SP21252
Object
SP21252
Object
Mount Colah
,
New South Wales
Message
Thank you for considering the attached planning submission and view impact assessment provided by the strata
This proposal is excessive and results in unreasonable and severe/devastating view loss of iconic/water views from existing apartments which gain amenity from this outlook. View sharing does not seem to be considered in terms of design options/urban design and the proposal results in design issues and such considerable amenity and area impacts such as not to warrant support of Clause 4.6 to bonussed standards. Thank you for your consideration as to the attached assessment, Natalie
Details within, please be in contact if we can assist.
This proposal is excessive and results in unreasonable and severe/devastating view loss of iconic/water views from existing apartments which gain amenity from this outlook. View sharing does not seem to be considered in terms of design options/urban design and the proposal results in design issues and such considerable amenity and area impacts such as not to warrant support of Clause 4.6 to bonussed standards. Thank you for your consideration as to the attached assessment, Natalie
Details within, please be in contact if we can assist.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
DARLINGHURST
,
New South Wales
Message
Attention: Ms Michelle Niles, Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: SSD-80211463 for 164-172, 174-194 William Street WOOLLOOMOOLOO NSW 2011
Mixed use development with in-fill affordable housing, 164 - 194 William Street, Woolloomooloo
Dear Ms Niles,
I am a property owner and resident at Strata Plan 20087 (5-15 Farrell Avenue, Darlinghurst) and will be severely affected by the proposed development at 164-172 and 174-194 William Street Woolloomooloo.
I live in [redacted] of Palisades at 5-15 Farrell Avenue. The building has wonderful views of the Sydney city skyline that include the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Opera House, and the Domain/ Botanic Gardens. These views are a key component of the value of the apartments and are a major part of the pleasure of living here. It is why people choose to live in this area and many have remained in the area long term for this very reason.
In relation to the Planning Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements, the Visual Impact Analysis would be severe at best. Both proposed alternative developments for the William street site will have a significant impact on the views from our building and in turn will impact our quality of life dramatically. The “Infill Housing” proposal creates a solid blockage of all the significant views mentioned above as well as having a very detrimental impact on the view in general. The outcome of this using the Tenacity/Scale/Value metrics in the Visual Impact Assessment would fall into the Severe zone at best with a score of 12 to 14 out of 15. The scale of this building is completely out of keeping with the local buildings. The “Alternative Massing” proposal will be marginally better, reducing the impact to the low end of severe with a score of 10 to 12. However, the immensity of this main tower dwarfs all other building in the precinct and destroys any sense of cohesion in the area.
The scale of both these options is completely inconsistent with the existing buildings on and around William Street and with the current height provisions for the area. It will destroy the outlook of most of the current residential buildings on the southern side of William Street and will completely overshadow the low-level housing in Woolloomooloo. The proposed developments seem to be vastly different to the original approved concept which, despite its size, was more in keeping with the local scale of buildings.
The scale of the development also potentially opens the door to the development of further oversized buildings along William Street which will completely destroy the inner- city living atmosphere and turn it into a characterless housing precinct. This will destroy the unique feeling of the area which has attracted people to live here.
There is an obvious need for further inner-city housing including affordable housing, however, it is imperative that it be done sensitively, with reasonable scaling and uplift and not at the expense of those who already reside in the area. It is important that the Department of Planning Housing and Infrastructure consider the impact that this and future development will have on existing housing in the area and ensure an outcome for future development that is balanced for all concerned.
FSR and Height objectives refer to protection of amenities, and require developments to be respectful of character and view sharing. The proposed changes to the original design are a clear breach of the balanced approach required. There will be major impact on existing residents with loss of views and overshadowing, resulting in a lessened living quality for many.
People are drawn to live in this inner-city part of the city of Sydney because of its history, its unique character and its sense of place, and the city itself benefits in a broader sense. Over-sized and ill-conceived development will rapidly destroy this forever. For this reason, it is imperative that this proposal be carried out with a view to being respectful of the needs of current residents as well as providing housing for others in the future.
