To whom it may concern,

I am writing in regard to the Concept Proposal for Mixed Use with Affordable Housing – 45-53 Macleay Street, Potts Point. I have a number of objections to both the design and social outcomes of this development.

SOCIAL DIVISION
The current plans, by Kerry Hill Architects, have two floors of affordable housing, on the Podium level. These are accessed by a separate side entrance at the southern side of the building, with only one lift. The luxury Tower residents access via the front-facing entrance on Macleay St, with two lifts. This creates a “poor door”, creating an “us and them” divide between the wealthy and less wealthy. This is unacceptable in Sydney.

It is also apparent that residents in the Podium levels would not be able to access the pools and outdoor entertaining amenities immediately above them—again, bringing a sense of division between residents.

LOSS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING & SOCIAL DIVERSITY
The existing Chimes building has 80 studio apartments that would be deemed affordable housing in this area. Although the new development plans have increased the number of affordable apartments to 23—making up 52% of the whole—we are still losing around 60 existing affordable apartments to luxury dwellings, which is unacceptable. At a time when the State and Federal Governments are trying to increase the number of dwellings in a housing crisis, a loss of residences at this scale should not be permitted.

Furthermore, this trend is changing the very fabric of the neighbourhood. Potts Point has long had the ideal blend of community, with people from all walks of life and economic status. The boom in small studio and one-bedroom apartments in the early- to mid-20th century brought with it a diverse range of local residents and a vibrant neighbourhood. The influx of luxury developments such as this—a number of which have been completed with others underway—at the expense of these smaller apartments and affordable housing, is turning the area into a “luxury ghetto”, where only the wealthiest can gain entry. This is something I oppose wholeheartedly and which the State Government should also oppose.

DESIGN
While the new Kerry Hill Architects design is an improvement on the previous broad, blocky designs, it is still not without its issues. The affordable apartments, crammed into two floors of the Podium section, are basic in design, with a galley layout resembling a motel room. The vast majority have only one external aspect, resulting in no cross-ventilation and only one natural light source. There would be no windows in bedrooms (if partitioned) or bathrooms. I do not believe these are well-designed for an enjoyable living experience. Affordable apartments should still offer an excellent quality of life, like so many older apartments in Potts Point already do, such as those in the existing Chimes building, which offer light and airflow in abundance.

These are not apartments in which to build lives, they are merely designed for filling in time until developers can line their pockets once more.

I believe that the new design is too tall, and will tower above all of the surrounding heritage buildings. It will be a looming presence on the corner of Macleay and McDonald Streets, which I do believe will impact all of us living in its surrounds. However, this is less important to me than the bigger picture of what this specific development means to the diversity and inclusivity of the broader Potts Point and Sydney communities.

DEVELOPER'S GAIN
This project is a cynical exercise on behalf of the developers, and the addition of an “affordable” component, to allow increased height and density, is nothing more than a money-grab. Once the first 15 years of rental residency is complete, the developers will have another financial windfall thanks to land banking of these properties. In its current guise, there will be no affordable housing availability after this time, and it is clear that this inclusion is nothing more than a Trojan Horse to push the limits of the development. It could set a dangerous precedent for Sydney. If affordable housing is a genuine concern to both the developers and the Government, these apartments should be offered in perpetuity.

At a time when we need more housing across the board, but especially for essential workers and lower-income residents in the city and surrounds, radically reducing the number of smaller, already affordable apartments is unacceptable.

To whom it may concern,

The current proposal is an improvement on previous architectural submissions from the developer and the proposed built form is also superior.
I would however raise several constructive criticisms about the most recent proposal.

Setbacks.

The building is tall and will clearly overshadow numerous surrounding heritage items. To help alleviate this problem
it would make sense and be good design practice to increase the setbacks for the tower from the Macleay Street side on the east by taking the building back further to the western boundary and then also taking the building further from the southern boundary to the north on a smaller footprint. The proposed new building would then not loom over Macleay Street quite so much.

