would also highlight that the traffic impact report provided demonstrates that the Oxford Street / Nelson Street intersection is already rated as a Level E Level of Service (LOS), which means this intersection is at capacity. This is important as this is the intersection that will be most impacted by the proposed additional flats. The modelling contained in Cassa Blanka's Transport Impact Assessment show that the additional flats proposed will take the LOS at this intersection to Level F, meaning well over capacity. Cassa Blanka's conclusion that this represents a "minor" traffic impact is clearly inaccurate and misleading.

I would also note that the Social Impact Assessment conducted by The Planning Studio is incomplete as it only considers the local environment to the East, specifically Bondi Junction. This has clearly been done as this is an area of similar high rise housing. However, the social impact of the proposal must also consider the environment to the north, which is actually much closer and more directly impacted by the proposed changes.

Given the errors and omissions to the submissions, including the inaccurate descriptions of the visual, traffic and social impact of the proposed changes, I implore the panel to reject this submission.

MY CONCERNS
The already-approved development with ground floor retail and 10-storey residential towers is significantly taller than surrounding low-rise shops and residences, and completely out of character with the local area. This includes the Mill Hill and Woollahra heritage conservation areas, the heritage-listed Nelson Hotel, numerous other heritage-listed homes, and Centennial Park—listed on the National Heritage Register for its “outstanding significance”.

AMENITY AND HERITAGE
The proposed additional storeys (three on the western tower and six on the eastern tower) would result in buildings of excessive bulk and scale, completely inconsistent with this part of Bondi Junction and contrary to the objectives of the Waverley Local Environmental Plan (WLEP).
The WLEP’s height limits aim to:
Preserve the environmental amenity of neighbouring properties and public spaces,
Ensure a scale transition between the Bondi Junction town centre and adjacent zones,
Maintain adequate solar access, and
Promote building heights consistent with the desired future character of the locality.
This proposal fails to meet these objectives. If approved, the buildings would dominate the streetscape, overshadow sunny west Oxford Street, and—as the developer’s own consultants concede—be “highly visible” from Centennial Park. Such approval would set a damaging precedent that other developers will seek to follow, further degrading amenity and heritage values.
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) seeks to underplay the impact. It states the maximum height of the eastern tower as 54m, when in fact Appendix F of the EIS confirms the true height is 56.6m. Visual impact images (e.g. from York Road and from the park) deliberately show distant perspectives and do not adequately illustrate how overbearing the additional height would be at street level.

MISUSE OF HOUSING TARGETS
The developer has used the State Government’s housing targets as a justification to seek additional levels on both towers. However, this appears to be a convenient excuse to gain greater height—and thus better views and higher sales values. Once the initial concept was approved, the developer sought to amalgamate smaller units into larger ones, thereby reducing the total number of dwellings. This undermines the claim that the development is meaningfully contributing to housing supply. In reality, the developer is maximising income at the expense of the community’s long-term amenity and planning integrity.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING
This proposal uses the inclusion of affordable housing units to gain extra height via the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 70 provisions. However, there is no certainty these affordable housing units will be located on the lower floors (as is often assumed), nor is there any assurance they will be retained in the long term. After 15 years, the developer will be entitled to sell them at market value—likely around 150% of today’s prices. No wonder the developer is so keen to include affordable housing: it’s a relatively small short-term trade-off for a significant long-term profit.
This short-term incentive results in a permanent increase to the built form that will negatively impact the character, liveability, and heritage of the area long after the affordable housing has been sold off.

TRAFFIC AND PUBLIC DOMAIN IMPACTS
The increased number of dwellings will also generate more traffic, pressure on parking, and impacts on an already congested public domain. The site sits at a busy intersection, already subject to traffic delays and pedestrian congestion. The loading dock, carpark, and laneway access for the development are poorly designed and will exacerbate conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians.

CONCLUSION
This application represents an opportunistic bid to gain excessive height and development yield under the guise of meeting housing targets and providing affordable housing. In reality, it offers little long-term benefit to the public and would cause substantial and permanent harm to the area’s character, amenity, and heritage significance.
I strongly urge the panel to reject this proposal.