Yours sincerely,
[Name Withheld]
5-15 Farrell Avenue, Darlinghurst
Re: SSD-80211463 for 164-172, 174-194 William Street WOOLLOOMOOLOO NSW 2011
Mixed use development with in-fill affordable housing, 164 - 194 William Street, Woolloomooloo
Dear Ms Niles,
I am a property owner and resident at Strata Plan 20087 (5-15 Farrell Avenue, Darlinghurst) and will be severely affected by the proposed development at 164-172 and 174-194 William Street Woolloomooloo.
I live in [redacted] of Palisades at 5-15 Farrell Avenue. The building has wonderful views of the Sydney city skyline that include the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Opera House, and the Domain/ Botanic Gardens. These views are a key component of the value of the apartments and are a major part of the pleasure of living here. It is why people choose to live in this area and many have remained in the area long term for this very reason.
In relation to the Planning Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements, the Visual Impact Analysis would be severe at best. Both proposed alternative developments for the William street site will have a significant impact on the views from our building and in turn will impact our quality of life dramatically. The “Infill Housing” proposal creates a solid blockage of all the significant views mentioned above as well as having a very detrimental impact on the view in general. The outcome of this using the Tenacity/Scale/Value metrics in the Visual Impact Assessment would fall into the Severe zone at best with a score of 12 to 14 out of 15. The scale of this building is completely out of keeping with the local buildings. The “Alternative Massing” proposal will be marginally better, reducing the impact to the low end of severe with a score of 10 to 12. However, the immensity of this main tower dwarfs all other building in the precinct and destroys any sense of cohesion in the area.
The scale of both these options is completely inconsistent with the existing buildings on and around William Street and with the current height provisions for the area. It will destroy the outlook of most of the current residential buildings on the southern side of William Street and will completely overshadow the low-level housing in Woolloomooloo. The proposed developments seem to be vastly different to the original approved concept which, despite its size, was more in keeping with the local scale of buildings.
The scale of the development also potentially opens the door to the development of further oversized buildings along William Street which will completely destroy the inner- city living atmosphere and turn it into a characterless housing precinct. This will destroy the unique feeling of the area which has attracted people to live here.
There is an obvious need for further inner-city housing including affordable housing, however, it is imperative that it be done sensitively, with reasonable scaling and uplift and not at the expense of those who already reside in the area. It is important that the Department of Planning Housing and Infrastructure consider the impact that this and future development will have on existing housing in the area and ensure an outcome for future development that is balanced for all concerned.
FSR and Height objectives refer to protection of amenities, and require developments to be respectful of character and view sharing. The proposed changes to the original design are a clear breach of the balanced approach required. There will be major impact on existing residents with loss of views and overshadowing, resulting in a lessened living quality for many.
People are drawn to live in this inner-city part of the city of Sydney because of its history, its unique character and its sense of place, and the city itself benefits in a broader sense. Over-sized and ill-conceived development will rapidly destroy this forever. For this reason, it is imperative that this proposal be carried out with a view to being respectful of the needs of current residents as well as providing housing for others in the future.
Yours sincerely,
[Name Withheld]
5-15 Farrell Avenue, Darlinghurst
Joanna Bridle
Object
Joanna Bridle
Object
Darlinghurst
,
New South Wales
Message
To:The Secretary NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Major Projects Assessments
GPO Box 39, Sydney NSW 2001
Via: NSW Planning Portal – Major Projects Submission
Date: 12th November 2025
Subject: Submission on SSD-80211463 – 164–172 and 174–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo (“Bayswater” Development)
From:
Joanna Bridle
Unit 17, 1–5 Rosebank Street
Darlinghurst NSW 2010
Objection to Proposed Development – Loss of Views and Associated Amenity Impacts
I am the owner and resident of Unit 17, 1–5 Rosebank Street, Darlinghurst. My apartment faces north-east and currently enjoys established views towards the city, Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Woolloomooloo ridgeline. These views form an important component of the visual amenity and residential character of my dwelling and the wider Rosebank Street precinct.
Having reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by Urbis for the above project, I wish to raise strong objection to the proposed development on the following grounds:
1. Significant Loss of Established Harbour Views
The EIS (refer Visual Impact Assessment, Appendix S) identifies that the site occupies a highly visible ridgeline position on William Street, within a “sensitive visual catchment with views available to the Sydney Opera House, the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Domain and St Mary’s Cathedral.”