Further, the current setback from the southern boundary for the tower is 10.650 metres. If this setback was increased at both the podium and tower levels it would allow for a larger open garden area and also open up views that the current suggested built form will obscure from the city toward the 'Macleay Regis' building, one of the most celebrated, heritage listed Art Deco buildings in Australia. Over 2,000,000 visitors a year view the ‘Macleay Regis’ and other buildings on the Macleay Street ridge line from the Art Gallery of NSW’s outdoor spaces. A taller and slimmer tower would help to preserve these sight lines toward a historic precinct.

In order to achieve this I would recommend the developer be permitted to go higher but on a smaller footprint, more similar to the footprint of the existing 1960’s building.

The developer, if working on a smaller footprint to the north of the site, could potentially go higher. This would allow for several more floors, two of which would accommodate larger in-fill affordable apartments that could have more generous floor plates and cross ventilation. Currently, every proposed studio has only one aspect and one window area.

At present the proposal is for two floors only of very small studio apartments and then fifteen floors accommodating 18 luxury apartments, a sub penthouse and also main penthouse.
As an incentive to provide more generous and liveable study/1 bedroom in-fill accommodations, more floors but on a smaller footprint , built to the north and west of the site would allow the developer to not only create much more liveable affordable accommodation but also have more apartments higher up and these would have 360 degree views.

At present the development proposes 18 X 3 bedroom apartments. If approximately half those apartments on the eastern side of the building were designed as generous two-bedroom apartments up to level 9, the developer could be compensated by having a few extra floors of penthouse and sub penthouse style apartments higher up. This would be a better design solution and allow for a mix of apartment styles and sizes for all residents from both studio dwellers to those occupying the higher level apartments with numerous bedrooms.

The Studios

I note from the proposed plan that the studios/affordable in-fill accommodations are accessed separately from the luxury tower apartments through the garden to the south of the site. The studios have one entrance and one lift for 23 dwellings while the luxury apartments have a separate and grander entrance off Macleay Street and two lifts for 19 apartments. I feel it would be more appropriate for practical reasons, fairness and for social integration if all apartments enjoyed access to all three lifts and the main entrance off Macleay Street.
As previously outlined, it would be a better design solution for the studios to be more generous, have two aspects and occupy more floors of the proposed building.

In summary I feel the latest proposal is better than the last. I do however feel with modifications it could allow for greater social integration between the affordable housing component and the larger and more luxurious apartments. A smaller footprint should be used to the north-western side of the site (similar to the existing Chimes Building’s setting) and the developer allowed to go higher but with a slimmer tower allowing more light, space and better visual site lines throughout and across the site. I feel this could potentially be a win/win for all involved.

Submission:
I am the owner of Apartment 203/ 12 MacLeay Street Elizabeth Bay (MacLeay Regis). This apartment (referred to as a “flat”) has been identified as one of a number of properties that is impacted. - Apt 203 specifically is mentioned several times throughout the proposal as being impacted. –
I am submitting the objection to this new proposal on 3 main grounds - impacts specifically on my apartment (as above 203/12 MacLeay Street), but also a more general impact on the Potts Point area, and is based on the below – and obviously some of these overlap:
1. Loss of light and loss of view – which diminishes buyer/tenancy appeal
2. Overall height of the development
3. Overall general impact to the Potts Point heritage appeal and long term community which has traditionally been a place for low cost housing