I feel the extra height is unreasonable and will not be aesthetically pleasing to view and not appropriate for the heritage area. The extra floors for affordable housing is a money grab by the developers because I doubt the extra units will be affordable to the average person or family. The proposal is a gratuitous attempt for extra money and not keeping with the spirit and principles of affordable housing.

I am writing as a local resident to formally object to the proposed height increases for the Shop Top Housing development at Oxford and Nelson Street, Bondi Junction. While I acknowledge the base development has been approved, I respectfully urge the Department to refuse the additional 3 storeys on the western tower and 6 storeys on the eastern tower.

My objections are based on three concerns that demonstrate this proposal is inappropriate for this location.

1. Excessive Height and Impact on Centennial Park

The proposed eastern tower height of 56.6 metres represents a 57% increase above the existing LEP height limit - nearly double the 30% maximum contemplated under the Housing SEPP. This excessive height will have unacceptable impacts on Centennial Park, a site of national heritage significance.

The developer's own Visual Impact Assessment (Appendix M) acknowledges the towers will be "highly visible" from Federation Valley with a "moderate-high" visual impact. This directly contradicts Centennial Park's Conservation Management Plan, which explicitly states that new structures in the vicinity must not "negatively impact on the historic precinct" or "views to and from Centennial Parklands." See the attached picture taken from Centennial Park on 25 May 2025.

The site's elevated position on a ridge compounds this impact. While height limits around Centennial Park are typically restricted to 9.5-11 metres, this proposal seeks to reach 56.6 metres - more than five times the standard protective heights established for the Park's setting.

The Heritage Council of NSW and the National Trust have consistently opposed developments that compromise views to and from Centennial Park. Approving this height increase would set a dangerous precedent for the Park's visual curtilage and heritage protection.

2. Inadequate Traffic and Parking Analysis

The traffic assessment relies on April 2021 data when COVID-19 restrictions significantly reduced traffic volumes. Even using this understated baseline, the study acknowledges the Oxford Street/Nelson Street intersection operates at capacity.

The proposal includes a 21% increase in residential units but a disproportionate 64% increase in car parking spaces, guaranteeing additional traffic pressure on already constrained local roads. Despite this, the traffic study fails to assess critical intersections including:

- Leswell Street/Oxford Street intersection
- Grafton Street/Newland Street intersection
- Ruthven Street intersection impacts
- Mill Hill Road intersection performance

Current traffic conditions demonstrate these intersections experience significant congestion during peak periods. The Department's own requirements mandate assessment of current traffic conditions and nearby intersection performance, not extrapolated estimates from pandemic-era data.

The inadequate parking provision relative to unit numbers will likely result in overflow parking in surrounding residential streets, further impacting local amenity and traffic flow.

3. Inappropriate Precedent Outside Bondi Junction Centre

This site is located outside the designated Bondi Junction town centre, in a transition zone between the commercial core and low-rise residential areas including heritage conservation areas. The Waverley LEP specifically requires building heights in this location to "establish a transition in scale between [the town centre] and adjoining zones to protect local amenity."

Approving height increases to 56.6 metres at this location would:

Undermine strategic planning principles: The site sits at the interface between the town centre and heritage residential areas. Excessive height here contradicts the planned transition of building scale from centre to periphery.

Create development pressure throughout the precinct: Other developers will inevitably seek similar height increases along Oxford Street, fundamentally altering the planned character of this transitional area.

Ignore community-informed planning: Waverley Council's 2020 Development Control Plan specifically states no further height increases should be permitted on this site, reflecting extensive community consultation about appropriate development limits.

Compromise heritage settings:
The proposal impacts multiple heritage areas including the Mill Hill Heritage Conservation Area, Woollahra Heritage Conservation Area, and the heritage-listed Nelson Hotel, as well as Centennial Park's national heritage listing.

