I support the project gentrifying the area and providing more retail and ground floor activation. I also think the old building is not in keeping with the area and new nice design would be a welcome addition. I am not sure we need that many floors of the new apartment building but either way i think it important to add more retail/cafes/restaurants to the street.

We wish to strongly object to the proposed development application for 45-53 Macleay Street (SSD-83867719).
Our concerns are the following:
1. The impact of mixed use activities on residents, of restaurants, cafes and or licensed late night bars fronting McDonald Street which is zoned residential. This is a quiet cul-de-sac.
2. The subsequent increase of noise and light pollution onto this quiet residential area all hours of the day and night, impacting our ability to rest and sleep.
3. The increase in traffic entering and exiting the complex, with the increase to 60 car spaces, will be detrimental and dangerous to pedestrians and motorists. The street is narrow with a central garden. This garden is our only buffer to the development.
4. Inappropriate scale and density. This development will dominate this recognised heritage conservation area and is not in keeping with our low to mid rise neighbourhood.
5.The excavation and vibration risks to Mayfair Units required for four floors of underground car parking, could endanger the structural integrity of surrounding heritage buildings and established street trees.
In conclusion, this development is inconsistent with sound planning principles and will adversely impact the lifestyle of residents in McDonald Street and specifically, the owners of units in Mayfair, 6 McDonald Street, which is directly opposite the proposed development.
Sincerely
William and Sarah Howey
Unit 1
6 McDonald Street
Potts Point 2011

The DEVELOPER is underhandedly using the government "in fill affordable housing" Draft Sydney Plan as an excuse to obvuscate and confuse local tax paying persons to erect an obvious eyesore, decrease the value of homeowners views within hundreds of meters of our waterfront. This DEVELOPER at our expense intends to steal our view and sell it for PROFIT. I will personally enjoin others into groups and file lawsuits for the decreased value he intends to purposely STEAL to LINE HIS (THEIR) OWN POCKETS using the ploy of "affordable housing." There are thousands of building sites within our cities that could accommodate a 16 story building. The city should declare historic areas such as Potts Point to be covered by height restrictions not to exceed previous heights (within hundreds or thousands of meters of our beloved harbour waterfront). I'm a 69 year old disabled individual and am 100% for increased "affordable housing." But Clover Moore, other local homeowners, other politicians will see through this clever misuse of RECENT CITY PLANNING EFFORTS for the sole purpose of building in an area that will literally steal the view of our harbor for he sole purpose of personal/business greed. An example should be set against this pending crime and any structure built by these criminals be limited to 3-4 floors and all required for "affordable housing".

Could someone tell me the total height of the current bulding and that of the proposed new building?

The height and envelope of the proposed building are too high,and too big; which will throw more of Macleay Street into darkness. IKON and Rockwall Apartments have already created permanent darkness on a significant 300m of Macleay Street.
I support the development and replacement of the current Chimes, so long as it respects the 'current' existing envelope and height of the Chimes.

I support the project, I believe it will significantly increase housing affordability and availability in the area.

I would however like to see the number of storeys and units significantly increased as well as housing set aside for essential workers.

I object to this development on the following grounds:

Excessive Height and Scale
I object to the increase from the 13-storey concept (50m) to a 16-storey detailed design (83.6m). This is a massive departure from the approved concept envelope and ignores the established 20–30m height character of the surrounding Macleay Street heritage precinct.
​
Net Loss of Affordable Housing
While the developer claims to provide 23 "affordable" units, the project requires the demolition of 80 existing studios that currently provide naturally affordable housing. This results in a net loss of 57 dwellings, which is a perverse outcome for a policy (Housing SEPP) intended to increase housing supply.

​Heritage Incompatibility
The proposed 16-storey height is a significant outlier in the Potts Point Heritage Conservation Area. Even with high-quality architecture, the sheer bulk and height of the tower will dominate the skyline and overshadow the neighboring 19th-century and Art Deco heritage buildings.

​"Bait-and-Switch" Planning
The move to add three additional storeys after the concept was already finalized feels like a tactical maneuver to override local planning controls. The community's previous feedback on the 13-storey limit has been disregarded in favor of maximizing the developer’s height bonus.

​Overshadowing and Amenity
I am concerned about the increased overshadowing on Macleay Street and the neighboring residential buildings caused by the extra three storeys. The public benefit of the 23 temporary affordable units (valid for only 15 years) does not outweigh the permanent loss of light and air for the existing community.

