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

The increase in height will cause additional shadow over Centennial Park (a significant landmark). Also the parking provided doesn't justify the increase height causing additional parking issues around the neighbourhood. Plus the traffic in the area is already a nightmare this will just amplify the issue.

Objection to the increased ht of the building will cast major shadowing over our premises especially with our solar installation, reducing privacy and eroding heritage value. It will create more traffic making intersection more dangerous and congested it will also set a precedent. The increased bulk and height will create a hiluge visual impact on surrounding streets and park. The towere are 57% higger than permitted and nearly double the 30% ht bonus.

I object to this project on multiple grounds
1) creation of excessive traffic around the Woollahra gates which is already extremely congested
2) No space for additional residents given on street parking is already constantly full around Grafton st/Leswell st and Oxford Street.
3) Further shading and wind tunnels in Oxford street similar to what is seen towards Westfield which devalues local properties including heritage listed terraces and local cafes/business which will loose patrons if the area becomes uninviting
4) setting a precedent for further high rise buildings
5) the creation of an eye sore which is not in keeping with the community feel of the neighbourhood
6) of the 85 additional apartments, only 17 will be made available for affordable housing and this is only for a short period of time, at which time the developer will likely sell these on to the highest bidder

I object to the proposal due to the added traffic congestion the addition of 15 extra apartments will create being 57% higher than the 36 m allowed under WEP. The severe impact it will have on the community and environment, particularly blocking sunlight to any properties south of the development.due to its increased size. A massive multi storey building does not in any way blend in with the local area’s charm and character.

The application to increase the height of this construction will have devastating effects to the landscape on this area of Bondi Junction. It will cause an increase in traffic congestion in an area of the junction already at a jam on most days, causing a large risk to local pedestrians crossing at the intersection of Oxford street, wether that be to walk to school or when exiting the bus at the first bus stop opposite the bus depot. I am also concerned about the environmental affects on light and sunshine in the area.
This west end of Bondi junction has a real village feel, with a strong community vibe and this increase in height will destroy the village feel of this area of Bondi junction and be a real visually disturbing building to greet people to the Bondi junction.
St James road which is opposite this building is already impacted by people parking in the area for work purposes, now our streets will be competing with residents and visitors who can't park in the building causing congestion and making it difficult for people like myself who work shift work to find street parking when we return from our jobs.
I object for this increase in height and I am keen to provide any further information as required

Submission Regarding Proposed Additional Storeys to Approved Development at Bondi Junction

I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed increase in building height for the development on the twin towers site in Bondi Junction. The current approval already allows for ground floor retail and 10 plus storey residential towers. The proposal to add 3 additional storeys to the western tower and 6 to the eastern tower is excessive, out of character with the surrounding area, and contrary to the objectives of the Waverley Local Environmental Plan (WLEP).

The development site sits within close proximity to several heritage-listed areas and items, including the Mill Hill and Woollahra heritage conservation areas, the Nelson Hotel, and Centennial Park—an area listed on the National Heritage Register for its "outstanding significance." The approved 10-storey towers are already substantially taller than nearby buildings. The proposed additions would result in an even more pronounced bulk and scale, entirely inconsistent with the established character and amenity of the locality.

Non-Compliance with WLEP Objectives
The WLEP height controls exist to:
1. Preserve the environmental amenity of public spaces and neighbouring properties;
2. Ensure a smooth transition in building scale between the Bondi Junction town centre and surrounding residential zones;
3. Maintain solar access and prevent overshadowing; and
4. Support the desired future character of the area.

This proposal directly contravenes these aims.

If approved, the increased height will dominate the local streetscape, overshadow sunny areas of West Oxford Street, and be highly visible from Centennial Park—an outcome even acknowledged by the developer’s own visual impact consultants.

Misrepresentation in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
The EIS underplays the development's impact. It claims the eastern tower's maximum height will be 54m, yet Appendix F confirms it would in fact reach 56.6m. Critical EIS visuals (e.g., Figures 27 and 28) fail to show the full extent of the tower height, effectively obscuring the true visual impact. Appendix B diagrams clearly illustrate how the additional 3 and 6 storeys will further contrast with the surrounding low-rise character.

Impact on Centennial Park and Heritage Significance
Appendix M of the EIS contains a visual analysis that confirms the proposed development will be "highly visible" from Federation Valley in Centennial Park. The visual change is assessed as “moderate-high,” clearly undermining claims in Appendix F that the visual impact is “perceivably minimal.” This directly contradicts Centennial Park’s Conservation Management Plan, which emphasises the need for compatible skyline development to preserve the park’s visual and historic integrity.