Appropriate locations for high-density development with height bonuses exist within the designated Bondi Junction centre where infrastructure capacity, transport access, and planning controls specifically accommodate intensive development. This peripheral site lacks these characteristics.

## Planning Assessment Concerns

The Environmental Impact Statement contains several concerning elements:

- Height measurements are inconsistent (claiming 54m maximum while architectural drawings show 56.6m)
- Visual impact analysis downplays heritage impacts that their own consultants identify as "moderate-high"
- The affordable housing justification applies only 17 units (temporary for 15 years) to enable 15 additional market-rate units worth significantly more.

While I support appropriate affordable housing initiatives, this proposal exceeds reasonable planning parameters for its location. The combination of excessive height impacting Centennial Park, inadequate traffic analysis, and inappropriate precedent for this transitional location demonstrate the proposal fails to meet basic planning standards.

The Housing SEPP provisions are not automatic entitlements but require demonstration that height increases are appropriate for the specific site context. This heritage-sensitive, traffic-constrained location adjacent to nationally significant parkland does not meet that test.

I respectfully request the Department refuse the proposed height variations and maintain appropriate development limits that respect the site's planning context, heritage setting, and infrastructure constraints.

Thank you for your consideration of this submission.

I sternly object to this develoment. Please see my objection attached.

To whom it may concern

I am writing to strongly urge you to reject the proposed development SSD-77175998 for several significant reasons.

In essence, this proposal entails a development that is:
* Excessively tall and bulky, leading to overshadowing and a dominant presence in the streetscape.
* Completely inconsistent with the low-rise character of the surrounding area, thereby negatively impacting the qualities that residents cherish.
* Likely to cause substantial adverse impacts on heritage and amenity, particularly concerning Centennial Park.
* Situated on a highly constrained site with already congested surrounding roads.

Given the site's characteristics, adherence to the LEP development standards is not only reasonable but essential. There are numerous environmental planning grounds that justify the rejection of this proposal, especially considering the site's location:
* On a prominent ridge.
* Directly opposite an item of significant national heritage.
* Surrounded by low-rise heritage conservation areas.
* Encased by busy roads with limited access and egress.
* Subject to various environmental planning objectives aimed at safeguarding local heritage values and amenity.

While we understand that ten-storey towers have already received approval, we implore you to reject the addition of six more storeys. These additional levels will be highly conspicuous and establish an undesirable precedent.

**NOT STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT**

This proposal does not meet the criteria for state significant development (SSD) as defined in s6(2) of the EP\&A Regulation 2021, because the estimated development cost includes the already approved ten storeys. Furthermore, it fails to meet the threshold in s26A(1A)(b)(i) of the SEPP (Planning Systems) 2021, which requires 40 additional dwellings, whereas this proposal only includes 17.

Consequently, the Department of Planning lacks the authority to assess this proposal, and it should be referred to Waverley Council. This distinction is crucial because SSD projects are not obligated to comply with development control plans (DCPs). The proposed parking arrangements exceed the Waverley DCP's maximum parking rate by 40%, which will exacerbate traffic congestion (and increase profits for the developer), despite the Design Integrity Panel's recommendation for no net increase in parking.

**WESTGATE IS FORUM SHOPPING**

On 21 May 2025, residents became aware that Westgate has submitted yet another Development Application (DA-400/2021/D) to Waverley Council. This DA seeks approval to amalgamate several apartments, converting two-bedroom units into three-bedroom units, resulting in a reduction of six apartments. The SSD application submitted to the Department of Planning emphasizes boosting housing numbers, yet this DA proposes the opposite.

The developer appears to be engaging in forum shopping by dividing their requests in this manner. The latest DA to the Council does not even acknowledge the SSDA, referring to 70 apartments and a height of 38m, in contrast to the SSDA's 85 apartments and 56.6m height. It is impossible for the Council to meaningfully consider this DA as it relates to a proposal undergoing fundamental changes through a separate application and approval process. The DA reflects a development the developer no longer intends to pursue, as evidenced by the crane heights, which are designed for the taller towers outlined in the SSDA.