To Whom It May Concern,
We write on behalf of the Directors of Mayfair Units, McDonald Street, Potts Point, to lodge a formal objection to SSD-83867719.
As a directly affected neighbouring property, our concerns relate to two key aspects of the proposal:
1. The introduction of retail uses into McDonald Street; and
2. The excessive provision of car parking.

1. Encroachment of retail into a residential street
McDonald Street is a well-established residential street with a consistent and clearly understood planning intent. It does not function as a mixed-use corridor or commercial frontage, and its amenity is defined by its relatively quiet, low-traffic, residential character.
The proposal to introduce retail tenancies into this street represents a clear encroachment of commercial activity into a residentially zoned environment.
This raises several serious concerns:
• Amenity impacts: Retail uses inherently involve longer hours of operation, customer activity, noise, lighting, waste handling, and servicing requirements. These are incompatible with the expectations of residents in a residential street.
• Servicing and loading: Deliveries, waste collection, and associated vehicle movements will introduce operational pressures that McDonald Street is not designed to accommodate.
• Traffic and safety: Increased visitation and short-term parking demand will exacerbate congestion and create conflicts with existing residential access and pedestrian movement.
• Precedent: Approval of retail in this location risks setting a broader precedent for incremental commercialisation of residential streets within Potts Point, undermining the integrity of the zoning framework.
There is no compelling strategic or site-specific justification for retail uses in this location. Nearby areas already provide appropriate commercial and mixed-use activity. The proposal fails to demonstrate why McDonald Street should depart from its established residential role.
For these reasons, the retail component addressing McDonald Street should be removed.

2. Excessive and unjustified car parking provision
The proposal includes approximately 60 car parking spaces for a development comprising 44 dwellings. This level of provision is excessive and inconsistent with both the location and the principles of State Significant Development assessment.
Potts Point is a highly accessible inner-city area with strong public transport connections, walkability, and proximity to services and employment. In such contexts, parking provision is appropriately reduced to reflect lower car dependency.
A development of this scale and mix would reasonably support a parking provision in the order of 20–30 spaces. The proposed 60 spaces significantly exceed this and appear to reflect an outdated, maximum-yield approach rather than a performance-based assessment.
The impacts of this over-provision include:
• Increased traffic generation: A higher number of parking spaces will directly translate into increased vehicle movements on already constrained local streets.
• Congestion and access impacts: McDonald Street and surrounding roads are not designed to accommodate this level of additional traffic.
• Undermining transport policy objectives: Excess parking discourages the use of public and active transport and is inconsistent with broader planning strategies for inner-city areas.
• Built form and construction impacts: The scale of basement excavation required to accommodate 60 spaces introduces unnecessary bulk, cost, and construction disruption.
There is also a legitimate concern that the number of spaces exceeds the actual needs of residents and may be intended, in part, for separate sale or commercialisation. This would further undermine the planning justification for the parking provision and introduce additional traffic demand unrelated to the residential population.

Conclusion
SSD-83867719, in its current form, represents an inappropriate response to the established character and planning framework of McDonald Street.
In summary:
• The proposed retail uses constitute an unjustified and detrimental encroachment into a residential street and should be removed.
• The provision of approximately 60 car parking spaces is excessive and should be substantially reduced to align with the site’s inner-city context and realistic demand.
We respectfully request that the consent authority require significant amendments to the proposal to address these concerns.
Yours sincerely,
Directors
Mayfair Units
McDonald Street, Potts Point