From my property at 1–5 Rosebank Street, these view corridors currently pass directly over the subject site. The proposed 18-storey building height (RL 57.9 m) and expanded bulk permitted under the Housing SEPP uplift will obstruct or substantially diminish the existing visual connection to the Harbour Bridge and city skyline.
The NSW Land and Environment Court’s established Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140 “view-sharing principles” confirm that existing views of iconic public landmarks—such as the Harbour Bridge—should be reasonably retained and that development should seek to balance densification objectives with equitable view sharing. The EIS provides insufficient quantitative assessment of view loss from nearby residential receivers, particularly to the south-west (Rosebank Street and Barncleuth Square).
2. Deficiency in Receiver Selection and Photomontage Methodology
Further, the report restricts its analysis to a single ground-floor apartment within my complex, ignoring nine other apartments spanning four storeys that have substantially broader and higher-value view exposure. Upper-level apartments enjoy panoramic views of the Harbour Bridge, Opera House and city skyline that are entirely unassessed. By omitting these dwellings, the report materially misrepresents the extent of impact and cannot be relied upon to determine view loss under accepted planning principles.
A full, independent, and transparent reassessment must be undertaken from all relevant vantage points, including upper-level receivers within 1–5 Rosebank Street. This reassessment should use existing-condition verified photomontages (not incremental or comparative imagery alone) to accurately depict the magnitude of view loss from each affected dwelling and to enable proper application of view-sharing principles.
3. Excessive Height and Bulk Inconsistent with Local Character
While the site benefits from Housing SEPP incentives for affordable housing, the proposed 5.16:1 FSR and tower height up to 18 storeys significantly exceed the prevailing built form in the immediate locality (typically 4–10 storeys). The resultant visual massing will dominate the ridgeline and is inconsistent with the established scale transition between Darlinghurst and Woolloomooloo.
The Concept DA (D/2022/139) previously approved a maximum envelope of approximately 10 storeys. The uplift of 30% in both height and floor space under this SSDA introduces substantial additional bulk beyond the earlier design competition envelope, materially increasing the extent of view obstruction for surrounding properties.
4. Visual Impact Assessment Deficiencies
The EIS claims that the massing “preserves key view corridors, maintaining view sharing,” yet no verified photomontages are provided from representative residential receivers along Rosebank Street, Liverpool Street, or the Rosebank Heritage Conservation Area. The omission of such analysis means that the conclusion of “acceptable view sharing” is not substantiated. Our view will be lost entirely.
The Department’s Visual Impact Assessment Guideline (2023) and Apartment Design Guide (Objective 3J-1) require a transparent, receiver-based assessment of key viewpoints. I request that the Department require supplementary verified photomontages from representative Rosebank Street dwellings, including Units 9-12 and Units 17–20 at 1–5 Rosebank Street, to accurately depict the magnitude of view loss. These are the top 2 floors along our building that face William st.
5. Cumulative and Precedent Impacts
The EIS acknowledges several concurrent major projects in the immediate area (Table 6), including proposals at 134 William Street and 45–53 Macleay Street. In aggregate, these developments will contribute to substantial skyline densification and cumulative visual bulk visible from Darlinghurst ridges. The Bayswater proposal, as the tallest structure in its block, would establish a dominant precedent for excessive height that undermines the intent of the City of Sydney LEP 2012’s height controls and view corridor protection policies.
6. Request for Design Amendment
In light of the above, I respectfully request that the Department require the proponent to:
1. Reduce the height of the William Street tower by at least five to six storeys to preserve equitable view sharing and maintain consistency with the approved Concept DA envelope.
2. Provide additional view impact analysis from Rosebank Street and Darlinghurst receivers using existing-condition verified photomontages for all materially affected apartments (including upper level dwellings).
3. Commission an independent visual impact auditor (appointed by the Department) to verify photomontage methodology, receiver selection and the application of Tenacity view-sharing principles.
4. Demonstrate compliance with the Tenacity view-sharing principles, particularly regarding the reasonableness of view retention to significant public landmarks.
