As President of The Paddington Society, I endorse and support the Society’s objections.
I am acutely aware that the proposal is NOT appropriate for its Oxford Street and Paddington Context.
I have been trying unsuccessfully to upload the Society's submission, objecting to the proposal however hello Esther speaking hello oh thank you thank you for calling back. I'm having a lot of trouble. As our other people I was speaking to a young woman I'm not sure who it was. She didn't say her name. I wasn't able to upload the document. I tried both just a moment. I was trying again and it's it's now recording my conversation with you on the screen, I'll stop. I don't know how to do that.

The subject SSDA seeks development consent for demolition of 7 buildings within the Paddington HCA - including four terrace homes and a well-functioning building of 27 studio apartments, with proposed replacement with 30 build-to-sell dwellings, ground floor shops and a 4- storey basement, with vehicular access from Shadforth Street, and 10 affordable housing dwellings to be managed by a community housing provider (Echo Realty) for a period of at least 15 years, after which they will also be available for sale at market prices.

I object on the grounds that
1. The proponent has lodged a Clause 4.6 variation request for additional 30% height bonus to the non-discretionary development standard of 22m under section 180 of the Housing SEPP. The southern elevation of the proposed building, fronting Oxford Street, shows a 5-storey street wall with three upper stories. As I understand it, the proponent argues that the additional height 'enables the proposal to deliver the top most storey in full and hence provide the required proportion of new in-fill affordable housing'. Reducing the 'build to sell' (non-affordable) component and keeping the height in line with the development standard for the area doesn’t seem to have occurred to them.

2. The new building would have more than double the height and floor space yet only deliver 40 apartments, with only 10 offered at a discount on market rent for only 15 years. If approved in its current form, the development results in a net loss of at least 17 affordable apartments displacing people in the 'target market' outlined by Echo Realty, ie essential workers and people with chronic health conditions. While this may currently be permissible under the Housing SEPP rules, it is antithetical to the aim of growing genuine affordable housing stock and responding to community needs.

3. In addition to concerns about construction impacts such as noise, dust, vibration and traffic and the longer term potential impact of traffic congestion and increased pressure on public transport, community feedback asks that the design considers surrounding heritage for consistency with Paddington's look and feel. While the Statement of Heritage Impact (Attachment K) (GBA heritage, p7) assesses the majority of the buildings on the proposed site itself as not 'contributory' to the heritage conservation area centred around the Barracks (across the road) and to the north, it also states that it is 'likely to be at odds' with future low-scale and sympathetically designed development within the Victoria Barracks precinct (given the multiple heritage listings over the Barracks site itself). The local community have also expressed a desire (which I share) to see a more proportionate and long-term contribution to affordable housing (rather than the net loss this represents), and concerns about proposed height and scale and potential impacts on local character, privacy, view loss, and overshadowing.
The proponent, through their 'engagement process', appears to be well aware of these concerns, but fails to make clear what, if any, of the various 'mitigations' documented in response to environmental, heritage risk etc actually respond to these community concerns.

Overall, the Housing SEPP aims to address housing shortages, improve housing affordability, and support the needs of different community groups, including essential workers, seniors, and people with disabilities, by making it easier to build a variety of housing close to jobs and services. If approved, once again, rather than increasing housing supply, variety and affordability in areas close to work, transport and other amenities, the combination of height and floor space incentives facilitates only gentrification with a smaller number of prestigious larger high-end homes that will never be affordable to first home buyers, essential workers or anyone on a low to medium income, with a temporary 'affordable housing' component and a higher and wider footprint than zoning rules currently permit. Rather than improving the affordability, diversity and density of housing stock in areas close to the city such as Paddington, where I have lived in the past, and Potts Point where I currently live, it is reduced by developments of this nature. It should not go ahead in its current form.

Your sincerely
[Name withheld]