1. Loss of light and view
There is an extensive para which discussing the community views and the objections raised through the community consultation phase. This section is silent in regard to community issues being raised about the loss of light and view. This is INCORRECT many stakeholders, including myself raised issues with loss of light and view yet it is not included as part of the objections and I, in particular, stated that I would be impacted.
Appendix A - View and Visual Impact states the following:
1. View and Light:
View
“Based on fieldwork observations, locations where view loss would be limited in quantitative and qualitative terms, for example, lower level units at Macleay Regis, Selsdon and Pomeroy flat buildings, were excluded from modelling”.
• This suggest that the view I currently have is not worth even looking at and that anyway I was pretty luck to have it in the first place. Although I do not have a huge water view, I do indeed have a city view from the front rooms of my apartment which also lets in light and it is where I sit for most of the time.
• I find the summary that the current view from my apartment is somewhat “fortuitously gained through private property” and the assessment made that the “view composition to be lost is of low scenic quality and not highly valued in Tenacity terms and cannot be attributed to a high impact rating” rather insulting and incorrect.
• This is exactly the point – whether “fortuitus” or not is not the point – the point is one of impact – which clearly there is an impact – I loose the city view (not to mention light). Therefore the assessment is incorrect – there is an impact to me. I do indeed loose light and view into the city – it is not minor in my view and I estimate the loss of sales value to be about $500K.
“Of the dwellings assessed, 2 were rated as negligible-minor, 6 were rated as Minor and 1 as Minor-moderate (801/14 Macleay Street) which are low order rankings using the Tenacity view impact rating scale.
The highest impact rating ins this assessment was Minor-moderate, which is a low-ranking order using the Tenacity view impact rating scale.
Overall, out of the total cohort of dwellings inspected and/or analysed, view impacts are generally minor and as a whole when each of the four residential flat buildings are considered as one entity as per guidance provided by in Arnott, view sharing impacts are reasonable”
• Again I find the above summary assessment as inadequate – ask the residents living in these buildings!
Light:
• Solar analysis has been limited to a few apartments only – and those that present a positive view of the “upper levels”
• The assessment does indicate that apartment 203 will be impacted.
• In a throw away line it indicates that “Unit 203 is a lower level apartment where solar access is inherently more difficult to protect in a highly urbanised setting and the minor reduction (in their view!) represents a conservative worse case mid winter scenario that would not occur throughout the rest of the year”
• This “15 minute reduction to private open space only”. has been assessed as “negligible”!!
• I do not agree with this finding having lived in the apartment for some years and find this assessment totally unacceptable….by who’s account would loosing 15 minutes of light be considered “negligible” is nothing?. – why don’t they come and sit in my apartment, especially during winter!

2. Height of the development
• Clause 46 Request for Variation to add nearly 6 metres to the height of the building to 56.01 metres is outrageous! While the building is slimmer, flagrantly asking for even more that what the State has allowed in terms of extra height to the fold of the building when this was a major objection by the community shows a total lack of appreciation of resident sentiment and a blatant “don’t care” attitude and is reflective of the impertinence of the review panel who quite frankly are dismissive of the intensive community objections.
• The request to build/push the hulk of the building even further – not just one floor but a full 6 metres,(a single floor only requires 3 metres) – the impact of this blocks out even more precious sky in the precinct! (already discussed above).
• Obviously the architects are fully aware of this impact and that is why they have tried to “curve the rooftop and the south of the building!”
• OUTRAGEOUS -- I suspect driven by greed because of the need to put in 1 bedders for the low class residents who have been driven out of their homes – it to meet “affordable housing” requirements – which is such a feature of Potts Point!

3. General impact to the Potts Point area and community
• Extensive retail space etc – only 2 car spaces in the car park area for retail – where will the people who own/manage the retail park etc not to mention the “customers” in an already congested area.
• Visitor Parking for the number of apartments is only 8 – this appears to be highly inadequate for the number of in the proposed development? It is common knowledge that it is “impossible” to find parking in Potts Point and tradespeople actually charge additional $$’s for parking if work is required.
• One could label building as “classist”- separate entrance, separate lift and separate communal area buildings are now being referred to in Sydney – is this in keeping with the “Australian” values!!! “the haves vs the have-nots!!! - on this note It also seems doubtful as to "how reducing down from 80 dwellings to 44 dwellings” helping with our housing plan for NSW?" Please answer?
• It mentions only short term or negligible impact on area business and disruption during construction - where are all the dump trucks going to park that are required to load up 4 floors of carpark sandstone? When will the tall cranes and equipment be lining the street for access? Experience from Regency House suggests this goes on forever, with A LOT of disruption on Billyard Avenue
• Downsizers seeking to move to Potts Point will not be filling all 3 bedrooms with residents – bedrooms no doubt will no doubt remain empty!!! How will throwing current residents in need onto the street whilst the wealthy with 6 bedroom homes and tennis courts that are downsizing from the North Shore are merely taking up scarce space on the Point.
I find this assessment totally unacceptable! I know that this will not stop the development, what I mainly object to is the arrogance of the wording – ‘00s of pages of how good it will be and how the overall impact is “minor” –
I am totally opposed to this development.