Conclusion
While I recognise the importance of delivering affordable housing and urban renewal in inner-city areas, this should not come at the unreasonable expense of established residential amenity and the visual quality of Sydney’s inner-east ridgeline. The current proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site that fails to achieve an appropriate balance between housing objectives and environmental and visual impact controls.
I therefore request that the Department require substantial design amendments and an independent, receiver-based reassessment of visual impacts prior to any determination of SSD-80211463.
Yours sincerely,
Joanna Bridle
Unit 17, 1–5 Rosebank Street
Darlinghurst NSW 2010
Major Projects Assessments
GPO Box 39, Sydney NSW 2001
Via: NSW Planning Portal – Major Projects Submission
Date: 12th November 2025
Subject: Submission on SSD-80211463 – 164–172 and 174–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo (“Bayswater” Development)
From:
Joanna Bridle
Unit 17, 1–5 Rosebank Street
Darlinghurst NSW 2010
Objection to Proposed Development – Loss of Views and Associated Amenity Impacts
I am the owner and resident of Unit 17, 1–5 Rosebank Street, Darlinghurst. My apartment faces north-east and currently enjoys established views towards the city, Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Woolloomooloo ridgeline. These views form an important component of the visual amenity and residential character of my dwelling and the wider Rosebank Street precinct.
Having reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by Urbis for the above project, I wish to raise strong objection to the proposed development on the following grounds:
1. Significant Loss of Established Harbour Views
The EIS (refer Visual Impact Assessment, Appendix S) identifies that the site occupies a highly visible ridgeline position on William Street, within a “sensitive visual catchment with views available to the Sydney Opera House, the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Domain and St Mary’s Cathedral.”
From my property at 1–5 Rosebank Street, these view corridors currently pass directly over the subject site. The proposed 18-storey building height (RL 57.9 m) and expanded bulk permitted under the Housing SEPP uplift will obstruct or substantially diminish the existing visual connection to the Harbour Bridge and city skyline.
The NSW Land and Environment Court’s established Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140 “view-sharing principles” confirm that existing views of iconic public landmarks—such as the Harbour Bridge—should be reasonably retained and that development should seek to balance densification objectives with equitable view sharing. The EIS provides insufficient quantitative assessment of view loss from nearby residential receivers, particularly to the south-west (Rosebank Street and Barncleuth Square).
2. Deficiency in Receiver Selection and Photomontage Methodology
Further, the report restricts its analysis to a single ground-floor apartment within my complex, ignoring nine other apartments spanning four storeys that have substantially broader and higher-value view exposure. Upper-level apartments enjoy panoramic views of the Harbour Bridge, Opera House and city skyline that are entirely unassessed. By omitting these dwellings, the report materially misrepresents the extent of impact and cannot be relied upon to determine view loss under accepted planning principles.
A full, independent, and transparent reassessment must be undertaken from all relevant vantage points, including upper-level receivers within 1–5 Rosebank Street. This reassessment should use existing-condition verified photomontages (not incremental or comparative imagery alone) to accurately depict the magnitude of view loss from each affected dwelling and to enable proper application of view-sharing principles.
3. Excessive Height and Bulk Inconsistent with Local Character
While the site benefits from Housing SEPP incentives for affordable housing, the proposed 5.16:1 FSR and tower height up to 18 storeys significantly exceed the prevailing built form in the immediate locality (typically 4–10 storeys). The resultant visual massing will dominate the ridgeline and is inconsistent with the established scale transition between Darlinghurst and Woolloomooloo.
The Concept DA (D/2022/139) previously approved a maximum envelope of approximately 10 storeys. The uplift of 30% in both height and floor space under this SSDA introduces substantial additional bulk beyond the earlier design competition envelope, materially increasing the extent of view obstruction for surrounding properties.
4. Visual Impact Assessment Deficiencies
The EIS claims that the massing “preserves key view corridors, maintaining view sharing,” yet no verified photomontages are provided from representative residential receivers along Rosebank Street, Liverpool Street, or the Rosebank Heritage Conservation Area. The omission of such analysis means that the conclusion of “acceptable view sharing” is not substantiated. Our view will be lost entirely.
