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

I believe that the proposed development is grossly over sized and out of proportion for the location and the existing built structures in the area.
In my opinion the developer is using 'affordable housing' as a leverage to maximise their profit at the expense of the community as a whole.
The proposed increased height ratios are well out of alignment with the concessions applied for the provision of affordable housing.
The proposed building envelope is designed to maximise high revenue apartments with Harbour / City views and large decks at the expense of over shadowing the community on the Nelson Street side of the building.
I believe the proposed height increase will also have a huge Impact on Centennial Park and will un-necessarily dominate the landscape.
In the balance I think the proposed development modifications are not in the best interests of the community as a whole.
If the height was reduced and the ratio of 'truely' guaranteed affordable housing was set in stone, then the development may meet community approval.

Dear Madam/Sir

I am writing to urge you to refuse SSD-77175998 for the following reasons:

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 which are already overloaded with traffic at peak times

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, namely Centennial Park
• 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.

In particular I would like to comment on the impact this development will have on CENTENNIAL PARK and local heritage. I am privileged to live in Bondi Junction and to be able to access Centennial Park on a daily basis. I know from personal experience that Centennial Park is an important and highly valued green space in a densely populated part of Sydney and therefore should be given the full protection of the planning laws. It is clear to me that approval of this application will have a severe and negative impact on the Park as follows:

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) and which in any event has already been killed by the development
- 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.

These towers will already be too big. They should NOT be allowed to get 57% taller than the Waverley LEP permits.

I urge you to reject this proposal.

Yours sincerely
Rosemary Bruce

Dear Madam/Sir

I write to urge you to refuse SSD-77175998 for the following reasons.

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.

As a resident of Bondi Junction since I was 8, (I am now 29), I’m pleading for the preservation of the west Bondi junction ‘village’ as much as possible, this is such a beautiful area of Sydney with much community spirit and love for the park. Please, please reconsider,

Sincerely,
Isabella Bruce

I reject to this project as it will:
Shadow Federal. Valley in Centennial Park . National Heritage item.

Is 57% higher than the 36m permitted under Waverly Local Environment Plan.
Creat more traffic, dangerous and congestion on very busy corner

The EIS says max height is 54m but Appendix F says 56.6m

Centennial Park is a haven for thousands of people in the surrounding areas and from further afield. It is not just a manicured park but has areas of wildness and bird and animal life not usually found in 'ordinary' parks. It is a mental haven for hundreds of people every day. It cannot be overestimated how important connection with nature is to our mental life, especially in these difficult times.
I live nearby and walk in the park most days. I often walk in the woods to the west of Federation Valley and in the valley.
This project will insert the view of a highrise building into what is currently clear sky to the northeast. When I am in the woods, often looking at tawny frogmouths or powerful owls, I am in nature. I don't want to look up and see a massive private building. The claim that the extra stories are vindicated by the includion of 'affordable' housing is a trick. The extra stories will be barely affordable even by the well-off. I strongly object to the change that is proposed for this project.

Dear Madam/Sir

I write to object to the proposal to add 6 more floors to the towers being constructed at 194-214 Oxford St Bondi Junction.

The additional floors will make the buildings "highly visible" (developer's own words) from Federation Valley in Centennial Park where the Commonwealth was proclaimed in 1901. It will be the first tall building to be located on the perimeter of the Park and creates a dangerous precedent.

I understand the additional floors are being proposed using the affordable housing provisions in the Housing SEPP. While I support affordable housing, it must be done in accordance with the rules. These contemplate a 30% increase in height above the level permitted in the Local Environmental Plan (LEP), and only in locations where an increase is appropriate and compatible with the area. This proposal involves a 57% increase above the LEP height limit and this is excessive, particularly on this sensitive ridge-top site.

Centennial Park is listed on the national heritage list as having outstanding significance and its plan of management says that the skyline of the Park needs to be protected. With the exception of this site, all land around the Park has height limits of maximum 11m. The height limit for this site was changed from 15m to 36m at the behest of this developer, and the proposal is now to build to 56.6m. This is nearly four times the original height limit and more than five times taller than the height limits that apply to all other land surrounding the Park.

I am concerned to hear that the Environmental Impact Statement and supporting documents play down the impact on the Park, and even state that the national heritage list is "not applicable". This is not good enough. A thorough assessment of the impact on the Park must be undertaken by an independent analyst - not a consultant engaged by the developer who by definition has a conflict of interest.

Allowing this development to proceed will create a dangerous precedent that others will seek to follow. Please reject this proposal and protect "the People's Park" where our modern nation was born. Our forebears showed great foresight when they created this Park for all to enjoy - please don't ruin it by allowing excessive developments right on a ridge top site that overlooks such a significant site as Federation Valley.
Yours sincerely.
Margaret Barker

Key concerns as follows.
• Excessive height: The proposed building exceeds the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) height limit by 57%, despite affordable housing rules only considering a 30% increase (which isn’t guaranteed). The Waverley Development Control Plan (DCP) explicitly states that no further height increases should be allowed on this site.
• Geotechnical oversight: The proposal, including its geotechnical report, does not clearly/sufficiently assess the impact of additional load resulting from the extra storeys. Existing foundations and structural works may not support the additional height, yet the application does not appear to address this crucial point.
• Parking violations: The development exceeds DCP maximum parking rates by 40% and tries to bypass these rules by categorizing itself as state significant, despite not meeting the criteria. Even under the more lenient Housing SEPP guidelines, it surpasses parking allowances by 16%, prioritizing profit while likely worsening traffic congestion.
• Heritage concerns: The claim that the impact on Centennial Park is "perceivably minimal" is incorrect, as the park is nationally significant.
• Dangerous precedent: While some dismiss concerns, arguing it’s just one project, approval could set off a domino effect, leading to further developments—including at the bus depot site (which Westgate has already expressed interest in) and along Oxford Street, potentially affecting Mill Hill Road.
This proposal raises serious planning, structural, traffic, and heritage concerns, with potential long-term consequences for future developments.