I believe that the approval of this proposal (the outcome of which would be the considerable reduction of affordable or low cost hoousing units while providing a huge benefit to the deveoper) would breach the "proper purpose or substantial purpose rule" amounting to what used to be called a "fraud on the power", which in this case includes the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021.

I support the objections made by The Potts Point Preservation Society

I urge that the application be refused.

Height of this building Not in keeping with the historical , character and community of Potts Point
Affordable housing is a total smoke screen . What strata fees will they pay . Will they need to use a separate entrance as proposed in other developments
What happens at the end of the period . Assume these properties are rented out by the developer and claims the tax loss each year. Then terminates these tenants as soon as the period end and it reverts to true market value. Where is the morality in this ?

I object to the proposal SSD-83867719 because a 16 storey, over 50+metre tall tower is too high and does not fit the character of the surrounding area where buildings are 4 storeys or less and will be overshadowed, lose their views and solar access and where apartments to the east, west, north and south will lose views. The bulk of the building is also out of character with the much lighter construction of Macleay Regis and most of the buildings along Macleay St and in the Macleay Street area of Potts Point. The decision-making authority needs to consider whether the affordable housing justification for the increased height bonus is sincere given the confining of possible tenants to "essential workers" when there is a much broader range of tenants affected by affordability eg low-income, disability pensioners, new settlers with refugee status; the fifteen year limit on tenancies; and the separation of facilities and entry and access to the building? I am particularly concerned at the Clause 4.6 (?) request at Appendix K for an additional 15% height exceedence above the questionable design excellence and affordability height bonuses. The sole justification for the height exceedence appears to be to accommodate a large penthouse on which will be further height in the form of the roof, roof top solar panels and lift over-run. This would result in a building over 45% higher than the Sydney City Council maximum height regulation which was approved by the Council in the design concept. This demonstrates how the proposed building is out of character and fit with this low rise but still dense with apartments. My apartment will lose views with either the concept plan or this state significant proposal, but the SSD proposal will result in loss of green and blue views to the north across the harbour. These views and the profile of the Potts Point landscape matter to me. I chose my apartment, and many of my neighbours did precisely because of the views across and around the harbour and the lightness of the built environment while also providing living density and street activation . There are multiple impacts from this loss. The design report and EIS also talk about a building "in the round" and this is important because the building will dominate the landscape and will be views from four sides - it therefore needs to present a refined and finished facade on each side. My expectation is that the decision-makers on this SSD will examine the integrity of the cases made for the height and bulk of this proposal. If the planning system is "gamed", particularly through the new, untested State level planning rules which over-ride the local Council rules which, in Potts Point, have resulted from hard-fought community activism, planning expertise in a highly complex and sophisticated urban environment, and supposed by anti-corruption effort, the result in terms of built environment, affordable housing and community cohesion will be a lasting and regrettable public loss not a public benefit.

Ms Amy Watson
Director
Affordable Housing Assessments
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Locked Bag 5022
Paramatta NSW 2124

Dear Ms Watson

Re: SSD-83867719, 45-53 Macleay Street, Potts Point (SP934), Proposed shop top housing development with in-fill affordable housing.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this development application.

I object to the proposal on the grounds that: (1) the height and bulk of the proposed building in SSD-83867719 if approved, is out of scale with neighbouring properties in the location and is not appropriate to the northern, lower-rise Potts Point context;(2) the proposed building will adversely impact views and the outlook from my apartment; and (3) that the community engagement process undertaken by the proponent to this point has been inadequate. I outline my reasons for this objection more fully below and include some comments on traffic and parking and the affordable housing impact.