The Department’s Visual Impact Assessment Guideline (2023) and Apartment Design Guide (Objective 3J-1) require a transparent, receiver-based assessment of key viewpoints. I request that the Department require supplementary verified photomontages from representative Rosebank Street dwellings, including Units 9-12 and Units 17–20 at 1–5 Rosebank Street, to accurately depict the magnitude of view loss. These are the top 2 floors along our building that face William st.
5. Cumulative and Precedent Impacts
The EIS acknowledges several concurrent major projects in the immediate area (Table 6), including proposals at 134 William Street and 45–53 Macleay Street. In aggregate, these developments will contribute to substantial skyline densification and cumulative visual bulk visible from Darlinghurst ridges. The Bayswater proposal, as the tallest structure in its block, would establish a dominant precedent for excessive height that undermines the intent of the City of Sydney LEP 2012’s height controls and view corridor protection policies.
6. Request for Design Amendment
In light of the above, I respectfully request that the Department require the proponent to:
1. Reduce the height of the William Street tower by at least five to six storeys to preserve equitable view sharing and maintain consistency with the approved Concept DA envelope.
2. Provide additional view impact analysis from Rosebank Street and Darlinghurst receivers using existing-condition verified photomontages for all materially affected apartments (including upper level dwellings).
3. Commission an independent visual impact auditor (appointed by the Department) to verify photomontage methodology, receiver selection and the application of Tenacity view-sharing principles.
4. Demonstrate compliance with the Tenacity view-sharing principles, particularly regarding the reasonableness of view retention to significant public landmarks.
Conclusion
While I recognise the importance of delivering affordable housing and urban renewal in inner-city areas, this should not come at the unreasonable expense of established residential amenity and the visual quality of Sydney’s inner-east ridgeline. The current proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site that fails to achieve an appropriate balance between housing objectives and environmental and visual impact controls.
I therefore request that the Department require substantial design amendments and an independent, receiver-based reassessment of visual impacts prior to any determination of SSD-80211463.
Yours sincerely,
Joanna Bridle
Unit 17, 1–5 Rosebank Street
Darlinghurst NSW 2010
Attachments
Roger Davis
Object
Roger Davis
Object
DARLINGHURST
,
New South Wales
Message
Roger Davis
2904/184 Forbes Street
Darlinghurst, NSW 2010
[email protected]
11November 2025
The Assessment Officer
Department of Planning and Environment / City of Sydney Council
456 Kent Street
Sydney, NSW 2000
Re: Objection to Proposed Development – 164–172 & 174–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo (SSD-80211463)
Dear Assessment Officer,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed development of 164–172 & 174–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo (SSD-80211463) and to highlight several significant concerns surrounding this project. As a resident and community member, I feel it is imperative that the voices of the community are heard, particularly regarding the potential impact this development will have on our neighbourhood.
First and foremost, the Visual Impact Assessment raises serious questions. It appears that the proposed building height significantly exceeds what is currently permissible under the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the Housing SEPP, raising concerns about its aesthetic integration within the community. It is critical that the visual resonance of our community is preserved. This also is being viewed in isolation whereas there are at least 2 other major projects proposed within a very close proximity also wanting to exceed the height restrictions. Viewed cumulatively, these projects are adding a significant population increase as well as additional traffic in an already congested area.
Moreover, I would like to address the status of the privately owned, publicly accessible park. The Development Application has seemingly included this park's space in the gross floor area without any reduction in the GFA based on its inclusion. The additional height of the structure could instead be accommodated in the park space itself. This raises pressing concerns about the park's future accessibility and safety, especially considering the existing crime issues within the Woolloomooloo area. What guarantees do we have that this space will remain public?
The community consultation conducted was inadequate at best. The only input opportunity was a single Zoom meeting that presented a biased view of the proposal, disregarding numerous questions from participants. Many community concerns were simply brushed aside without appropriate engagement or follow-up. This is particularly alarming given the content discussed in the Social Impact Assessment, as outlined in Appendix NN.
Additionally, the Wind Assessment implies that the proposed development will not exacerbate wind tunnelling along William Street; however, testimony from locals contradicts this. The lack of suitable outdoor seating in the new ‘park’ suggests that the design does not prioritize pedestrian comfort, challenging the feasibility of attracting foot traffic to any anticipated retail offerings.
