Joe Cutugno
907/227 Victoria Street
Darlinghurst NSW 2010
[email protected]
0405628229

I write in response to the State Significant Development Application for the proposed multi storey residential infill development with Affordable Housing at 164/194 William Street Woolloomooloo.
I am a local resident and own an apartment in Top of the Town building in Darlinghurst.
I formally object to the proposed development at 164/194 William Street Woolloomooloo, which if approved, will significantly obstruct the city skyline harbour tramline and all greenbelt domain views.

I have been aware of development at the No Birds site since 2023. I am supportive of the development where it aligns with Sydney Council's Development Control Plan and Local Environment Plan. I also support NSW Affordable Housing policy. However , am concerned that this revised proposal will give the Developer a huge financial windfall at the expense of the existing community, which I believe to be unacceptable.

As a long -term resident and ratepayer, I have enjoyed these views as an integral part of my home's amenity, character and value. The proposed structure by virtue of its height, bulk , and positioning would permanently diminish the visual connection to key public landmarks. This poor quality is through the report and as such the VIA is not fair and trustworthy, and is not suitable to inform a Determination on this EID.

I believe the revised proposal must be changed to reduce its height and consider a different balance of height Forbes and Dowling Street buildings. Also, the Council and State Government should consider supporting a more equitable solution with alternative incentives to enable Affordable Housing in an envelope closer to the one already approved.

Thank you

Joe Cutugno

Submission on State Significant Development Application:
164–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo NSW 2011
(SSD-80211463)
Date: 10 November 2025

I am a resident of Forbes Street, Darlinghurst and will be directly impacted by the proposed development. I reference City of Sydney Development Application D/2022/139 as the project previously approved on 08/04/2024 for this site. I wish to raise a number of points and objections regarding the new proposal.
1. Exhibition period
I wish to strongly object to the exhibition period being for 14 days only, reduced from the previous 30 day minimum. As this is lodged as “State significant project”, a period of 14 days is not appropriate to allow the community to review and comment on such a major proposal. I request that the consultation process be extended to allow greater transparency.
2. Building height
It is noted that clause 4.3 of the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 (SLEP) applies maximum building heights of 22m and 35m across the site. Under Part 2, Division 1, Clause 16(3) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (Housing SEPP), an additional 30% height bonus is permitted where 15% affordable housing is provided (which is the case with the proposed development). This results in applicable maximum heights of 28.6m to the northern portion of the site and 45.5m to the southern portion.
The proposed development seeks a building height of 35.8m for the north building, being 7.2m or 25% above the maximum 28.6m permitted and a building of 66.3m for the south building, being 20.8m or an extraordinary 46% above the maximum 45.5m permitted.
I do not agree that the Visual Impact Assessment is ‘well founded’, where it has adequately assessed the impacted views. It is noted that the impact assessments for the Horizon building (points 20 through 27) were taken from deliberately low levels (levels, 3, 4, and 5) which would be impacted by the previously approved building. No assessment was taken for levels between 11 and 20, who will be directly impacted by the proposed 18 storey tower. It is noted that assessment 33 (on level 11) was taken on the west side of building, where they do not see the 18 storey tower at all.
In my view this is an attempt by the developer to generate a high rise to incorporate penthouse style apartments with harbour views, that can be sold for maximum profit. In the absence of a well founded VIA, this should not be a reason to disregard the height limits set.
3. Building mass
It is noted that the previously approved development had a total GFA of 25,412sqm, including a 10% uplift for design excellence, giving an FSR of 3.97:1. The new proposal includes a GFA of 33,036sqm, giving an FSR of 5.16:1.
I have an issue with this calculation as the revised development has included the 10% design excellence uplift and then applied the further 30% increase. As far as I can determine, the revised project has not undergone any ‘design excellence’ and does not incorporate any of the key design principles of the previous design. For this reason, I believe the 30% uplift should be calculated excluding the 10% DE component as follows: 25,412.2sqm less 10% DE uplift = 23,102sqm x 130% = 30,032.6sqm This is a reduction of 3,003.4sqm.
4. Private park
The development includes a privately owned but publicly accessible park. I note that the submission includes Appendix NN – Social Impact Assessment which identifies that Woolloomooloo has a higher rate of homelessness than the Greater Sydney area. It is therefore a concern that this new park may become a preferred destination for the homeless, raising further questions of safety and crime.
The application does not explain what steps will be taken to protect the park space, or what would happen if in the future, if public access was removed.
5. Roof top common areas
The development proposes common area roof areas on the two William Street buildings. As safety rules will require clear lighting of these spaces, these new areas will cast significant light pollution onto neighbouring buildings. I cannot determine from the documents what time access will be granted and suspect that the lighting will be used during all periods of darkness.
In addition, the nature of a roof terrace means that any noise generated by users will be carried to impact neighbouring properties.
6. Traffic impact
I wish to object to limited consideration made to the traffic impact of this development, especially as there is a second development at 134 William Street is also being proposed. The developments will generate many more vehicle movements, putting extra strain on minor side roads as well as the already congested William Street.
Further work should be done to consider the traffic impact on the local area from both the proposed developments on William Street.