(1) Height and bulk
The built form of the proposal does not fit well to the context, street scape and existing character of the locality. The EIS acknowledges that that the surrounding buildings on MacDonald Street are four storeys or lower. The rule for a long time in Potts Point was that where a building was replaced, the new building was no higher and wider than the building it was replacing. The consistent application of this rule minimised adverse impacts, delivered a high level of amenity across the area, and maintained community harmony. The competition concept design presented to Sydney City Council appears to have kept to this rule.

The proposed building is almost twice the bulk and, at least, four floors higher than the existing building to be demolished (see drawing p.35 Design Report). The photographs in the Design Report illustrate the bulkiness of the tower despite descriptions of “slender” and “slim”. It is not slim. It is higher and wider than the existing building by a large margin. It has a larger gross floor area than the existing building or the competition concept design. The design panel reviewers have commented that “The panel raised concerns that the proposal appears bulkier than the competition winning scheme, particularly at the sub-penthouse levels and noted that the solar access and visual benefits previously achieved may be reduced”. (Design Report). The proponent’s response was not reassuring.

The documentation indicates that the lift over-run height is not yet known, nor are the details and dimensions of the sub-penthouses, penthouses, roof, other services and plant will be located on the roof, and whether solar panels will be added. So, there is uncertainty about the height and the distinct possibility that the building could go higher than the current plans reveal. How can neighbours and approving authorities be assured that the building complies with height and floor area ratio rules when spaces at the top of the building have yet to be worked out?

Viewed from the Art Galley of NSW, the photographs in the Design Report show a singular, stocky block dominating the north end crest of Potts Point and blocking the view of Macleay Regis, an Art Deco exemplar of Australia’s early experience with high quality urban density, affordable housing. The photographs also show the tower being visible from harbour entry at the heads. In some montage photos, the building is inserted onto photos of Rockwall Crescent, several streets south of Macdonald Street (and a little disturbing for Rockwall Crescent residents and not accurate because another planning proposal is set to the change outlook there). The image of a large, single tower block in the lower-rise harbour foreshore landscape of Potts Point prompts a broader question of what this area of the harbour foreshore should look like and perhaps should remind some of Robin Boyd’s salutary Australian Ugliness.

(2) Environmental amenity: view loss

The SSD proposal, if built, will block the views from my apartment to Cremorne, Mosman and the harbour, jetty and slopes of Taronga Park Zoo. The concept design presented to the Sydney City Council would not have resulted in as much of a loss and therefore I did not make a submission in that process. The increase in the height of the building in the SSD proposal is what has impacted my apartment.

My apartment is one of around 52 north facing apartments to the south of The Chimes redevelopment that are potentially affected, not just in terms of view loss, but in terms of our views now being dominated by a larger, solid, bulky tower. We face the services back end of the building, and the EIS and appendixes give no guarantee that the finishes and refinements to the Macdonald and Macleay Street facades will be applied to the rear.

To underline the bulkiness problem, the design documents refer to techniques of using slimmer windows and vertical masonry as ways to make the south elevation look slimmer in “appearance”. This suggests the designers comprehend that the tower is going to be very bulky when built.

(3) Engagement strategy

Despite being inside the survey letterboxing area, I received nothing from the proponent about the concept design, approval for demolition, no survey postcards nor invitation to the focus group. Nor did my neighbours. It was through the Sydney City Council, by way of their letter calling for submissions on the concept design that we became aware of the concept design proposal.

That only 6 survey responses were received in a community of thousands, one of the densest, and with a history of activism in urban planning, beggars’ belief. If there’s a town hall meeting, the Potts Point community turns up in numbers. It does raise a question about whether the consultation was sincere, whether the effort to inform the community and obtain views was adequate; or was the consultation just ‘tick the box’?

The proponent’s consultation was undertaken on the concept design during June to August 2025. The plans I examined through the Sydney City Council process suggested that there would be a limited impact of the 12 floors concept proposal on residents and properties to the south. This however is emphatically not the case with the SSD proposal – this NSW planning process is our first and final chance at consultation on a proposal that directly and adversely impacts us.