This proposal raises significant planning, traffic, and heritage concerns, and its approval could have far-reaching consequences for future developments.

The 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 devt 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.

This would be the first domino to fall, paving the way for other future developments, 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.

I am requesting the Dept of Planning upholds the rules.

Dear Madam/Sir

I write to urge you to refuse SSD-77175998 for the following reasons.

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)

The only reference to the EPBC Act in the EIS relates to biodiversity. The EIS states at p115:

I write to object to Westgate developers using an "affordable housing" rule to build 15 additional multi-million dollar apartments to the detriment of the local community.
The proposal for towers up to 57m is nearly double the affordable housing rule's 30 per cent height "bonus".
These enormous buildings will block sunshine by increasing height and bulk, casting shadows, impacting privacy and destroying heritage values in the surrounding Mill Hill Urban Conservation Area.
The oversized development will generate more traffic, making intersections even more congested and dangerous and set a bad precedent for the local area.
These twin towers are right opposite the gates to Centennial Park and will be highly visible from Federation Valley - a national heritage item.
The proposal is not compatible with the character of the local area, is excessive and should be refused.

The structure is too tall and is visible from Centennial Park, ruining the local landscape and completely out of context for the area. The provision of affordable housing is marginal at best. I object to the new height and the poor completion of required artefacts like EIS to address the shadowing and building impact on a significant site of Centennial Park

I am 100% against this new proposal application , to build the Towers more than 55 metres high !
The two towers proposal is to be 57% Higher than the 36 metres permitted under Waverley Local Environment Plan and DOUBLE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING RULE’S 30% Height “BONUS “
Increasing the Height and Bulk of these Towers , means that Sunshine and Privacy will be cast over the Surrounding Parks Homes and Hotel etc .
Developers in the future will want To build Similar height Towers on the near by Bus Depot Site ,Oxford Street- Nelson Street -Grafton Street -Mill Hill Road Sites
Which means they will destroy the Heritage homes and buildings that are our West Oxford street Village Area !
To keep this Heritage Village atmosphere is most important for the young families that now live there !
The other serious aspect that needs addressing is TRAFFIC !
The roads are not able to handle all the BUSES -TRUCKS - CARS – BIKES - That use Nelson -Grafton -Oxford Streets now .
We do not want more cars garaged here .
I live on Leswell Street and the traffic becomes congested and dangerous to enter Oxford Street to go West and East and there is limited vision if cars are parked nearby and there is a continuous stream of Buses !.
The cars entering Nelson Street from Osmund Lane must be able to turn right and enter Oxford Street at the lights that are there now not made to come to Leswell street to enter Oxford Street .
I have lived here for 30 Years and do want to preserve this Family area with all its HERITAGE !
I fully support the submissions made by HALT THE HIGHRISE and object to this proposal !

Submission attached

Dear Sir/Madam
I write to urge you to refuse SSD-77175998 for the following reasons.
In summary, the proposal is:
. 57% higher than the 36m permitted under Waverley Local Environment Plan and nearly DOUBLE the affordable housing rule's 30% height bonus. Why is this even considered?
. the proposal of having affordable housing implemented for 15 years and then allowing the developers to revert back to normal apartments is contradictory to allowing affordable housing in the first place. Either make the affordable housing apartments in perpetuity or do not allow the build in the first place.
. Traffic is already at saturation. The traffic data used by Westgate in April 2021 (when many were working from home due to Covid and traffic was well down on normal levels) is unrealistic. As a local living on Mill Hill Road for 32 years it is already difficult to park on the street let alone when a huge highrise with limited parking spots is built.
. The site is also surrounded by heritage areas and overlooks the place where the Commonwealth was proclaimed in 1901, Centennial Park. The height limits for all other land around Centennial Park are in the range of 9-11 metres. The twin towers site used to have a height of 15m but the developer got that changed to 36m. Now they are seeking to go to 56.6m. This is excessive and unacceptable - and the site being on the ridge makes the impact even greater.

Please consider what is right for all residents of west Bondi Junction and not just what the developers want and reject this proposal.
Sincerely,
Clare Blackman


.

Don’t agree

this proposal is excessive, and should not be progressed.
- 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 devt 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 devt 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.
- the parking is not nearly satisfactory for the number of new homes, and visitors to the home owners… the surrounding area will be severely impacted

The project is out of kilter visually with the surrounding area, and creates even more congestion , which is already a major issue in Bondi Junctiom.
Specifically:
- 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 devt 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 Centennial Park is "perceivably minimal" and that the park is not listed on the national heritage list. This is unacceptable.

- 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 devt 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 Centennial Park is "perceivably minimal" and that the park is not listed on the national heritage list. This is just wrong.

To Whom It May Concern,

Thank you for considering my objection to this project. It reflects the concerns of numerous residents in Rawson Avenue, Denison Street and Lynch Avenue. I'm not against the development of affordable housing, or offering a more premium lifestyle offering in this space but the proposal seems excessive for the following reasons:

- 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 devt 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 Centennial Park is "perceivably minimal" and that the park is not listed on the national heritage list. This is incorrect.
- There haven't been adequate provisions or considerations made for the impact on traffic and congestion.

Thank you for hearing my concerns,

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 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.
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 further.