Concerning the Traffic Report, the anticipated vehicle movements into William Street from Bourke Street, which is a no right turn, suggest that traffic patterns will force considerable congestion onto our already crowded back streets. This raises further questions about the retail parking provisions, as existing road conditions already suffer from significant strain.
I also question the references to the design excellence process. It is troubling that the developer appears to conflate the current proposal with previously approved concepts, which may mislead stakeholders about the nature of this application.
Finally, regarding affordable housing, I am sceptical of the proposed rents purported to be targeting affordability in such a high value area. As well as the rents, who will support the strata costs? The claims made about crime deterrence relating to new developments lack empirical support, further casting doubt on their credibility.
In summary, this development raises concerns from many angles of community impact—visually, environmentally, socially and economically. I urge the council to reconsider this proposal, ensuring comprehensive evaluations of all impacts, and genuine engagement with community members who will be most affected by this development.
Thank you for considering my concerns as a representative of our community.
Sincerely,
Roger Davis
2904/184 Forbes Street
Darlinghurst, NSW 2010
[email protected]
11November 2025
The Assessment Officer
Department of Planning and Environment / City of Sydney Council
456 Kent Street
Sydney, NSW 2000
Re: Objection to Proposed Development – 164–172 & 174–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo (SSD-80211463)
Dear Assessment Officer,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed development of 164–172 & 174–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo (SSD-80211463) and to highlight several significant concerns surrounding this project. As a resident and community member, I feel it is imperative that the voices of the community are heard, particularly regarding the potential impact this development will have on our neighbourhood.
First and foremost, the Visual Impact Assessment raises serious questions. It appears that the proposed building height significantly exceeds what is currently permissible under the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the Housing SEPP, raising concerns about its aesthetic integration within the community. It is critical that the visual resonance of our community is preserved. This also is being viewed in isolation whereas there are at least 2 other major projects proposed within a very close proximity also wanting to exceed the height restrictions. Viewed cumulatively, these projects are adding a significant population increase as well as additional traffic in an already congested area.
Moreover, I would like to address the status of the privately owned, publicly accessible park. The Development Application has seemingly included this park's space in the gross floor area without any reduction in the GFA based on its inclusion. The additional height of the structure could instead be accommodated in the park space itself. This raises pressing concerns about the park's future accessibility and safety, especially considering the existing crime issues within the Woolloomooloo area. What guarantees do we have that this space will remain public?
The community consultation conducted was inadequate at best. The only input opportunity was a single Zoom meeting that presented a biased view of the proposal, disregarding numerous questions from participants. Many community concerns were simply brushed aside without appropriate engagement or follow-up. This is particularly alarming given the content discussed in the Social Impact Assessment, as outlined in Appendix NN.
Additionally, the Wind Assessment implies that the proposed development will not exacerbate wind tunnelling along William Street; however, testimony from locals contradicts this. The lack of suitable outdoor seating in the new ‘park’ suggests that the design does not prioritize pedestrian comfort, challenging the feasibility of attracting foot traffic to any anticipated retail offerings.
Concerning the Traffic Report, the anticipated vehicle movements into William Street from Bourke Street, which is a no right turn, suggest that traffic patterns will force considerable congestion onto our already crowded back streets. This raises further questions about the retail parking provisions, as existing road conditions already suffer from significant strain.
I also question the references to the design excellence process. It is troubling that the developer appears to conflate the current proposal with previously approved concepts, which may mislead stakeholders about the nature of this application.
Finally, regarding affordable housing, I am sceptical of the proposed rents purported to be targeting affordability in such a high value area. As well as the rents, who will support the strata costs? The claims made about crime deterrence relating to new developments lack empirical support, further casting doubt on their credibility.
In summary, this development raises concerns from many angles of community impact—visually, environmentally, socially and economically. I urge the council to reconsider this proposal, ensuring comprehensive evaluations of all impacts, and genuine engagement with community members who will be most affected by this development.
Thank you for considering my concerns as a representative of our community.