This project is not a very convincing effort to provide affordable housing when it displaces people living at this site who have few options and who have been part of the Paddington neighbourhood for many years and fo4 many most of their adult life
PAddington is one of the oldest suburbs in Australia and our government should be protecting it from overdevelopment and excessive cars and density of population - it was not designed to cater for this.
The price of these appartments now or in 15 years will not be for accessible those being evicted or to anyone except the well off and ironically the reason people are prepared to pay to live in the appartments you are proposing to be built is that the suburb is indeed a beautiful place that’s protected its historical fabric - fast forward another 10-20 years of this sort of development and the place will no longer be attractive and Oxford st will be a corridor of towers
Yes there are some ugly and / or larger scale developments already in existence but they are largely for utilities ( Telstra/ education/ health)… not for large scale developer profit - they are not residential towers
The comments made that some parts of the land are more heritage sensitive than others is just ridiculous- the whole area is heritage sensitive and once you start development of this scale it will be impossible to control
Furthermore, the overshadowing by the sheer bulk of this development cannot be compensated by any degree of landscaping - there is no precedence for this sort of development in this heritage environment and the proposal is so mismatched to the surrounding sandstone buildings and largely 1-2 storey dwellings that is it just unbelievable
PLease spend time in the area and imagine the access issues in and out of this block, the loss of light and amenity to the neighbours and finally the incongruity of the actual building in the streetscape
The repeated comments in the attached proposals that the existing building is of « poor quality » do not justify replacing it with a building one that is so out of context with the urban environment that is Paddington - regardless of how expensive the materials used, the number of pools etc
All great cities of the world fiercely protect their historical areas - Paddington is one of the few left in Australia and one of the very earliest examples of our history
We have so little history but what we do have is important to our nation - please don’t allow it to be threatened by greedy and inappropriate overdevelopment that is short sighted - we all see what is happening here and it’s not about social housing nor about protecting the future of our community for the generations who follow

The proposed mixed use development at 160 Oxford Street, Paddington should not go ahead because it delivers only a limited and fragile affordable housing outcome, while causing permanent damage to the area’s heritage character, amenity, and social fabric. Any short‑term benefits are outweighed by long‑term losses to both existing residents and the broader community.

First, the project does not provide genuine, long‑term affordability that matches what is already on the site. At present, the buildings at 160 Oxford Street contain modest, older dwellings that function as “naturally occurring” affordable housing. These units, while not necessarily part of a formal program, have historically been accessible to lower‑income residents, students, and key workers who rely on proximity to central Sydney and nearby employment, such as St Vincent’s Hospital and local schools. By demolishing this stock and replacing it with a smaller number of “affordable” units tied to a discount off market rent and usually limited to a fixed term, the development risks reducing the total pool of truly accessible housing. When affordability is defined relative to already high Paddington rents, the new dwellings may still be out of reach for many of the people who currently live in and support the local area. To add to this the environmental impact will be significant knocking down a perfecting functioning building, all options to retro fit the current building should be explored first.

Over time, the concern is that any time‑limited affordable housing commitments will expire and the units will revert to full market rates. Once that happens, the development becomes essentially a standard, higher‑end apartment building, while the loss of the old, lower‑cost stock is irreversible. In effect, the community gives up permanent low‑cost housing and the human networks it supports in exchange for a temporary, contractual version of “affordability” that may last only a couple of decades. This is an especially poor trade‑off in a city facing deep and ongoing housing stress, where irreplaceable inner‑city affordable options are already vanishing.

Second, the scale, bulk and design of the proposed building are inappropriate for the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area. The character of Paddington is defined by fine‑grained, two‑ to three‑storey terraces, shopfronts, and narrow lots that create a human‑scale streetscape. Introducing an eight‑plus storey structure at 160 Oxford Street would dominate the ridgeline, overshadow neighbouring homes, and break established view lines along the street and towards surrounding heritage buildings. Rather than reading as a sympathetic evolution of the urban fabric, the new building would appear as a dominant object imposed on a much smaller‑scaled context.

Heritage controls in Paddington exist precisely to prevent this kind of discontinuity. Once an oversized building is allowed in a conservation area on the basis that it includes some affordable housing, it becomes much harder to resist similar proposals nearby. Other landowners may seek comparable height and floor space uplifts, arguing they too should receive “flexibility” in return for a small affordable component. This incremental escalation undermines the integrity of the conservation area and erodes the historic identity that makes Oxford Street attractive and valuable in the first place.

Third, the development risks accelerating gentrification and displacing the very communities affordable housing is meant to protect. Large, high‑end mixed‑use projects tend to attract higher‑income residents and more expensive retail and hospitality operators. As property values and commercial rents around the site rise, smaller local businesses, creative spaces and long‑term residents can be pushed out. The result is a more homogenised, less diverse neighbourhood, with fewer independent shops and fewer lower‑income residents, even if a handful of subsidised units remain in the building.

This dynamic is particularly concerning in Paddington, which has historically balanced heritage housing, small businesses, and a mix of incomes. The proposed development risks tipping that balance, transforming a site that currently contributes to social diversity into one that primarily serves higher‑income households. Once the character of the street shifts in this way, it is extremely difficult to reverse.