I also question, respectfully, whether it is appropriate for the consultation (engagement) report to state that the “proposal will comply with the maximum height and floor space ratios for the site” when using the SEPP housing affordability bonuses and LEP for design excellence (page 6). How does the community interpret this? Does this exclude height and bulk from the consultation process? Is there no point making a submission on these elements because the developer has included housing affordability and design excellence components in the DA? Is there is an automatic preapproval or expectation of approval which renders the DA consideration process moot on heights and bulk? If residents are being told things are legal and approved before being given an opportunity to comment and before approvals have been given by the proper authorities, they will lose trust in the planning process.

Comments on traffic and parking, and affordable housing impact

Traffic and parking
The design phase for a nearby building involved testing whether emergency vehicles particularly fire tenders could access the building in a narrow cul de sac type side street off Macleay Street, and if the carpark or loading dock entrances were blocked by turning traffic, could they get down the street? Some years later this pre-planning turned out to be important.

The pavement corner across MacDonald Street from The Chimes has a low gutter off Macleay St and does not have a tree and is used by casual parkers (not necessarily tradies) who disrupt pedestrian flow. Occasionally drivers will come off Macleay St at speed to park at that spot despite pedestrians being on the pavement. With more activity on The Chimes site, this might become a bigger issue.

Affordable housing
Whichever way I look at the affordable house proposal, it results in a net loss of affordable housing at this location: 80 units and over one hundred residents, to 23 units and possibly 30 residents. A podium level apartment just off Macleay Street (with only Macleay Street views) sold within the last year for over ten million dollars. What binds the developer to retaining the affordable floor space even for 15 years? We are note inured to the housing affordability struggles faced by many people especially those in our homes and neighbourhoods. The beneficiaries of this proposal are obvious. There are also losers some of whom will sell up as others have in other parts of the suburb, but that won’t improve affordability and will only add to property pressures elsewhere. It won’t make a difference in the lives of the cleaners, retail workers, dental assistants and café workers (none of whom would likely be classified as essential workers). I am not convinced that the policy makes much of a difference in the broader scheme for people who need affordable housing and it offers no pathway to equity or ownership, just a hardworking life locked into a rental possibly without the normal rental protections. What’s going to change lives in this picture for the better? The Chimes is not the only redevelopment underway in Potts Point and many more affordable places have been or soon will be, lost. I intend to write to the Federal and State housing ministers with my thoughts and suggestions. I’ll also write to the Council to request that the developer repair the footpath to the Council’s Macleay Street standard when the build is completed.

Thank you again for the chance to comment.

Yours sincerely

Margaret Henderson
Potts Point
28 April 2026

Submission in Support of Proposed Development – 45–53 Macleay Street, Potts Point (SP 934)

28th April 2026
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
NSW Government