Dear Assessment Team,
I am writing to make a submission regarding the proposed development at 164–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo, currently on exhibition.
As a resident living directly nearby at 200 William Street, I have significant concerns about the substantial increase in height and scale since the original DA. The proposal has escalated from 10 storeys and 6 storeys to 18 storeys and 10 storeys, which is excessive for this location and incompatible with the surrounding built environment.
________________________________________
1. Height Increase, Visual Bulk & Loss of Light
The proposed jump to 18 and 10 storeys is far beyond what is appropriate for this part of Woolloomooloo.
This scale would:
• create severe overshadowing,
• significantly reduce natural light,
• block existing views for many homes, including mine,
• create a visually dominating presence out of character with the area.
Request for a height similar to the existing building
I would strongly support redevelopment at a height similar to the current building on the lot, as this would:
• maintain existing solar access,
• preserve neighbourhood character,
• avoid loss of views,
• and ensure no unreasonable impact on surrounding residential amenity.
A redevelopment within the current height envelope would allow renewal of the site without imposing disproportionate harm on its neighbours.
________________________________________
2. Traffic & Access – Incorrect statements in the DA
The DA states that there are “multiple vehicular cross overs along Forbes Street.”
This is factually incorrect, there are no vehicular crossovers along Forbes Street.
Traffic impacts have been underestimated and inaccurately described.
Further concerns:
• Access to Dowling Street is already difficult; additional vehicles and service trucks will worsen congestion.
• Traffic approaching from the east will funnel into McElhone Street and Cathedral Street, creating further bottlenecks on already narrow streets.
• Construction vehicles will disrupt traffic for an extended period.
The traffic study must be revisited with accurate information.
________________________________________
3. Social Wellbeing Impacts
The DA references a public park as part of the design, but the existing park is extremely small and already at capacity.
With homelessness already present in the area, the lack of meaningful open space and social infrastructure will place additional pressure on surrounding streets.
This issue needs deeper consideration and planning.
________________________________________
4. Wind Impacts from Excessive Height
With the proposed increase to 18 storeys, wind conditions will worsen dramatically.
Downdrafts and wind tunnel effects will likely impact:
• Dowling Street
• Forbes Street
• McElhone Street
These impacts affect pedestrian comfort and safety and should be reassessed with accurate modelling.
________________________________________
5. Privacy & Overlooking
The excessive height and positioning of the towers will result in direct overlooking into existing residential buildings.
This is a significant loss of privacy and will reduce the amenity of long-established homes.
________________________________________
6. Request for Reassessment
I respectfully request that the Department:
• reconsider the proposed 18-storey and 10-storey height,
• reassess the traffic report due to factual inaccuracies,
• require updated wind, overshadowing and privacy studies,
• and consider the social wellbeing impacts and insufficiency of open space.
A redevelopment that aligns with the current height of the building on the lot would provide renewal without imposing overwhelming impacts on surrounding residents.
Thank you for your consideration of this submission.
Kind regards,

Resident, 200 William Street
Woolloomooloo NSW 2011

I am a resident of Farrell Street, Darlinghurst, living on the top floor (William Street side) in a small studio apartment. I am writing to formally object to the proposed mixed-use development at 164–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo (SSD-80211463).

While I support the need for affordable housing, this particular proposal will have a severe negative impact on my home, my wellbeing and the character of the area.

1. Loss of views and outlook
From my apartment, I currently have a beautiful view of the Sydney skyline, including Sydney harbour, the Harbour Bridge and the top of the Opera House. These views are one of the main reasons I chose to live here. The proposed 18-storey development will completely obstruct this view, replacing open sky and distant landscape with a wall of buildings. This loss of outlook will significantly reduce the amenity and livability of my home.

2. Mental health and wellbeing impacts
I live in a small studio without a balcony, so my connection to the outside world is entirely through my window and view. Losing natural light and the open outlook will have a real and negative effect on my mental health. A sense of openness and access to daylight are essential for wellbeing, particularly in small apartments like mine.