Finally, the planning approach behind the proposal raises serious questions of transparency and public interest. The project appears to rely on planning pathways and incentives that permit significant variations to height and floor‑space controls in exchange for delivering a relatively small proportion of “affordable” units. This model effectively treats affordable housing as a bargaining chip to justify overdevelopment in a sensitive heritage context. It undermines public confidence in planning rules, because it suggests that well‑established controls can be traded away on a site‑by‑site basis rather than upheld consistently.

A development in such a prominent and sensitive location should start from the needs and values of the community: long‑term affordable homes, respect for heritage, and protection of amenity and human scale. The current proposal does the opposite. It offers only a limited and time‑bound affordable housing benefit while locking in permanent impacts on townscape, sunlight, views, and local character. For these reasons, 160 Oxford Street should not be redeveloped in this form, and any future proposal should be required to deliver genuinely enduring affordability at a scale and design that respects Paddington’s historic environment and community.

If this proposal sadly was to go ahead, all trucks over 2 tonne should be banned from using any of the small residential streets surrounding the project and only limited to Oxford Street. This is to protect the many children that use the streets who walk to many of the local schools in the area.

I strongly object to the proposed development at 160 Oxford St Paddington. I am all for more affordable housing and development however this project will demolish 27 affordable properties and replace it with less. The size and more importantly the height and scale of the development is way out of character with the area and will overshadow many properties. It will create a precedent which will threaten the heritage conservation area. I am happy for this site to be developed but to use the “ affordable housing bonus” to go for increased size and height when it results in less affordable housing is insulting to the community.

I object to this development proposal for many reasons which I will outline below.
 
It is just way too big! The scale and bulk of the proposed development are completely inappropriate for its setting. It proposes to take up every bit of the site without adding anything to local amenities or general community good that might offset the loss of existing affordable housing or the unwelcome intrusiveness of the building. It overshadows public open space on Oxford Street and the residences that are around it. It’s all about taking away from the community for the profit of developers. Its social and environmental impact is both negative and destructive.
 
 
The proposed development violates the principles and values of the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area. People have fought hard over the years to save the demolition of Paddington’s unique environment. This heritage protection has been valued and admired since. People are grateful for it. The importance of the site of the proposed development to the history of white settlement in Paddington has been well documented. Most importantly the site has provided accommodation to those considered essential workers on local projects, be they building Paddington Barracks or staffing the local hospital.
 
Paddington does not need more luxury accommodation for wealthy people - there is plenty of that already.  Nor do we need any more shops - so many of those are already empty. But we do urgently need to increase and maintain existing affordable housing for those who work in the area. This ought to be the main priority for any development within this important heritage area. Indeed, it should be the priority for any government approval or support for any of the State Significant Development projects.
 
The proposed development decreases the availability of affordable housing in Paddington. It proposes the demolition of 27 affordable units and replaces them with 40 new, mostly luxury ones - including penthouses with rooftop swimming pools. Only 10 affordable housing units are included. In this area these will still be out of reach of most who need it and will revert to regular housing stock after 15 years.  We need permanent affordable and build to rent housing in Paddington.
 
The extensive demolition and excavation work (for the 4 levels of underground parking etc) will take some years and be incredibly intrusive on the local area. Again, the enormous public inconvenience is not offset by anything that the proposal contributes to the community. Given the character and history of Paddington, the proposal just looks ugly and is way out of place. Once it is there the character and unique aesthetic qualities of the area will be forever degraded. It needs to be rejected now.
 

Overall, the proposal represents a well-considered urban infill project that will deliver new housing, including a meaningful proportion of affordable housing, in a highly accessible inner-city location. The development aligns with current NSW Government planning priorities to increase housing supply in well-serviced urban areas while supporting vibrant local centres.

Housing supply and affordability

Sydney continues to face significant housing affordability and supply challenges. The proposal will provide 40 apartments, including 10 affordable dwellings managed by a community housing provider. The inclusion of affordable housing in a well-located inner-city neighbourhood such as Paddington is particularly valuable, as it helps ensure that essential workers and lower-to-moderate income households can access housing close to employment, services and public transport.

Developments that integrate affordable housing within mixed-tenure residential buildings contribute to more inclusive communities and support broader state housing policy objectives.

Appropriate urban infill in a well-located area

The site is located on Oxford Street, a major urban corridor that is well connected to employment centres, public transport, services and cultural institutions. Increasing residential density along such corridors is consistent with metropolitan planning strategies that encourage housing growth in locations with strong infrastructure and accessibility.

Providing additional housing in established urban areas helps reduce pressure for urban sprawl and allows residents to live closer to jobs, healthcare, education and public transport.

