To: NSW Department of Planning, Major Projects
Re: SUB-98669720

I object to the proposed development at 164–194 William Street, To: NSW Department of Planning, Major Projects
Re: SUB-98669720

Project: Mixed use development with in-fill affordable housing, 164–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo

I object to the proposed development at 164–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo.

I own property at 1107/227 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst.
My building was originally constructed in 1966 and was converted into luxury residential apartments in 2003, forming part of the long-established, legitimate residential character of this precinct.

Grounds of Objection

1) Diminishment of neighbourhood amenity outlook + visual openness
Although the development may not fully obstruct my internal view, it will significantly diminish the established visual openness and amenity outlook of this precinct.
This is relevant under Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140 view-sharing principles.

2) Quantified economic harm across 91 existing dwellings
My property is lawfully used for short-term accommodation (Airbnb) and provides income for my household.

Amenity outlook is one of the primary drivers of property value and revenue performance in this building.

This impact is not confined to a single residence - it affects the entire building, comprising 91 apartments:
• 9 Studio apartments
• 53 One-bedroom apartments
• 10 One-bedroom lofts
• 16 Two-bedroom apartments
• 2 Sub-penthouses
• 1 Penthouse

The loss of perceived amenity and visual openness will diminish the overall valuation profile of all 91 apartments - not merely individual units - and therefore represents a significant economic impact at building scale.

3) Overdevelopment relative to context
The proposal appears inconsistent with:
• SEPP 65 Design Quality Principles 2 + 5
• ADG Clause 2B.3 – Building Separation (visual privacy / massing)
• ADG Clause 4A-1 – Solar / daylight access (overshadowing risk)

4) Cumulative impact / precedent risk
Approval in this form would set a precedent for further over-massing - compounding amenity loss in Darlinghurst, Woolloomooloo and surrounding suburbs.

5) Public Interest – EP&A Act s4.15(1)(e)
It is not in the public interest for an established and functioning residential community to undergo avoidable amenity degradation and economic diminishment.

Request

For these reasons, I request that this application not be approved in its current form.

Should approval be entertained, significant reduction in height and increased upper-level setbacks are required to avoid over-enclosure, protect amenity, and prevent material economic harm to 91 existing lawful dwellings.

Sincerely,
Elena Parker

Name: Helen Elizabeth Cramp
Address: 96/26 Kirketon Road, Darlinghurst NSW 2010
Application No.: SSD-80211463
Project: Mixed-use development with in-fill affordable housing at
164–172 & 174–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo
Position: OBJECT
________________________________________
Submission – Objection to SSD-80211463
I object to the proposed development at 164–172 & 174–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo.
The scale and massing of the proposal will cause unacceptable amenity impacts, particularly view loss, privacy intrusion, visual dominance, and traffic pressure.
I reside on the 6th floor at 96/26 Kirketon Road. My apartment enjoys a valued outlook from primary living areas and the balcony toward the Woolloomooloo basin, Sydney Harbour Bridge, and Sydney Opera House.
This view contributes substantially to amenity and value.
________________________________________
Grounds for Objection
1) View Loss & Visual Bulk
The applicant’s indicative massing plan shows height uplifts of:
• +8 storeys (central)
• +3 storeys
• +1 storey
The +8-storey element produces a dominant built form likely to sit well above my Level-6 sightline, removing or reducing existing landmark views.
These views have high significance, as they are visible from primary living areas and private open space.
I have attached a labelled photograph taken from my balcony showing the Harbour Bridge / Opera House corridor. The proposal is situated within this visual corridor and is therefore likely to obstruct this view either partially or substantially.
The applicant has not provided verified view-impact photomontages from nearby residential properties.
Requested:
• Verified sightline / photomontage analysis from Kirketon Road vantage points
• Height and massing reduction to protect harbour landmark views
________________________________________
2) Privacy Impact
The proposed residential towers will introduce direct elevated sightlines into my balcony and living areas, reducing privacy.
Requested:
• Increased setbacks
• Screening / design measures
________________________________________
3) Overshadowing & Daylight
Although overshadowing risk is lower due to orientation, no modelling is provided to demonstrate that neighbouring dwellings retain adequate daylight.
Requested:
• Updated overshadowing analysis
• Height adjustments if required
________________________________________
4) Bulk, Height & Character
The proposed 18-storey scale is out of character with surrounding built form and creates an excessive central mass.
Requested:
• Height / bulk moderation
• Improved transition to neighbouring buildings
________________________________________
5) Traffic / Congestion
The introduction of 227 dwellings plus retail uses will increase local traffic and parking pressure in an already constrained area.
________________________________________
Requested Outcomes
I request that the Department require:
1. Verified view impact modelling from Kirketon Road
2. Height & massing reduction (particularly the +8-storey portion)
3. Privacy safeguards
4. Updated overshadowing modelling
5. Traffic assessment / mitigation
If these cannot be addressed, the proposal should not be approved in its current form.
________________________________________
Declaration
I have made no reportable political donations in the past two years.
I acknowledge the Department’s Disclaimer and Declaration.
________________________________________
Conclusion
While supportive of appropriately scaled housing, the proposal as submitted results in unacceptable loss of amenity to existing residents, including:
• Loss of iconic views
• Visual bulk intrusion
• Privacy reduction
• Increased traffic
I respectfully request reconsideration of height and massing to protect existing residential amenity.
Yours sincerely