Both applications must be assessed together. The Department of Planning should reject the SSDA and refer it to Waverley Council for consideration alongside DA-400/2021/D.

**EXCESSIVE HEIGHT AND BULK**

The approved podium and ten-storey "twin towers" from 2022 will already be excessively tall and inconsistent with the character of this part of Bondi Junction. At 37.54m, these buildings will significantly overshadow the surrounding low-rise heritage conservation areas, block sunlight, cast shadows, and substantially diminish amenity.

Adding three more storeys to the western tower and six more storeys to the eastern tower will drastically worsen these impacts. The proposed height of the tallest tower will be 56.6m (not the 54m stated in the EIS), which is 57% higher than the limit specified in the Waverley LEP. This should not be approved under the guise of providing affordable housing. The Housing SEPP includes criteria clearly stating that the 30% height bonus is not automatic and that the proposal must be compatible with the local area.

This proposal is highly incompatible with the 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." Residents do not support this proposal. We aim to preserve the heritage values and amenity of this area for everyone's enjoyment. While affordable housing is important, it must also comply with the law.

The developer is the sole beneficiary of these towers. The EIS attempts to minimize the proposal's impact on the area. For instance, the only westward view image crops the top of the eastern crane/tower (pictures 22-23 on p88 of the EIS). Other images are highly selective and do not accurately represent this area, which is rich in local heritage. We urge you to visit our neighbourhood to fully understand its character before determining the proposal's compatibility.

**CENTENNIAL PARK AND LOCAL HERITAGE**

The Heritage Impact Statement for the twin towers (Appendix CC to the EIS):
* Ignores the impacts on Centennial Park.
* Incorrectly states that the national heritage list is "N/A." Centennial Park is listed as having "outstanding heritage value to the nation."
* Incorrectly claims that the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is not applicable and that no other approval is required. The EPBC Act does apply (as noted above).
* Primarily focuses on protecting the heritage-listed Norfolk Pine on Nelson Street (which Westgate has sought permission to remove via a DA to Waverley Council, a fact that is not mentioned).
* Fails to mention the Woollahra Heritage Conservation Area and the numerous heritage-listed items just north of the site.
* Significantly understates the proposal's impact on the Mill Hill Heritage Conservation Area.

While the Heritage Impact Statement disregards the impact on Centennial Park, the Visual Impact Assessment acknowledges that the towers will be "highly visible" from Federation Valley, the site of the Commonwealth's proclamation in 1901, and that the additional floors will have a "moderate to high" impact from this viewpoint. The EIS fails to mention this critical point.

Appendix F, p12, asserts that the impact on Centennial Park is "perceivably minimal," relying on analysis from two viewpoints located outside the Park. The view from within the Park is not considered. This is deeply concerning. Numerous inconsistencies exist between the EIS and its appendices. For example, the EIS states a maximum height of 54m, while Appendix F indicates 56.6m.

Providing false or misleading information in a planning application is a violation of s10.6 of the EP\&A Act. Such conduct should not be tolerated.

**CENT PK MANAGEMENT PLAN: NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON VIEWS FROM PARK**

The development's name ("Centennial Collection") and marketing materials clearly indicate that views of and proximity to Centennial Park are key selling points. If approved, this proposal and the dangerous precedent it sets will privatize these views for a select few while socializing the loss of amenity and heritage values for the wider community. This directly contradicts the Park'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 mandates that planners "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 are in place for all other land surrounding the Park, as outlined 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 increased to 36m at the current developer's request. The developer now seeks to build to 56.6m. This is excessive and must not be permitted.
I'm urge you to seriously consider my and other residents objection to this outragous proposal in our community.

Regards
A highly concerned Ruthven Street Bondi Junction resident.

Submission Regarding the Proposed Development at 194–214 Oxford Street and 2 Nelson Street, Bondi Junction

I write to express serious concerns about the proposed development at 194–214 Oxford Street and 2 Nelson Street, Bondi Junction—particularly the recent amendments seeking to significantly increase building heights and floor space ratios.