Activation of the Oxford Street frontage

The inclusion of ground-floor retail will help strengthen street activity along Oxford Street and contribute to the vitality of the local precinct. Active street frontages encourage pedestrian movement, improve passive surveillance and support local businesses.

Given the long-standing role of Oxford Street as a key urban high street, the introduction of new mixed-use development is appropriate and will help maintain the area’s economic and social vibrancy.

Design response and transition to surrounding context

From the available planning documentation, the proposal appears to incorporate several design elements that respond to the surrounding urban environment, including building setbacks, retention of street trees, and a transition toward neighbouring residential terraces.

Such measures are important given the proximity to heritage areas and the established residential character of surrounding streets. A well-designed contemporary building can coexist with heritage contexts while contributing to the evolution of the urban fabric.

Efficient use of a strategic inner-city site

The redevelopment of underutilised or aging building stock to provide new housing and improved urban outcomes is an appropriate planning outcome for a site of this scale and location. The proposal replaces a collection of older post-war buildings with a more efficient use of land while retaining elements that contribute to the local streetscape.

Urban renewal projects of this nature support the long-term sustainability and functionality of inner-city neighbourhoods.

Conclusion

For these reasons, I support the approval of SSD-97528708. The project will deliver much-needed housing—including affordable housing—activate a key urban street, and make efficient use of a strategically located site within Sydney’s established urban area.

I encourage the Department to support the proposal, subject to appropriate conditions that ensure high design quality and careful management of construction and heritage interfaces.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission on this proposal.

Object strongly as Paddington is a Heritage suburb. The charm & character will be destroyed by unsightly high rise.The narrow streets in Shadford & Gibbs will be congested if this building goes ahead. Not an appropriate site to build & will set a president & destroy the character of Paddington. It will not be affordable housing as only those on very night incomes could effort to rent / buy. Defeats the purpose as 27 units at 160 Oxford st have renters on a low income. The developers are only in it to make big $$ so go some where else not Paddington

Submission regarding SSD-97528708

Dear Sir/Madam,
My family live in Shadforth Street, Paddington .I visit the area weekly and wish to lodge an objection to the developer’s application SSD-97528708.

My family as local residents have direct experience of the area and can provide observations that are not captured in consultant reports. The day-to-day functioning of local streets, businesses and pedestrian activity is best understood by those who live and work here.

My primary concerns relate to the loss of affordable housing, traffic impacts associated with the proposed underground carpark, disruption to local businesses during construction, cumulative infrastructure impacts, and the protection of the Paddington Conservation Area.

Loss of affordable housing

The proposal appears to result in a net loss of affordable housing. At a time when Sydney faces a well-documented housing affordability crisis, reducing affordable housing in an inner-city location close to employment, transport and services is difficult to justify. Development of this scale should prioritise maintaining or increasing affordable housing supply.

Traffic and local street capacity

The traffic impacts appear understated in the application. Streets such as Gipps Street, Shadforth Street and Liverpool Street are narrow nineteenth-century residential streets that were never designed for the traffic volumes associated with a development of this intensity.

For readers unfamiliar with the area, these streets are constrained by parked cars on both sides, narrow carriageways, limited turning space and tight intersections. In practice, many operate as single-lane corridors. Deliveries, waste collection vehicles and ride-share activity already create congestion and safety concerns. Additional traffic from an underground carpark will increase these pressures.

Construction and business impacts

Oxford Street supports many small independent businesses that rely on pedestrian access and consistent street activity. A prolonged construction period risks significant disruption through reduced access, noise, dust and construction staging.

Cumulative impacts

The proposal should also be assessed in the context of other nearby changes, including the Oxford Street cycleway and the potential future redevelopment of Victoria Barracks. These projects will also affect traffic patterns and construction activity. The cumulative impact of multiple changes occurring simultaneously appears insufficiently addressed.

Heritage and character

Paddington’s heritage streetscape and fine-grain urban character are fundamental to its identity. Development within or near the Paddington Conservation Area must respect this scale and character.

For these reasons, I request that the concerns above be carefully considered when assessing SSD-97528708.

Yours sincerely,
Duncan Mathers

To whom it may concern
I object to the project because if this goes ahead there will be a permanent loss of Paddington’s heritage character, Overshadowing and loss of privacy for neighbours, Traffic chaos and parking congestion on local streets and years of severe disruption and heavy construction.

Importantly, it sets irreversible precedent that threatens our historic, low-rise streetscape, opening the floodgates for more high-rises. Many parts of Paddington - even beyond Five Ways - have been rezoned by the new state rules to enable more development.