The proposal also disregards the WLEP’s height transition objective, which seeks to reduce building heights from the town centre toward Centennial Park. This objective remains valid, as highlighted in the 2020 Development Control Plan (DCP) created with community input. That DCP clearly stated no further height or floor space ratio increases should be allowed on this site.

Unjustified Use of Housing SEPP Provisions
The developer is seeking to rely on provisions in the Housing SEPP to justify the height increase, offering a 21% increase in apartments and 17 affordable housing units (located on the lowest levels, closest to traffic). However:

The SEPP does not provide an automatic right to additional height.

As a long-time Bondi Junction resident, our community would be absolutely devastated if your astute team of professionals could find any favour in the proposed revised design (including bonus floors) to be compatible with the desired character of the area.

This site is highly constrained—on a ridge, surrounded by congested roads, and adjacent to sensitive heritage zones.

While a 30% height bonus under the SEPP would allow for a maximum of 46.8m, the developer is proposing 56.6m on the eastern tower—a 57% increase. To approve this, the Department must be satisfied that:
(a) compliance with the existing height limit is unreasonable or unnecessary; and
(b) there are sufficient environmental planning grounds for such a significant variation.

Neither condition is convincingly met.

Additionally, the development falls short of Apartment Design Guide standards—providing just 4% communal open space (where 25% is required)—and includes a disproportionate increase in car parking (64% more spaces, but fewer bike spaces and only one car share space), which will exacerbate traffic issues in an already congested precinct.

Precedent and Long-Term Impacts
If approved, this proposal will set a troubling precedent. The same developer has expressed interest in redeveloping the bus depot site nearby. Approval here will encourage others to seek similar oversized developments along West Oxford Street and around Centennial Park, further eroding heritage values, increasing traffic congestion, and placing greater strain on infrastructure.

Although Waverley Council’s DCP does not carry the legal weight of an LEP, it reflects the community’s and Council’s clear intent to restrict any further height increases on this site. That intent must be respected.

Conclusion
We commend the foresight of our predecessors who protected Centennial Park for future generations. This proposal risks undermining that legacy.

We support the need for more affordable housing, but it must be delivered in ways that are sensitive to local context, infrastructure capacity, and heritage values. This site is not suitable for such excessive height increases—particularly not a 57% exceedance on the eastern tower.

We urge the Department of Planning to reject the proposed modifications and uphold the current LEP height limits. Responsible planning, not opportunistic overdevelopment, must guide decisions on this significant and sensitive site.

I wish to formally object to the proposed modification that seeks to increase the height of the approved development at Oxford and Nelson Street, Bondi Junction. This site is directly opposite Centennial Park — a place of immense heritage, environmental, and cultural value — and the proposed amendment would make it the tallest and most visually dominant structure in the area.

A development approval already exists that significantly exceeds the original planning controls for this site. It is extremely concerning that the developer is now seeking further concessions through this proposal, which would result in towers up to 56.6 metres tall. This not only disregards the intent of the Waverley Local Environmental Plan (WLEP) and the site-specific Development Control Plan, but also undermines public trust in the integrity of the planning system.

The proposed additional height would significantly increase the visual bulk and scale of the development, and make the towers highly visible from within Centennial Park — particularly from Federation Valley — where the developer’s own consultants have assessed the visual impact as “moderate-high.” This clearly contradicts the Conservation Management Plan for the Parklands, which stresses the importance of preserving the skyline and surrounding curtilage.

While I support the inclusion of affordable housing, it should not come at the cost of the environmental, visual, and heritage integrity of our city’s most significant green space. The Housing SEPP does not guarantee height increases; it explicitly requires the consent authority to consider compatibility with the character of the area. This proposal fails that test.

Moreover, the proposed 57% height exceedance on the eastern tower goes well beyond the 30% bonus contemplated under the SEPP, without sufficient planning grounds or public interest justification. This would set a damaging precedent, paving the way for further oversized developments around the park, intensifying congestion and eroding amenity.

Centennial Park is a place of national significance. We have a responsibility to protect it — not only for current residents, but for future generations. Please reject the proposed modification and preserve the current LEP height limit.