Sincerely,
Roger Davis
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
DARLINGHURST
,
New South Wales
Message
Attention: Ms Michelle Niles
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: SSD-80211463 for 164–172, 174–194 William Street, WOOLLOOMOOLOO NSW 2011
Mixed-use development with in-fill affordable housing
Dear Ms Niles,
I am a property owner and long-term resident of Strata Plan 20087 (5–15 Farrell Avenue / Darlinghurst), directly opposite the subject site. I have owned my home for over twenty years, although I have lived away for much of that time. Regardless, I have deeply appreciated the unique outlook, including iconic views of Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Opera House and Royal Botanic Gardens, light, and sense of openness that characterise this part of Darlinghurst and Woolloomooloo. I am turning 70 next year and have been looking forward to retiring and living in my apartment and enjoying it and the area has to offer.
The proposed development at 164–194 William Street, in its current form, presents a significant and disproportionate increase in height and bulk that would alter the visual character of the area and materially diminish the amenity currently enjoyed by residents across Farrell Avenue and Kirketon Road. This is not what I was looking forward to seeing on my return. I am in favour of development that supports and embraces the community in a fair and considerate manner. Taking such steps will show other communities that development can be done in a way that respects existing residents while opening up opportunities for new residents – not just to the benefit of developers.
Having reviewed the documentation available, I wish to register my concerns as follows:
• Excessive scale and inconsistency with local character:
The proposed building height and massing are inconsistent with the established built form of the area, which is characterised by a fine-grain mix of heritage and lower-scale residential and commercial buildings. The proposal does not provide a sympathetic transition in height or form to its surroundings, nor does it respect the local topography.
• Visual and heritage impact:
The development’s scale would dominate the skyline and detract from the historic and architectural character of Woolloomooloo and Darlinghurst.
• Adverse impact on visual amenity and residential quality:
The proposed height and stacked design would introduce a significant visual obstruction that changes the open, expansive outlook that currently defines this location. The resulting sense of enclosure would materially reduce visual amenity, daylight access, and the perception of space that contributes to the quality of residential life in our buildings.
The stacked design is lopsided and visually unattractive. The extra height could be spread at lower levels more creatively to achieve the targeted outcomes.
• Departure from established planning expectations:
The proposal substantially exceeds the scale anticipated under the previously approved concept plan (DA D/2022/139), which was the product of extensive Council consultation and view-sharing assessments. The proposed uplift disregards the balance and proportionality achieved in the earlier design envelope.
• Inadequate Visual Impact Assessment (VIA):
The VIA submitted by the proponent does not present an objective or comprehensive representation of the proposal’s impact. In particular, it fails to accurately illustrate the visual relationship between the proposed massing and the surrounding residential buildings or the cumulative effect on the skyline. The previous work by the Council showed consideration and fairness, true give and take
• Overshadowing and solar access:
The proposed height and bulk would increase overshadowing on nearby residential buildings, reducing natural light penetration into living spaces and outdoor areas. This will adversely affect the quality of life and energy efficiency of affected dwellings.
• Traffic and parking implications:
The scale of the proposed development will add further pressure to an already congested road network. The site’s single vehicle access point and the proposed number of parking spaces do not appear to align with the stated intention to encourage public transport use. A more balanced transport plan is required to mitigate congestion and safety risks for residents and pedestrians in the area.
• Public domain and open space:
While the proposal includes some open space, the design does not appear to provide meaningful public benefit or integration with the surrounding neighbourhood. The current configuration risks creating a wall-like presence rather than a welcoming, permeable interface that contributes to local amenity and pedestrian activity.
I strongly support the principle of increasing affordable housing supply, but this should not come at the cost of poor urban outcomes and diminished residential amenity for existing communities. Such an approach only encourages resentment and community dissatisfaction. A more moderate, context-sensitive approach to building height and massing — one that respects the character and liveability of Woolloomooloo and Darlinghurst — is essential.
I therefore urge the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to undertake a rigorous, balanced assessment of this proposal, with particular regard to scale, character, overshadowing, and visual amenity impacts, and to seek revisions that deliver a fairer, more compatible outcome for all residents.