3. Overshadowing and reduced sunlight
Given the proposed height and proximity of the development, my apartment will receive less natural light, especially in the morning and late afternoon. This loss of light will increase my reliance on artificial lighting and further contribute to feelings of enclosure.

4. Noise and disruption during construction
The proposed excavation of four basement levels will generate significant construction noise, dust and vibration for an extended period. As my apartment faces directly toward the development site, I expect to be heavily impacted by these works. I am a shift worker who needs to sleep in the day - I am very worried how this will impact my job and mental well being.

5. Impact on property value
The loss of views and amenity will also likely reduce the value of my property. Apartments with natural light and harbour views hold a premium, and losing this will have lasting financial consequences for residents like myself.

For these reasons, I strongly object to this proposal in its current form. I urge the Department and the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces to either refuse the application or require major modifications to the design — including lower building heights, greater setbacks, and measures to protect neighbouring residents’ sunlight, views and amenity.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Level 8, 5-15, Farrell Avenue, Darlinghurst, NSW 2010

20/06/2026

Attention: Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,
4 Parramatta Square
12 Darcy Street,
Parramatta
NSW 2150

Objection Submission
Project name: Mixed used development with infield affordable housing, 164 – 194 William St, Woolloomooloo, NSW 2011
Application no: SSD – 80211463

To the assessing officer.

Dear Sir/Madam,

RE: The above- mentioned matter

I am writing to state my STRONG OBJECTION to the proposed state significant development at 164 – 194 William St, Woolloomooloo, NSW 2011.

As owner and resident on Level 8 of 5-15, Farrell Avenue, Darlinghurst, NSW 2010, my property sits directly south of the subject site. Featuring a highly exposed, single aspect northern orientation.

While I support the provision of affordable housing, the current design represents an excessive, non-compliant over development that causes catastrophic amenity loss to existing residents. The sheer scale of the 4 buildings from 7 – 22 stories, reaching up to 68.8 metres, represent an unacceptable “view replacement” rather than “equitable view sharing”.

I urge the department to reject of heavily modify the proposal based on the following critical planning grounds:

1. Severe and devastating view lost (tenacity principles)
Under the planning principles established in tenacity consulting re Warringah Council (2004) NSW LEC 140, the assessment of view loss must evaluate the value of the view and the specific are of the property from which it is to be enjoyed.

a. The value of the view
My eight level apartment possess highly prized, panoramic, iconic views encompassing the Sydney CBD skyline, the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Opera House. These are classified as iconic vistas of national significance, not minor ambient outlooks.

b. The impact zone
My unit is north facing. These views are enjoyed directly kitchen, primary living area, bedrooms and the main private balcony. The proposed towers will construct a literal wall directly infront of my unit, causing a near total (100%) obstruction of these highly valued views. Under the tenacity framework, such a severe impact on a primary living area is unacceptable and unreasonable.

2. Extreme non compliance with height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) controls.
The developer, seeking a height of 68.8 metres, breaches the standard Sydney Local Environmental Plan (LEP). Even when factoring in the 30% bonus provisions, under the Housing SEPP for affordable housing, the proposed housing envelope varsely exceeds permissible limits. This represents, severe overdevelopment, at the top geographical reach of Willam Street, completely altering the valley topography and natural amphitheatre of Darlinghurst.

3. Destruction of Solar Access and Daylight
A north facing aspect is universally protected in NSW planning guidelines to ensure energy efficiency and residential well-being. By placing towers directly to my North, that significantly exceed the local height limits, the development will cast massive mid day shadows over the southern sight of the corridor.

4. Loss of visual privacy and acoustic amenity
Currently, my Level 8 appartment enjoys high visual privacy because it overlooks lower scale commercial properties. Building high density residential towers directly opposite my apartment introduces dozens of multi-level windows and balconies with a direct uninterrupted line of sight straight into my private living room and balcony. The inclusion of unmonitored rooftop communal spaces, poses an ongoing acoustic threat to an under wise residential pocket.

5. Adverse microclimate and wind tunnel impact
The pedestrian wind assessment within the EIS already acknowledges that William Street experiences strong wind conditions. Erecting a massive vertical 68.8metres northern wall will capture prevailing winds and create high velocity down drafts. This will result in a localised wind tunnel effect on Farrell Avenue, comprising pedestrian safety and rendering my 8th floor balcony entirely unusable.