Regards,
Julian C

We have reviewed and object to the currently approved plans and reject proposed changes which will only exacerbate current traffic flow and parking deficiencies. Sydney is expanding vertically, without suitable corresponding upgrade to infrastructure to support the additional demands on public transport, road, water, sewage and power provisioning. The development, the subject of this response typifies a construction in an inappropriate location with constrained access through under congested capacity local roads to access inadequate infrastructure. Reasons are provided below.

The report provided with the proposed development submission has a flawed base line traffic analysis. This was performed during COVID pandemic, just prior to the full lockdown period, when personnel movement was lower than normal, as were traffic movements. Therefore, the traffic volumes measured at that time, advised in the Stantec Report to be 21st April 2025 (page 7 of report) are not representative of true traffic volume. Since that date alone three (3) major apartment developments, have been completed and occupied in Oxford St, being those at “The Mill Development” on the corner of Oxford & Denison Sts,
292-302 Oxford St and 87 Oxford St. Currently there are also additional significant scale residential developments under construction at 55 Grafton St and 362 Oxford St, the latter also a Stargate development, also with an application submitted also for low cost housing.

Due to traffic flow observations being at a single period in time only, at a time when traffic volume was demonstrably significantly diminished, coupled with the undocumented, and unaccounted for, completion of another four (4) large developments, the traffic impact predicted in the Stantec report is inaccurate and cannot be relied upon. The report claims in Section 2.3 an annual traffic growth rate of 1.5%, being the Sydney average growth rate. This statement is incorrect, there having been a demonstrated substantial increase in vehicle population in the near population, not accounting for that in the proposed development.

Proposed parking provisioning is advised to be 138 motor vehicles and 45 motor bike parking spaces over four (4) basement levels, this is an increase of 50 motor vehicles and 17 motor bike spaces above the last (2024) plans provided for public review.

It is noted that only eight (8) parking spaces were set aside for visitor parking in the original development plans, the latest plans increasing to only twelve (12), refer Table 3.2 of Stantec Report. This is grossly inadequate and will result in spill over parking demand to Grafton St, Nelson Lane, Oxford St and Ruthven St, all of which are already stressed for resident parking space. Existing residents should not be forced to suffer for developer profits.

Traffic exiting Westfield Bondi Junction, heading towards Queens Park and Paddington is heavily reliant on free passage along Oxford St and Grafton St, both single lane carriageways in each direction only. Oxford St was narrowed in 2022 due to the cycleway construction and Grafton St will soon be affected by completion of 55 Grafton St and 362 Oxford St. The restricted width situation in Oxford St is so poor that busses and goods vehicles already find it difficult to pass without clipping mirrors.
Traffic in Oxford St and Grafton St-Nelson St is already near gridlock, and resident on street parking stressed. The additional resident and visitor traffic, plus parking demand will only exacerbate current inadequacies.

Traffic heading west to the city and north via Ocean St and New South Head Rd only has a short slip road (an extension of York Rd) to access Syd Einfeld Drive to access Ocean St, which is already congested in AM peak. The short slip road, already congested, congests Oxford St and York Rd during the AM peak. Additional traffic will exacerbate the current situation.

This is a development that must not be approved as it will add to current traffic congestion and parking deficiencies for the reasons given in the foregoing.

I strongly support his proposal and have some commentary to provide.

1. I support this proposal as it is close to public transportation and shops. We need more housing supply as we are in a housing crisis.

2. Gas is a fossil fuel, as there are more efficient and less costly to the environment and for people who will live in the apartments, its use should be reconsidered. If gas is to be used for cooktops and hot water, then apartment owners will be forced to pay for a separate daily connection fee to use the gas cooktop and for hot water they will be paying an estimated additional $479 a year (https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/how-sydneysiders-could-save-730-a-year-by-ditching-gas-20240325-p5feyf.html). You can find evidence to show that hot water heat pumps are more efficient than gas hot water heating and that induction cooktops are more efficient than gas cooktops. Gas is also a fossil fuel, has potential health impacts when used as part of cooking. The ESD assessment document says "High efficiency heat pump hot water systems will be used to provide the Hot Water demands for the buildings" but the BASIX report contains "Central hot water system (No. 1) gas-fired storage
(manifolded)" and no hot water heat pumps from my reading of the document.

3. The residential parking rate seems to exceed the council's maximum parking amount by 34 parking spots - which seems fairly minor and not significant. The NSW government should consider updating the Housing SEPP so that the parking minimums only apply to the affordable housing portion and permit council to apply parking maximums below the rate currently specified in the SEPP for market housing.