This represents a major failure of our planning system. How is this a State Significant Development? What a joke.
The replacement of 80 affordable studio and one-bedroom apartments will be lost and replaced with 30 luxury penthouse-style apartments and a short-term and tokenistic amount of affordable housing (which will be returned to the developer in 15 years, so they can make more money).
The Potts Point area needs affordable housing for essential services workers and for diversity of accommodation in the area.
The propsed development is using the SSD to gain extra height and bulf for the building.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed retail placement in the development at 45-53 Macleay Street (SSD-83867719). Specifically, I oppose the inclusion of retail frontages facing onto McDonald Street and the excessive car parking provision in the plan
1. Non-Compliance with Land Zoning
The site’s frontage on McDonald Street is located within a residential-only zone. Unlike the Macleay Street frontage, which may support mixed-use activities, McDonald Street is established as a quiet residential cul-de-sac. Introducing "shop-top" or street-level retail onto this specific frontage is a direct violation of the existing residential zoning controls.
2. Impact on Residential Amenity
McDonald Street is characterized by a "tranquil tree-lined" environment and historic Art Deco residential buildings. The placement of retail here would:
Generate Noise & Disturbance: Increased foot traffic, commercial deliveries, and early-morning/late-night trading are incompatible with the quiet, residential nature of this cul-de-sac.
Increase Traffic Congestion: As a narrow dead-end street, McDonald Street cannot accommodate the servicing and customer parking requirements of a retail outlet without significant danger to pedestrians and existing residents.
3. Inconsistency with Future Character
While the development seeks to provide affordable housing, this should not serve as a justification for disregarding the fundamental zoning boundaries of the streetscape. Retail activity should be strictly confined to the Macleay Street frontage, which is already designated for mixed-use activity, and preserve the residential fabric of McDonald Street as per it’s zoning.
4. Excessive car parking provision
The proposal includes approximately 60 car parking spaces. This is excessive for a development of 44 dwellings in a highly accessible inner-city location and is not supported by a performance-based assessment consistent with the State Significant Development framework.
a) SSD requires a performance-based approach
Car parking provision under SSD is not dictated by strict compliance with Development Control Plan (DCP) rates. Instead, it must be justified based on:
• transport accessibility
• expected travel behaviour
• traffic impacts
• alignment with strategic planning objectives
Defaulting to high DCP-style parking yields is inappropriate in this context.
b) Exceptional transport accessibility
The site is within walking distance of Kings Cross railway station and is well serviced by frequent bus routes. It is also located in close proximity to employment, retail, and services. These factors significantly reduce reliance on private vehicles and support lower parking provision.
c) Dwelling mix supports reduced parking demand
The proposal includes:
• 23 studio apartments
• 19 three-bedroom apartments
• 2 four-bedroom apartments
Studios in inner-city locations typically generate very low car ownership rates. Even for larger dwellings, reduced parking rates are appropriate in transit-rich areas.
A realistic and evidence-based parking provision would be:
• Studios: 0 – 0.3 spaces per unit
• 3-bedroom units: approximately 0.6 – 0.8 spaces per unit
• 4-bedroom units: approximately 1.0 space per unit
• Visitor parking: reduced or nil
This results in a total parking provision in the order of 20–30 spaces.
d) Concern regarding the purpose of excess parking provision
Beyond the quantum of parking proposed, there is a further concern that the scale of provision is not genuinely driven by the mobility needs of future residents.
The delivery of approximately 60 spaces—well above a reasonable, evidence-based demand profile—raises a legitimate question as to whether a proportion of these spaces are intended to function as a separate commercial asset, rather than as ancillary residential parking.
In similar developments, surplus parking is sometimes:
• allocated independently of apartments and sold separately, or
• retained and monetised by the developer as an ongoing revenue stream
This approach is inconsistent with the planning purpose of on-site parking, which is to support the needs of residents and visitors—not to create additional, standalone commercial inventory.
If parking is being over-supplied for the purpose of separate sale or financial gain, this would:
• artificially inflate parking provision beyond actual demand
• encourage increased car ownership and usage contrary to strategic planning objectives
• introduce additional traffic impacts not justified by the residential population
• undermine the integrity of the transport impact assessment
In the absence of clear justification, the proposed parking numbers appear excessive relative to the likely needs of residents and should be treated with caution.
d) Over-provision creates adverse impacts
Providing 60 spaces will:
• induce additional traffic and increase local congestion – particularly into McDonald Street which is a quiet residential street – far beyond what is outlined in the traffic report. 60 car parks is approximately double the number of carparks in the existing building that services 70 apartments.
• undermine public and active transport uptake
• impose unnecessary excavation to accommodate these many cars
• conflict with strategic objectives to reduce car dependency in inner-city locations
There is no credible justification for such a high parking yield in Potts Point.

Conclusion
The proposal, in its current form, is inconsistent with sound planning principles and the intended outcomes of the State Significant Development framework.
Specifically:
• The retail use on McDonald Street is inappropriate and should be removed or substantially revised.
• The proposed parking provision of approximately 60 spaces is excessive and should be reduced to a more appropriate range of 20–30 spaces, consistent with the site’s location, accessibility, and dwelling mix.
I request that the consent authority require these issues to be addressed through substantial amendment to the proposal.