Yours sincerely,
Adam Andrew Lyle
Apartment 27 / 5–15 Farrell Avenue
Darlinghurst NSW 2010
[email protected] +65-8118 4150
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: SSD-80211463 for 164–172, 174–194 William Street, WOOLLOOMOOLOO NSW 2011
Mixed-use development with in-fill affordable housing
Dear Ms Niles,
I am a property owner and long-term resident of Strata Plan 20087 (5–15 Farrell Avenue / Darlinghurst), directly opposite the subject site. I have owned my home for over twenty years, although I have lived away for much of that time. Regardless, I have deeply appreciated the unique outlook, including iconic views of Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Opera House and Royal Botanic Gardens, light, and sense of openness that characterise this part of Darlinghurst and Woolloomooloo. I am turning 70 next year and have been looking forward to retiring and living in my apartment and enjoying it and the area has to offer.
The proposed development at 164–194 William Street, in its current form, presents a significant and disproportionate increase in height and bulk that would alter the visual character of the area and materially diminish the amenity currently enjoyed by residents across Farrell Avenue and Kirketon Road. This is not what I was looking forward to seeing on my return. I am in favour of development that supports and embraces the community in a fair and considerate manner. Taking such steps will show other communities that development can be done in a way that respects existing residents while opening up opportunities for new residents – not just to the benefit of developers.
Having reviewed the documentation available, I wish to register my concerns as follows:
• Excessive scale and inconsistency with local character:
The proposed building height and massing are inconsistent with the established built form of the area, which is characterised by a fine-grain mix of heritage and lower-scale residential and commercial buildings. The proposal does not provide a sympathetic transition in height or form to its surroundings, nor does it respect the local topography.
• Visual and heritage impact:
The development’s scale would dominate the skyline and detract from the historic and architectural character of Woolloomooloo and Darlinghurst.
• Adverse impact on visual amenity and residential quality:
The proposed height and stacked design would introduce a significant visual obstruction that changes the open, expansive outlook that currently defines this location. The resulting sense of enclosure would materially reduce visual amenity, daylight access, and the perception of space that contributes to the quality of residential life in our buildings.
The stacked design is lopsided and visually unattractive. The extra height could be spread at lower levels more creatively to achieve the targeted outcomes.
• Departure from established planning expectations:
The proposal substantially exceeds the scale anticipated under the previously approved concept plan (DA D/2022/139), which was the product of extensive Council consultation and view-sharing assessments. The proposed uplift disregards the balance and proportionality achieved in the earlier design envelope.
• Inadequate Visual Impact Assessment (VIA):
The VIA submitted by the proponent does not present an objective or comprehensive representation of the proposal’s impact. In particular, it fails to accurately illustrate the visual relationship between the proposed massing and the surrounding residential buildings or the cumulative effect on the skyline. The previous work by the Council showed consideration and fairness, true give and take
• Overshadowing and solar access:
The proposed height and bulk would increase overshadowing on nearby residential buildings, reducing natural light penetration into living spaces and outdoor areas. This will adversely affect the quality of life and energy efficiency of affected dwellings.
• Traffic and parking implications:
The scale of the proposed development will add further pressure to an already congested road network. The site’s single vehicle access point and the proposed number of parking spaces do not appear to align with the stated intention to encourage public transport use. A more balanced transport plan is required to mitigate congestion and safety risks for residents and pedestrians in the area.
• Public domain and open space:
While the proposal includes some open space, the design does not appear to provide meaningful public benefit or integration with the surrounding neighbourhood. The current configuration risks creating a wall-like presence rather than a welcoming, permeable interface that contributes to local amenity and pedestrian activity.
I strongly support the principle of increasing affordable housing supply, but this should not come at the cost of poor urban outcomes and diminished residential amenity for existing communities. Such an approach only encourages resentment and community dissatisfaction. A more moderate, context-sensitive approach to building height and massing — one that respects the character and liveability of Woolloomooloo and Darlinghurst — is essential.
I therefore urge the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to undertake a rigorous, balanced assessment of this proposal, with particular regard to scale, character, overshadowing, and visual amenity impacts, and to seek revisions that deliver a fairer, more compatible outcome for all residents.
Yours sincerely,
Adam Andrew Lyle
Apartment 27 / 5–15 Farrell Avenue
Darlinghurst NSW 2010
[email protected] +65-8118 4150