Requested outcome
The visual impact assessment submitted by the developer fails to accurately calculate the catastrophic view loss experienced by the elevated south neighbouring buildings on Farrell Avenue. I respectfully request, that the Department REFUSE THE CURRENT APPLICATION. The developer must be legally required to submit a significantly scaled down proposal. This must include: major height reductions, increased mid-site set-backs and building separation adjustments to equitably preserve the iconic sightlines, solar access and privacy of long standing Darlinghurst residents.

I would like to know what views I will be left with if the developer goes on with these plans.

Thank you for your time and serious consideration of this submission.

Kind regards,
Anonymous

Application No: SSD-80211463 July 2026
Project: Mixed-use development with in-fill affordable housing at 164-172 and 174-194 William Street, Woolloomooloo
Position: OBJECT
SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSION – AMENDED PROPOSAL

I maintain my objection to the amended proposal and make the following supplementary submission in response to the re-exhibited application for a 19 story block on the site. Whilst I share the needs for increased housing in principle, to obstruct and reduce the living enjoyment of most surrounding residents goes against the shared facility principles.
I am the owner of apartment at 5-15 Farrell Avenue and a long term owner within the building. My apartment is located on Level 4 of the building and enjoys extensive views across to iconic landmarks and water views via garden island . Please see attached photo for reference of the views enjoyed from all aspects of my apartment to the iconic landmarks.

I specifically object to:
1. Increased significant height of application causing even further view construction than was previously considered - above that which is allowable within that part of the street
2. Lack of photo assessment of view affect on my property, which extend to direct landmark views of Opera House, Bridge etc . Lack of verified photomontages and a dwelling-specific view-sharing assessment for apartment levels.

I have owned this apartment since 2006 and chose the apartment primarily for the great outlook and sweeping full views of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House. I also paid a large premium for an apartment with this view. This has immensely improved the amenity of the apartment and I have spent many happy, sociable hours on the balcony admiring the view. My apartment and its view is something I am proud of and have enjoyed both on my own and with a variety of social situations.

The apartment currently enjoys the amenity of a full, unobstructed view of the Opera House and Bridge from
1. both balconies,
2. kitchen window and
3. both bedroom windows.
4. Sitting / Dining area

The iconic view is visible from standing and seated position and visible both inside living space and outside on the balconies. I also enjoy some water views across William Street to garden Island area.

I am hereby objecting to the proposed development for the following reasons :

1. Devastating obstruction of 100% of the view : from the all areas of the apartment – the development will completely block both the Opera House and Bridge from my view, as well as some water view and associated green aspect of the view .
2. The devastating view obstruction will be present from both balconies, bedrooms, kitchen: both standing and sitting
3. For the development – the request for additional density by way of an ‘envelope’ and not a specific form will have an extreme impact on many residents view
4. Height with the envelope, the maximum height for the site by which I made a decision to buy the apartment has been exceeded.– this being represented by the turret on the nearby Avis building – note that I am not against redevelopment of the block, but wish for the devastating loss of iconic view to be removed from the many apartments in Farrell Avenue and other nearby blocks, caused by additional density request within the envelope.
5. No reference to or allowance for the heritage nature or character of existing buildings in that part of William Street that fronts on to the heritage area of Woolloomooloo

I believe that this is not just a reduction in shared view, but a devastating loss of 100% of view for myself and many of the apartments in the 5-15 Farrell Avenue block and associated blocks located in the surrounding streets .

To support this submission, I enclose the following:

1. A number of photographs from around the apartment. All are from the standing position and are both indoors and outdoors views.

I look forward to the development application being reconsidered and seek to design and protect views in accordance with equitable sharing and equity planning principles so that the view impacts can be properly assessed and impact on the locality amenity is reduced to an acceptable level.

I have concerns about the amount of traffic and congestion that will result. It is currently particularly awkward to access our the Marquis building given how the various road lanes travel and the traffic that builds up, especially turning right onto William Street from Crown Street. The inclusion of a privately owned public car park seems to be excluded from the gross floor space allocation. This seems to give the developers more apartment space and more height by not counting the GFS of the car park.

Traffic is horrendous already. More people, more cars, more pollution, more congestion. William street at the best of times is gridlocked ,by bringing more people into the area will exacerbate the situation. Plus food delivery bikes will increase. It is extremely dangerous for pedestrians now as they ride on the footpaths with no regard for safety. The village atmosphere of Darlinghurst and Woolloomooloo will disappear and it will be a high ghetto. No to the increase of size of the development.