Please see attachment

I reviewed the publicly available material for SSD-80211463 and the submissions lodged on the NSW Planning Portal. The key issue emerging from many objections is that the amended proposal appears substantially larger than the previously approved concept, particularly in relation to height, bulk, density and visual impact.
While I support the delivery of affordable housing and urban renewal, I object to SSD-80211463 in its current form because the amended proposal is materially different from the previously approved development and results in excessive height, bulk, density, view loss, overshadowing, traffic impacts and adverse effects on local amenity. The public benefit offered does not justify the scale of planning uplift sought. I request that the Department refuse the amended proposal or require a substantial redesign that remains consistent with the previously approved development.

The reasons I object to the revised proposal are still the same as what I submitted last time:
1. The new design is much higher than approved project, this will block the sun, leave my building in the shadow.
2. Noise: such huge residential building in the small street will make the area much noisy.
3. Traffic: “Under Site Access and network - Vehicular access to the site is
currently obtained from Forbes Street and Dowling Street, with multiple
vehicular cross overs along Forbes Street.“ This is not true. There are not
multiple vehicular cross overs along Forbes Street.
Access to Dowling street, which is difficult now, will become even worse
because there will be extra vehicles; cars, and trucks servicing the new build.
If travelling from the east to reach Dowling Street, it will be very difficult
because of extra traffic traveling to the new build via McElhone and Cathedral
streets.
4. The effect of Social Wellbeing – homelessness in the area will be a major
concern in surrounding streets where people use the public park, which is
extremely small, yet part of the new build.
5. Wind assessment – if there is excessive height, which there is with the new
DA, Dowling street, McElhone street and Forbes street will have an unlimited
amount of extra wind which will be directed down these streets, from the north
and the south.

Thanks for your consideration.
Resident on 200 William St
Yi Xiong

I object to the amended proposal in its current form.

As someone who lives and works in inner Sydney, I understand the need for more housing and higher-density development close to transport, jobs and services. However, supporting growth should not mean accepting any increase in height or scale without proper consideration of its impact on existing communities.

The proposed 22-storey building feels excessive for this location and appears to be a significant departure from the earlier scheme that was presented to residents.

Good development should improve a neighbourhood, not overwhelm it.

I am concerned that the current proposal places too much emphasis on maximising the size of the project and not enough on maintaining the character, visual amenity and liveability of the surrounding area.

I support redevelopment of the site, but I believe the proposal should be scaled back to achieve a more balanced outcome for both future and existing residents.

The SP enjoys views and amenity which will be adversely impacted by the non-compliant scale
the documents relating to view sharing are inaccurate and misrepresent the impacts
Please refer the attached detailed Planning Submission objecting to the proposal as amended
Thank you

I have views and home enjoyment and amenity adversely impacted. Please see attached my personal submission. Thank you

I object to the amended proposal for 164–194 William Street.
I have lived in the Kings Cross/Darlinghurst area for many years and have seen significant change over that time. While I understand that Sydney needs additional housing, I do not believe this proposal strikes the right balance between development and preserving the character of the local area.
The scale of the proposed 22-storey building is excessive and out of keeping with its surroundings. This part of Sydney is valued for its mix of historic buildings, established residential towers and important harbour outlooks.
The amended proposal would introduce a building that is far larger than what was previously presented to the community and would permanently alter the character of this gateway precinct.
I ask that the Department require a reduction in the height and bulk of the development before granting approval.