This developer is seeking to utilise 'affordable housing' rules for their own personal financial gain, and not for the benefit of the community. This site was restricted to 36m under the WLEP, and this proposal will increase the building heights to 43.8m and 56.6m*, nearly double the affordable housing 30% bonus. The proposal asks for 15 more apartments (21% more), 54 more car spaces (disproportionate increase of 64%), still only 1 car share space and 17 less bicycle spots (15% than originally approved).
To me, as a local resident, I cannot understand how affordable housing rules can be leveraged to just put the penthouses and expensive apartment floors up higher to allow for the developer to charge more for them.
Government always let developers use schemes to increase development size once the building has commenced, and therefore get away with circumventing the previous decisions made by Councils in conjunction with local community (WLEP and the 2020 DCP restricting further height for this development). These artefacts reflect the voice of the community. The height for these towers was already exceeding local limits of 9.5-11m around Centennial Park, this site was previously restricted at 15m only to have the developer successfully get it changed to 36m, which was more than double what was originally approved. I note they didn't propose to have affordable housing anywhere near the apartments then, and now, they are using affordable housing 'rules' to get the penthouses higher and more pricey. Is so disturbing typical of what government turn a blind eye to.
I don't believe that creating enormous high rise buildings around the edge of Centennial Park is in line with how we want our green spaces and local parks to be developed. This change is all about people with money buying apartments with views, not for affordable housing outcomes. Noting I would be very supportive if the developer wanted to turn the first 3 floors of this building into affordable housing under the existing 36m height restriction.
Please consider not applying this height bonus for this development, and the further cash grab from Westgate.
*The EIS says the max height will be 54m but Appendix F to the EIS says it will be 56.6m.

As the owner of a house at 1 Ruthven Street Bondi Junction, which is adjacent to this proposal I am extremely concerned by the request b from the developer for increased height of this high rise project. The shadow diagrams provided demonstrate that my house would be adversely affected by shadows cast by these additional floors,. This increase in heigh would t resulting in a direct loss of light and present privacy concerns. Given the elevation. of the proposal this would mean that windows, skylights and rear courtyard would all experience a loss of solar access as a result of this increase in height, bulk and scale. Additionally this would mean that residents on the proposed higher floors would be able to look directly into our rear courtyard and most concerningly into the skylights on our roof allowing people to look into our bedroom, bathroom and living room. I am shocked that the developer can believe a building of this height and scale is compatible with the surrounding area, which is filled with heritage houses. The Mill Hill precinct has been maintained to respect the integrity and character of these historical streets aand on any objective level, a building of this magnitude and scale would be incompatible with the heritage of this area. Given this area has been subjected to strict development rules in the past to ensure the integrity of the area is maintained if this increased height were to be permitted this could open up the flood gates to allow large towers to replace the existing heritage nature of the suburb and would change the entire character of the local area. Furthermore, traffic in this immediate area is already extremely congested and adding so many additional apartments in this one location would only be detrimental to the surrounding area. It would appear that this ploy of providing " affordable housing" is a ruse by the developer as it is very apparent that these apartments would be 'luxurious ' units with extensive views and the erection of the higher floors would result in greater disadvantage to hundreds if not thousands of existing residents than the gains achieved . Being directly impacted by this proposal I ask that you consider the integrity and character of this area and the impact this would have on our access to sunlight and privacy as listed above. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns.

Increase 57% higher than the 36 m permitted
Increase potential traffics and safety concerns

I object to any increase in height to an already intrusive project which was rejected by the community and council.
The new levels will increase the skyscape, totally intrude and ruin the green space in the park, destroy the character of the local area including the historical character. It will dominate further- 6 stories in one and 3 in another ABOVE the already approved (but totally rejected by community and council) height is a massive addition- it is an arrogant attempt to sidestep the approved limits placed on the development.
There will also be a further increase in traffic in an already congested area.
I reject it totally.and so should you.
Do not use the current housing issues to allow yourselves to approve such a huge increase in height on a building that has already been contested and will be a massive intrusion.

I object to the project because:-
1. It will make th already difficult parking in the area even worse as some apartments will have residents with 2 cars and some apartments may not have a carspace at all.. It will drive residents to park in Ruthven st or Ruthven Lane where even now since the other high rise apartments have been built create issues/ time wasting searching for a park in surrounding streets.
2. It will further reduce the sunlight to our area and even to Centennial Park where people come to enjoy sun and fresh air from all over Sydney.
3. It will be a monstrosity that serves to ruin the village atmosphere that goes along with out mostly heritage listed houses, and sunny tree lined streets.
4. if accepted it will set a precedent for other high rise towers in the area.
5. it will create worse traffic blockages as cars turn from York Rd into Oxford st. The notes say residents can use a side st, but that lane feeds into Oxford
st.

