I object to 160 Oxford St Paddington reasons are attached

I am writing to object to the proposed development at 160 Oxford Street Paddington.

The location of the proposed works is central to one of the earliest areas of Paddington history. Shadforth Street, Gipp Street and surrounds were the original 1840s "Paddington Village" established to house workers building the Victoria Barracks. Originally part of a working-class enclave, the humble cottages that form the streetscape are still very much intact and the area still has a sense of scale in keeping with the original village ethos.

My objections are several:

1) The size and form of the proposed development will destroy the collective village scale that is so inherent to this micro area and important to it’s heritage value. At 28.6m high the proposal is four times the height of the adjacent terrace houses. Additionally the approximately 20 metre length of the continuous façade to Shadforth Street is equal to that of six small cottages. This proposal will loom over the surrounding small terraces like a giant monolith.

2) 78 underground car spaces with access from Shadforth Street are proposed. This is a huge number of cars to require access from such a narrow residential street already noted for its tight constraints. The streetscape is entirely unsuitable for this scale of development. I live at the bottom of Liverpool Street and can attest that even without this development cars often queue to access the area and often get blocked in by cars from the adjacent streets.

The unique Paddington Village area owes it’s existence to a movement to save Paddington's heritage in the 1970s. This was a critical, grassroots campaign aimed at protecting Paddington’s unique 1840s-1890s terraces from demolition and redevelopment. The campaign successfully fought to prevent the area from being replaced by modern high-rise apartments. To now allow this proposed development in the heart of the heritage area would be a betrayal of the whole heritage movement and the much loved area of Paddington.

I do not believe that the proposed development has the potential to be a sympathetic contribution to the HCA. It will have an unacceptable heritage impact on heritage items in the vicinity.

Regards
Sarah Scott

While the developers and architects behind this project have gone to great lengths to demonstrate this is a necessary development in this part of Sydney, it is not. This is an opportunistic proposal designed for financial gain, with no consideration for the area, the history or the quality of life of the surrounding residents or the commercial businesses along Oxford streets and Glenmore Road.
The traffic and congestion caused by this level of development, not only in the construction stage but once completed will negatively impact the amenity and character of the area. Gipps and Shadforth Streets are tightly held, narrow streets with a distinct village atmosphere, with a high concentration of sandstone houses, it is unlike any other part of Paddington.
The scale of the project is excessive - 4 stories of excavation, 83 parking places and a 4 storey tower block above ground is not in keeping with this area - this type of development is better suited to the other end of Oxford Street, between Crown and Elizabeth Streets. The excavation will jeopardise the foundations of the surrounding historically significant houses, particularly in the tightly held area behind. The beauty of this part of Paddington is its scale, walkability and historical significance, illustrated by the corner buildings highlighted in your submission. Other than the Telstra Tower, on the other side of the street, and not aligned to residences, there are no other tower block buildings along the lines of the one proposed.
As a Paddington resident, it is important that we protect the historic significance of the area and the amenity of the people who live in it, in a time of voracious development throughout our city. We are in jeopardy of compromising an important part of the area, for little gain, other than for the developers.
I therefore object to this proposal.

Non please don't let a other of these monster buildings get built... Again like the one in Oxford Street near the bus depot... Shame scandalous 😩

I have previously lived in Shadforth Street and continue to live in Paddington so know the area well.
I object to this project because:
- it is far too large and bulky for the neighborhood.
- the parking access is off narrow access roads
- the completed project will contain less affordable housing than exists now.

I oppose this development because it will demolish a building that currently provides relatively affordable housing in this area. For many young people, including myself, it is one of the few ways to live here at a reasonable cost. Replacing it with luxury properties accessible only to a very wealthy minority will reduce affordable housing and push current residents out of the neighborhood.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at 160 Oxford Street. As a resident of the area, I believe this project is fundamentally incompatible with the heritage character of Paddington and the local community's needs. My specific objections are as follows:
Incompatibility with Heritage Significance:
The site is located in one of Paddington's most historically significant heritage streets, characterized by 19th-century sandstone cottages. The proposed "ultra-luxury" design is generically derivative and fails to respect the architectural precedent of the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area (HCA).

Excessive Height and Scale:
At 12 storeys, the building’s height is a "ludicrously inappropriate" departure from the existing streetscape and sits completely at odds with the lower-scale multi-storey buildings on Oxford Street.

Failure to Provide Genuine Affordable Housing:
Despite utilising "affordable housing bonuses," the inclusion of five swimming pools and private penthouses demonstrates that the project prioritises developer profit over the practical housing needs of NSW families.

Impact on Streetscape and Density:
Paddington’s existing workers' cottages already serve as an excellent example of successful high-density living. The proposed design lacks the architectural harmony found in the surrounding narrow streets and laneways.

Negative Precedent for Heritage Suburbs:
Approval of this project would set a damaging precedent for other heritage-protected suburbs in Sydney, undermining decades of community effort to conserve the inner-city village atmosphere.

I urge the State Government to reject the proposal in its current form. Any future development on this site should:
- Reduce height to sit in harmony with the current high street.
- Incorporate architectural forms that reflect the heritage character of the area.
- Provide genuine community benefits, such as public green space or improved amenities.

Sincerely,
Andrew van der Westhuyzen

I wish to lodge an objection to SSD-97528708, relating to the proposed mixed-use redevelopment of 142–148 and 160 Oxford Street, as well as 13 Gipps Street and 6 Shadforth Street, Paddington.

The proposal seeks approval for an approximately eight-storey mixed-use development consisting of residential apartments (including an affordable housing component), retail premises, and basement parking delivered under the Housing SEPP affordable housing provisions.

While the provision of additional housing, including affordable housing, within accessible urban areas is an important planning objective, the proposal in its current form raises several significant concerns. In particular, it is not clear that the scale of the proposed development, together with the extent of planning concessions being requested, appropriately considers the heritage character of the surrounding area or the relatively limited public benefits that would result.

For these reasons, the application should either be refused or substantially revised before any approval is considered.

Failure to Demonstrate an Appropriate Planning Balance under the Housing SEPP Bonus Provisions

The proposal relies on the “infill affordable housing” provisions within the Housing SEPP, which allow additional development capacity in exchange for providing affordable housing. Although the policy’s intent to increase the supply of affordable housing is supported, it was not designed to enable unrestricted departures from established built-form controls where those departures may create unacceptable planning, environmental, or heritage impacts.

Accordingly, the Department should carefully consider whether:

the additional development capacity being sought is reasonable in scale,

the level of public benefit provided through the affordable housing component is sufficient, and

the overall planning outcome appropriately balances these factors in the public interest.

In this instance, the affordable housing component appears relatively limited, with approximately 10 affordable dwellings proposed within a development of around 40 apartments. Given the scale of the development uplift being sought, this raises questions as to whether the proposal delivers a proportionate public benefit.

Quite frankly, this development is a blatant overreach that would obliterate Paddington’s heritage character and demonstrates a shocking disregard for community, planning integrity and is instead an embarrassing public showcase of ignorance and lack of taste.

I object to the project