Public Safety and Pedestrian Risk
Safety must be the foremost consideration in any urban planning decision. As a parent and regular pedestrian in this area, I have personally experienced multiple near-miss incidents at the Oxford Street and Nelson Street intersection—twice with children present. Vehicles frequently disregard pedestrian signals, accelerate through flashing lights, honk at pedestrians and ignore turning restrictions from Oxford Street into Nelson Street. These behaviours already create a high-risk environment for pedestrians, especially children and older residents. Increasing the density and traffic flow through this intersection without urgent and substantial upgrades to pedestrian infrastructure and traffic enforcement will significantly heighten these dangers. The development as proposed presents an immediate and unacceptable risk to public safety. People have been hit on these roads without the planned increase.

Infrastructure and Emergency Access
The local infrastructure is already under strain. Adding a development of this scale will place undue pressure on roads, crossings, and emergency vehicle access. The increase in traffic and congestion will not only worsen the existing hazards but may also delay emergency response times in a densely populated, high-foot-traffic area. Safety in emergencies must be a core consideration in evaluating this proposal.

Loss of Natural Light and Environmental Health
Sunlight is not merely a matter of amenity—it is essential for public wellbeing and the local environment. The proposed height increase—exceeding the current 15-meter limit by 57%—will cast significant shadow over Nelson Street and nearby pedestrian routes, including the heritage-listed Nelson Hotel. This area currently enjoys afternoon sunlight that is both psychologically uplifting and environmentally beneficial for local greenery. Removing access to natural light through excessive overshadowing has direct consequences for physical and mental health.

Setting a Precedent That Compromises Safety
Approval of a development that overrides heritage protections and height restrictions would create a troubling precedent for future developments. While increased housing—including affordable housing—is welcome, it must be planned responsibly and with human safety at its core, not as an afterthought. The scale and design of this proposal raise serious questions about pedestrian safety, traffic risk, and liveability for current and future residents.

In conclusion, I urge the relevant authorities to reconsider the proposed amendments and prioritise the safety and wellbeing of the community over density and developer interests.

Thank you for considering this submission.

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to formally express my concerns regarding the proposed development at 194–214 Oxford Street and 2 Nelson Street, Bondi Junction, particularly the recent amendments that seek to increase the building heights and floor space ratio.

Community Character and Heritage Impact

The West Bondi Junction area is a cherished community characterised by its low-rise shops, residences, and a strong sense of local connection. As a resident, my family and I frequent local establishments such as bakeries, butcher shops, coffee shops, and bistros, which serve as vital spaces for social interaction among neighbors of all ages. This community atmosphere is increasingly rare near the city and should be preserved.

The proposed development, with its significant increase in building height which exceeds the current 15-meter limit by 57% and the removal of local heritage protections, threatens to disrupt the established character of the area. Such a substantial change is not in keeping with the community's values and the local planning framework.

Visual and Environmental Concerns

The proposed towers would dominate the streetscape, overshadowing the existing low-rise buildings and diminishing the amenity of the area. Additionally, the visibility of these towers from Centennial Park raises concerns about their impact on the park's heritage value and the visual amenity of the surrounding environment.

Traffic and Infrastructure Strain

The current traffic and parking in this part of Bondi Junction is already under strain, with traffic congestion and limited parking availability. The proposed development is insufficient to accommodate the increased and is likely to exacerbate existing traffic issues and place additional pressure on local infrastructure.

Precedent for Future Developments

Approving this development could set a concerning precedent for future projects in the area, potentially leading to further overdevelopment that undermines the community's character and amenity. It is crucial to consider the long-term implications of such decisions on the fabric of the neighborhood.

Conclusion

In light of the above concerns, I respectfully urge the relevant authorities to reconsider the proposed amendments to the development at 194–214 Oxford Street and 2 Nelson Street, Bondi Junction. The preservation of the area's community character, heritage, and environmental amenity should be prioritized to ensure that future developments enhance, rather than detract from, the quality of life for existing residents.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Sincerely,
Katie Sharpley