The residents surrounding this already massive development are not the only ones who will suffer from its proposed scale. The thousands of people who use the surrounding area on Oxford st as a currently enjoyable place to travel through, stop for coffee (Cook & Baker), walk or ride their kids to school (on our new beautiful bike lane), will be overshadowed during winter. The psychology of public space planning is already so abundantly available, yet good design is being ignored by state government and developers.
The approved buildings are already massively oversized for the street and the proposed change of plan is will further cut out sunlight and impose a sore sight on the residents around it under a temporary "affordable housing" umbrella.

My concerns are numerous:

- that the additional floors requested are 57% higher than the current LGA environment plan and DOUBLE the affordable housing rule's 30% height bonus"
- It is already blocking sunshine in winter along a route our community uses to travel through and stop & socialise. It will make the area where people wait for buses completely hostile in winter. If council want people to use public transport and interact with each other, then the area can't be as overshadowed as is proposed.
- It sets a terrible precedent. I am expected, as a heritage house owner, to not go 4cm above my roofline. Yet this building is allowed to impose on thousands of people a whopping extra nine floors (combined) of shadow. How can we be expected to obey the council's heritage laws when this development is allowed one block away?
- It will be hugely visible from the national heritage item - Federation Valley in Centennial Park, is that legal? (Visual Impact Statement - 6.3 Viewpoint 3: Grand Drive, Centennial Park)
- The developer is asking for 54 more car spaces - disproportionate increase of 64%
- The developer is proposing 17 less bicycle spaces.
- The developer has included a visual impact statement that designates itself generally low-medium
(visual impact from Viewpoint 3, 4 and 6 appears severe).

This proposal of increased height is excessive and totally out of character with the area.

1. Project will cause extreme overshadowing of Oxford Street particularly in Winter months;
2. Project will massively increase traffic in the area and will restrict traffic flow and parking;
3. Project will create more imbalance to Bondi Junction/Centennial Park building heights and add further to an ugly skyline;
4. Whatever the final design for the additional levels it seems to be based on an act of greed rather than addressing the issue of affordable housing.

Objection to Proposed Development: Oxford and Nelson Street, Bondi Junction
Dear Planning Committee,
I strongly object to the proposed “shop top housing with infill affordable housing” at Oxford and Nelson Street, Bondi Junction, for the following reasons:
1. Excessive Density Beyond Approved Plans
A building of half the proposed size has already been approved for this site. Doubling the scale now disregards prior planning assessments and community expectations. The current proposal is excessive in height and bulk, and inconsistent with the established approval.
2. Traffic Congestion and Safety
This corner is already one of the most difficult and dangerous traffic spots in Bondi Junction. Increased vehicle and pedestrian movements will further compromise safety and congestion. Emergency vehicle access may be affected.
3. Questionable “Affordable Housing” Claim
The proposal is being presented as affordable housing, yet the design and positioning suggest high-end, luxury dwellings. Without clear commitment to long-term affordability under NSW definitions, this claim appears misleading.
4. Inadequate Parking and Local Impact
Insufficient on-site parking will push overflow into surrounding residential streets. Public transport access does not eliminate the need for private vehicles, particularly in a development with commercial premises.
5. Lack of Community Benefit
There is minimal public space, green amenity, or infrastructure contribution offered in return for the increased density. The development prioritises private gain over public good.
Given that a smaller-scale building has already been approved, this larger proposal is unnecessary and inappropriate. It will worsen traffic, fails to deliver genuine affordability, and offers little in return to the community. I respectfully request that the application be rejected or substantially reduced and would like a response to my objection.
Sincere Regards,
Maren Carson

The project was approved before the recent changes by the NSW Government to increase housing near transport centres. It was approved despite being more than double the height permitted in the then-LEP. Now the developers are seeking not just the additional 30% but even more. I understand the 30% additional GFA and support the NSW Governments attempts to address the housing crisis. I would support this change in the approved project if it wasn't more than what is permitted. It is too bulky, too high. By all means, let it add on the extra GFA to provide affordable and other additional housing, but within the limits, not beyond them. The submission clearly shows the height significantly exceeding the maximum.