Helen Cramp

96/26 Kirketon Road
Darlinghurst NSW 2010
0413 198 073

I am writing as a local resident who is deeply concerned about the proposed development at 164–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo. Having reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement and associated documents, I believe the proposal is inappropriate for the site in its current form. It raises major concerns around height, amenity, public access, and genuine community benefit.

Subject: Objection to the Proposed Development at 174–194 William Street (SSD-80211463)
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing as a long-term resident of the 2010 postcode to formally object to the proposed development at 174–194 William Street (SSD-80211463).
I am 79 years old and have lived in this area for over four decades. During that time, I have seen our neighbourhood grow, adapt, and modernise. However, this proposal risks pushing those changes too far. This is not simply a matter of resisting development — it is about protecting the liveability, safety, and spirit of a place that many of us proudly call home.
Minimising social impact must be a priority. The project should address its potential effects on community cohesion, local character, demand for services and open spaces, traffic and parking pressures, pedestrian safety, visual impact, and overshadowing. My concerns are both personal and deeply communal.

1. Loss of Sunlight and Natural Light
The proposed buildings’ height and bulk will significantly overshadow homes in the 2010 area, particularly during winter mornings and afternoons when sunlight is most needed. Many residents — especially older people and those working from home — depend on natural light for warmth, health, and mental wellbeing.
2. Wind Tunnel and Microclimate Impacts
The proposal’s scale will likely intensify wind tunnelling along William Street and adjacent laneways. Similar effects have been observed in nearby developments and pose safety risks to pedestrians, particularly the elderly and mobility-impaired. The proposed 18-storey tower will also block the beneficial sea breezes that help cool the area during increasingly long hot periods.
3. Visual Bulk and Loss of Views
The development will obstruct many existing outlooks, replacing views of the sky, trees, and heritage rooftops with concrete.
Notably, in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by Urbis Ltd on behalf of William Street Residential Pty Ltd, our building on Tewkesbury Avenue, Darlinghurst, was not included in the list of properties assessed for view loss (page 43). This omission must be rectified.
The truth is that the views from my apartment will be catastrophically affected. I plan to spend my remaining years in my home, and the loss of harbour and district views will have irreversible consequences for my quality of life and property value. In this neighbourhood, views are not a luxury — they are what make high-density living tolerable and dignified, particularly for older residents.
4. Overdevelopment and Loss of Local Character
The proposed height and massing are out of scale with the surrounding streetscape, creating a “canyon effect” and destroying the fine-grain character that defines this area. This represents overdevelopment, not thoughtful renewal.
5. Infrastructure and Safety Strain
Existing infrastructure — roads, parking, sewerage, footpaths, and emergency services — is already under strain. Another large-scale development will further erode safety, sanitation, and accessibility. The cumulative impact of this and nearby proposals must be considered holistically, not in isolation.
6. Mental Health, Wellbeing, and Vulnerable Residents
This neighbourhood includes many older residents, low-income earners, renters, and people with health challenges. Construction noise, overshadowing, increased population density, and traffic will have serious implications for physical and mental wellbeing.
7. Lack of Meaningful Community Consultation
Many residents feel this proposal has progressed with limited engagement or transparency. While I support the inclusion of 30% rental-controlled housing, I strongly oppose the 18-storey tower proposed as the preferred option (page 57, Option 5).
Option 1, which distributes the 30% unit increase evenly across all four buildings, is a far more balanced and community-sensitive approach. I respectfully urge that this alternative be adopted.
8. Community Park and Public Space
The proposed public and communal park on the northern part of the development is commendable. However, the plans (page 27) lack details of essential community features such as a community garden, exercise area, meeting place, children’s play area, and art space. Please provide more detailed plans to ensure these valuable inclusions are considered.