To Whom It May Concern,
I write as a local property owner in Potts Point, where I own two apartments, to express my strong support for the proposed development at 45–53 Macleay Street, being the construction of a 16-storey shop top housing development incorporating in-fill affordable housing, site preparation works, excavation and remediation, 44 apartments (including 23 affordable housing apartments), ground floor retail, four basement parking levels, landscaping, communal open space, and associated infrastructure.
As both a resident investor and someone deeply invested in the future of Potts Point, I believe this proposal represents a highly positive and necessary step forward for the continued evolution, vibrancy, and sustainability of our suburb.
1. Replacing an Outdated Building That Contributes Little to Potts Point’s Character
The existing 1960s building and associated parking structure currently occupying the site is, in my view, an unattractive and architecturally uninspiring structure that adds little—if anything—to the streetscape or broader identity of Potts Point. It lacks notable heritage significance, offers no meaningful aesthetic contribution, and stands as a visual reminder of outdated urban planning rather than thoughtful design.
There are many older buildings in Potts Point that genuinely contribute to the suburb’s charm, history, and architectural narrative, and those buildings absolutely deserve thoughtful preservation. However, not all old buildings are inherently valuable simply because of age. Where a structure is visually poor, functionally outdated, and contributes little to community character, there should be a pathway for renewal.
This proposal offers precisely that balance.
2. Modern Architectural Progress Enhances Character Through Juxtaposition
One of the defining features of great urban centres globally is the successful coexistence of heritage and contemporary architecture. The juxtaposition of old and new often creates richer, more dynamic neighbourhoods than preserving stagnation for its own sake.
Potts Point should not become architecturally frozen. Progress, when delivered thoughtfully, can enhance character rather than diminish it. Sensitive, high-quality contemporary development can complement heritage buildings, creating a suburb that respects its history while embracing the future.
Architectural diversity signals a living, evolving community—not one trapped by blanket resistance to change.
3. Affordable Housing Is a Significant Community Benefit
I am particularly supportive of the inclusion of 23 affordable housing apartments within the proposal. This is a meaningful contribution to housing accessibility in an area that has increasingly become financially out of reach for many essential workers, younger residents, and lower-income households.
Balanced communities thrive when they are socially and economically diverse. The inclusion of affordable housing supports:
• Greater housing accessibility in a premium inner-city location
• Increased socioeconomic diversity
• Support for local workers who contribute to the area’s economy
• A more inclusive and sustainable urban future
This is not simply a residential development—it is a contribution to broader housing policy objectives.
4. Supporting Local Economic Activity and Retail Vitality
Ground floor retail and increased residential density will contribute to stronger pedestrian activity, local spending, and commercial vibrancy along Macleay Street and surrounding precincts.
Potts Point today is vastly different from the Potts Point of 20 years ago—and that transformation has, in many respects, been positive. The suburb has evolved into a more sophisticated, desirable, and active destination for residents, visitors, hospitality, and retail. Continued thoughtful development is essential if Potts Point is to maintain momentum, attract investment, and remain commercially vibrant.
More residents and improved streetscape activation can:
• Increase foot traffic for local businesses
• Strengthen retail viability
• Improve perceptions of safety through activity
• Encourage further private investment
• Enhance the suburb’s long-term desirability
5. Urban Renewal Should Not Be Stifled by Overreach
There is an important distinction between preserving meaningful heritage and allowing outdated, low-value buildings to impede necessary urban renewal. In some parts of Potts Point, excessive conservation controls risk unintentionally stunting growth, discouraging investment, and preventing the suburb from adapting to modern needs.
Preservation should be strategic—not absolute.
A balanced planning approach should allow:
• Protection of genuinely significant heritage assets
• Replacement of obsolete structures lacking architectural or community value
• Increased housing supply
• Better infrastructure outcomes
• Improved design quality
6. Improved Infrastructure and Amenity
The proposal’s inclusion of basement parking, landscaping, communal open spaces, and site remediation represents a substantial uplift over the current use of the site. These elements suggest a more considered, integrated, and future-focused development outcome than what currently exists.
Conclusion
In summary, I strongly support this proposal because it reflects sensible progress, thoughtful urban renewal, and an appropriate balance between heritage sensitivity and modernisation.
Potts Point should continue to evolve. It should preserve what is genuinely valuable, but it should also welcome high-quality development that enhances amenity, improves housing supply, supports affordability, and ensures the suburb remains vibrant for future generations.
This proposal appears to do exactly that.
I respectfully urge approval of the development application.
Yours faithfully,
A supportive resident

FORMAL OBJECTION: 45-53 Macleay Street, Potts Point (SSD-79316759)

I am formally lodging my objection to the State Significant Development proposal for the redevelopment of the "Chimes" building at 45-53 Macleay Street. This project is a prime example of a planning failure that prioritizes developer profit over genuine housing needs and community heritage.

My objection is based on the following grounds:

Net Loss of Housing and Affordability: At a time when the State Government is demanding more housing, this proposal seeks to demolish 80 existing apartments and replace them with only 28 luxury units. This is a 65% reduction in the number of homes on the site. It is a mockery of the housing crisis to approve a project that removes a significant block of entry-level, relatively affordable housing in the inner city to build a low-density luxury monolith for the ultra-wealthy.