The proposed changes also add a much larger number of car-parking spaces than the originally approved project. Why do they need so many more car parking spaces? Contrary to the LEP and Council (and city-wide) strategy of reducing car use. Surely that's the reason for Transport Oriented Development - making use of existing public transport infrastructure rather than relying on private transport. I would rather they were required to provide additional car-sharing access than be given a massive increase in private car parking, which will greatly increase the value of the project at the expense of local amenity.
I support - or at least understand and accept - that Bondi Junction is a logical place to build more high-rise apartments. I would support this project if it were within the limits. It already exceeded the LEP limits to get approved in the first place, and now the developers are seeking to exceed even these much more generous limits. Whatever gets approved here will inevitably set the standard for the rest of the road down to Bondi Junction centre, so it would be good to have it only massive instead of humungous...
This particular developer, Stargate, has built quite a few high-rises further east along Oxford Street to the Bondi Junction Mall. They are not very interesting or attractive projects compared to, say, the development above the Mill Hill Hotel, which made sensitive use of the existing facade and created a building which was nicer to look at than many of the unimaginative, box-like structures in the vicinity. I hope the artist impression of this current project is closer to the reality.

I hope this project turns out better than I fear it will. I hope it contributes to the nice atmosphere we have at this end of Oxford Street, with a popular pub and some interesting local bakeries, butcher, record shop, dog groomer etc.

Thanks for the chance to contribute my thoughts as a local resident who supports sensible, proportionate development. Please consider reining back the ambitious ambit claim of this developer to have a more modest but still highly profitable project that meets Government objectives without tramping on the neighbourhood!

This proposal is a blight on the iconic heritage areas enveloping Centennial Park.
As a nearby resident I have been subject to the strict regulations imposed by Council for my own renovations.
Why should a developer circumvent regulations to build further apartments under the guise of 'affordable housing'? The State Government is first obliged to consider its residents and constituents over developers and the responsibility not to set poor precedents for over development.
I object to the proposal which will:
· result in towers of 43.8m and 56.6m* - 57% higher than the 36m permitted under Waverley Local Environment Plan and nearly double the affordable housing rule’s 30% height “bonus”.

· block sunshine by increasing height and bulk, dominating the streetscape, casting shadows, reducing privacy and eroding heritage values.

· create more traffic, making intersections even more dangerous and congested.

· set a terrible precedent: we can expect similar towers on the bus depot site, surrounding Centennial Park, and all along Oxford St, replacing our sunny west Oxford St “village”.

· create huge visual impact on surrounding streets and Centennial Park, including by being “highly visible” (developer’s own words) from Federation Valley in Centennial Park** (dog park).

· result in 17 more apartments (24% more); 54 more car spaces (a disproportionate increase of 64%) but still only 1 carshare space; 17 less bicycle spots (15% less than originally approved).

*The EIS says the max height will be 54m but Appendix F to the EIS says it will be 56.6m. Current crane heights show how tall the proposed buildings will be if approved.
** A major national heritage item, listed as having “outstanding significance” because it is where the Commonwealth of Australia was declared in 1901.

I object this project due to:
· result in towers of 43.8m and 56.6m* - 57% higher than the 36m permitted under Waverley Local Environment Plan and nearly double the affordable housing rule’s 30% height “bonus”.
· block sunshine by increasing height and bulk, dominating the streetscape, casting shadows, reducing privacy and eroding heritage values on St James Road, Ruthven Street and Millhill Road.
This little pocked of Bondi Junction is heritage and is the heart of Bondi Junction and Centennial Park.

· create more traffic, making intersections even more dangerous and congested which is already a nightmare getting in and out of the area.

· set a terrible precedent: we can expect similar towers on the bus depot site, surrounding Centennial Park, and all along Oxford St, replacing our sunny west Oxford St “village”.

· create huge visual impact on surrounding streets and Centennial Park, including by being “highly visible” (developer’s own words) from Federation Valley in Centennial Park** (dog park).

· result in 17 more apartments (24% more); 54 more car spaces (a disproportionate increase of 64%) but still only 1 carshare space; 17 less bicycle spots (15% less than originally approved).

*The EIS says the max height will be 54m but Appendix F to the EIS says it will be 56.6m. Current crane heights show how tall the proposed buildings will be if approved.
** A major national heritage item, listed as having “outstanding significance” because it is where the Commonwealth of Australia was declared in 1901.