Conclusion
I support progress and improvement, but not at the expense of people’s health, amenity, and right to sunlight, air, and open space. The current proposal prioritises height and yield over respect for people and place. It fails to demonstrate that it serves the public interest.
I respectfully request that Planning NSW:
1. Reject the proposed 18-storey tower height;
2. Distribute the 30% additional floor area evenly across all four buildings;
3. Conduct a proper assessment of view loss for all affected properties, including those on Tewkesbury Avenue;
4. Adopt a more sensitive approach to development in high-density areas, prioritising liveability and community wellbeing.
Thank you for your consideration.
Kind regards,
Marisa Minelle-Katis

Re: SSD-80211463 – Objection to Proposed Development at 164–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo
Date: 4 November 2025

I am writing to object to the proposed 18-storey development at 164–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo. As an owner occupier in the Top of the Town building at 227 Victoria Street, I am concerned about the scale and impact of this proposal on our community and surrounding environment.

Below is a list of issues that I believe warrant serious consideration:
☐ View Loss and Visual Impact
The proposed height (61 metres) will obstruct views of Sydney Harbour, the Opera House, and the Harbour Bridge from many units in our building. These views are a key part of the value and amenity of our homes. The development is located in a sensitive visual catchment and should be scaled down to preserve iconic vistas. It will also obstruct views of the Domain, which is an important green space in the urban landscape.
☐ Excessive Height and Overdevelopment
The proposal exceeds the City of Sydney’s planning controls for height and floor space ratio. Even with Housing SEPP bonuses, the scale is unreasonable and inconsistent with the character of the area. A development of 8–9 storeys would be more appropriate.
☐ Rooftop Noise and Amenity Impacts
Plans for rooftop communal areas raise concerns about noise transmission, especially during evenings and weekends. Elevated outdoor spaces can carry sound across the neighbourhood, affecting sleep and quality of life.
☐ Traffic and Parking Pressure
The development will increase traffic on already congested streets and may worsen parking availability. Construction traffic and long-term vehicle movements should be carefully assessed and mitigated.
☐ Overshadowing and Sunlight Loss
A building of this height will cast long shadows over neighbouring properties and public spaces, reducing sunlight and affecting environmental amenity.
☐ Heritage Context
Although the site itself is not heritage-listed, it adjoins the Woolloomooloo Heritage Conservation Area and is near several listed buildings. The proposed bulk and scale would visually dominate these heritage assets.
☐ Infrastructure Strain and Cumulative Impact
The area has seen several large developments recently. The cumulative impact on local infrastructure, public transport, and community services must be considered.

I request that the Department require a significant reduction in the height and density of the proposal. Should the project proceed to the EIS stage, I ask that the following be included:
- A detailed view impact analysis from affected properties.
- A noise and vibration assessment, particularly for rooftop use.
- A traffic and parking impact study, including cumulative effects.
- A heritage impact statement.
- Oversight by the State Design Review Panel.

Thank you for considering this submission.

The area is already one of Sydney’s most densely populated, and this project would place excessive strain on local infrastructure, parking, and community facilities. The area also has a highly transient population, and it’s likely these units will not be owner-occupied but rented short-term to backpackers, further reducing community stability and respect for the area. The scale and height of the proposal are inconsistent with local character and will block valued city and harbour views. Overall, this development represents significant overdevelopment and is incompatible with the area’s heritage and livability.

I am objecting to the project as currently proposed. While this development is a welcome renewal for part of William St and while it is good that is has included affordable housing (much needed in this area), the height of part of the building is problematic and unjustified. Given the scale of the project, there is no good reason to build as high as proposed; it will not enhance either the building or the area. I recommend rethinking the design of this project.

I OBJECT TO THIS PROJECT AS IT WILL COMPLETELY BLOCK MY VIEW OF SYDNEY HARBOUR BRIDGE AND SYDNEY OPERA HOUSE.
THIS WILL GREATLY AFFECT THE POSSABILITY OF THE RE SALE OF MY APARTMENT WHICH IS LOCATION IN THE BUILDING CALLED TOP OF THE TOWN ON VICTORIA ST, DARLINGHURST. MY APARTMENT FACES WEST WHICH DIRECTLY LOOK AT THE CITY AND THE SYDNEY HARBOUR BRIDGE AND OPERA HOUSE. I WILL BE DEVASTATED BY THIS AND WANT TO PLACE MY FIRM OBJECTION TO YOU PLEASE. THANK YOU AND MUCH APPRECIATED. HELEN FARAH