Deliberate Omission of Impacted Neighbors: The "Solar Access Data Tables" in the SJB Concept SSDA Design Report are critically flawed. They fail to mention or assess the impact on multiple Northwest-facing apartments in the neighboring 57-59 Macleay Street (The Yellow House). These residents rely on this specific orientation for their only source of natural light and outlook. The proposed bulk and height will plunge these homes into permanent shadow and visual oppression.

Excessive Height and "Visual Oppression": The proposed building is grossly disproportionate to the surrounding character of the "Parisian end" of Potts Point. The bulk and scale will create an environment of claustrophobia for residents and pedestrians alike, permanently scarring the streetscape of one of Sydney's most iconic heritage precincts.

Destruction of Public Art and Heritage: The proposal will obstruct the Yellowhouse Art Screens on the western facade of 57-59 Macleay Street. These screens are an integral piece of public art designed in consultation with the Art Gallery of NSW. To allow a private development to erase a significant piece of the area’s cultural and artistic fabric is a failure of the planning system’s duty to the public.

The SSD Loophole for Luxury Gain: Like many other current proposals, this project utilizes the SSD pathway to bypass the common-sense protections of the City of Sydney’s local planning controls. The "State Significance" label should not be a tool for developers to reduce housing density in exchange for luxury profits.

Conclusion and Call for Policy Review

I urge the Department of Planning to refuse this application. Approval would signal that the government is willing to sacrifice 80 existing homes and the heritage character of Potts Point for a net loss in housing stock.

Furthermore, I call for an urgent review of policies that allow for the demolition of high-density residential buildings during a housing crisis. The planning system must prioritize the retention and repurposing of existing affordable and diverse housing stock rather than facilitating its destruction for luxury redevelopment.

1) Clause 46 Request for Variation to add nearly 6 meters to the height of the building to 56.01 meters is egregious. Flagrantly asking for even more than what the State has afforded in terms of extra height to the fold of the building when so many neighbours, including myself, objected to the shadow thrown by the concept design is appalling. Those of us that read the responses to our objections were gobsmacked at the impertinence of the reviewing panel. The disregard and dismissal of real impact on real people in real homes was breathtaking. Yes, the detail of the new design building is now slimmer, but it also pushes further west on the site, creating even more shadowing on that end to those neighbours to the south. And the "solar analysis" has been limited to only a few units and a few buildings - dancing around and away from the neighbours that provided photographic evidence against the concept design shadowing. And yet here we are, with a request to build /push the hulk of the building even further, blocking out precious sky in the precinct. This is not just one floor - it is nearly a full 6 meters, when it is known that a single floor should only require 3 meters at most. The Request uses wording such as the extra requested height "is limited to the upper levels". I ask, where else would you add extra height? One can see in the new detail design that the architects are fully aware that the top floors added (presuming the request is afforded) cast additional shadows and therefore tried to curve the rooftop at the south of the building. Not approving this request would provide even more sunshine for the neighbours. And these floors are not required...other than for financial benefit and greater disunity of intergenerational equity.
2) The detail design includes 23 stsudio units on floors 1 and 2 including a "communal area" for these residents in the northwest corner of floor 2. I recommend adding 3-4 more studios replacing the communcal area on floor 2. This way, the residents of the studios can share the expansive communal area on floor 3 which will provide healthier amenities than the tables and chairs of the other smaller 2nd floor communcal area. This would be very simple to achieve.
3) In the architects detail design, there are 4 underground floors excavated into to the site primarily attributed to car park. The exnaust for these four floors is currently drafted to be situated on the south side of the building facing 5 other residential buildings from Yellow House next door, to the White House and the new corner boutique hotel as well as 12-16 Challis and 10C Challis. The residents of these building STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of these carpark emissions of carbon monoxide and heat into their homes. Not to mention the contant noise that these exhaust fans and infrastructure project 24 hours, 7 days. Disputes are forming around other buildings' exhaust in Wooloomooloo, and the precinct. New design needs to MOVE these exhausts to street / elsewhere. Leaving the exhaust placement where they are will certainly create a toxic brew in the lightwell / airshaft at the rear of the building flanked by several neighbours.