I support the delivery of additional housing and affordable housing in principle. My objection is not to housing itself, but to the current height, bulk and massing of the amended proposal and the absence of apartment-specific evidence demonstrating that it represents the least harmful reasonable design outcome for affected neighbouring apartments.

I am the owner and resident of Unit 22, Level 6, 12–20 Rosebank Street, Darlinghurst. My principal concern is evidentiary.

The applicant's own material identifies Rosebank Street and comparable mid-to-upper north-facing apartments as potentially at risk of view impacts, yet the publicly available material appears to rely in part on desktop or extrapolated assessment rather than verified apartment-specific analysis.

The Department should not determine the application in its current form until the applicant demonstrates, with reliable evidence, that these impacts have been properly assessed and that a less intrusive alternative would not achieve substantially the same housing and public benefits.

I respectfully request that DPHI require:

• Verified photomontages and apartment-specific view-sharing assessments for Unit 22 and representative Rosebank Street apartments.

• Testing of at least one reduced-height, slimmer-massing or increased upper-level setback alternative.

• A transparent comparison between the approved concept, the original SSD application, the amended scheme and any reduced-height alternative.

• Strict RL controls to ensure rooftop plant, screens, lift overruns and other structures cannot later exceed the assessed envelope.

I am not asking the Department to choose between housing and neighbouring amenity. I am asking the Department to require evidence that the current 19-storey form is the least harmful reasonable design outcome before that balance is struck.

A detailed submission containing supporting analysis, photographs and requested conditions is attached for consideration.

I write to formally object to State Significant Development Application SSD-80211463, which proposes a mixed-use development known as "Bayswater" at 164–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo (the proposed development). I am an apartment owner at 137-147 Forbes Street, Woolloomooloo, NSW 2011, and I am directly affected by this proposal.
The scale of the proposed development, in terms of building height, density and visual impact, goes far beyond what any planning instrument permits, and the deficiencies in the environmental assessment are serious. My objections are listed in the attached letter, but also summarised below:
1. The Proposed Heights Are Far Beyond What Planning Controls Allow.
2. The Clause 4.6 Variation Does Not Satisfy the Legal Test.
3. The Development Is Incompatible with Heritage Character and the Local Context.
4. The Assessment Process Lacks Independence.
5. The Housing SEPP Bonus Is Being Used Beyond Its Legislative Intent.
6. Overshadowing of my property, diminishing my enjoyment of the space and my apartment's value.
7. Traffic, Parking and Infrastructure.
8. Noise from Rooftop Communal Areas.

I object to the proposed development on the grounds that it will have a significant adverse impact on the value and marketability of my late mother's unit, which is currently being prepared for sale. A key attribute of the property is its existing view of Sydney Harbour and the Sydney Opera House. These iconic views form an important part of the unit's appeal and contribute substantially to its market value. The proposed building would obstruct or diminish these views, resulting in a material loss of amenity and a likely reduction in the property's sale price. As beneficiaries of my late mother's estate, we are particularly concerned that the development would negatively affect the value of a major estate asset at the time of sale. Prospective purchasers place a premium on harbour and Opera House views, and any loss of these views is likely to reduce buyer interest and the price the property can achieve. I respectfully request that the consent authority give careful consideration to the economic and visual impacts of the proposal on neighbouring properties, including the loss of significant views and the consequent effect on property values. For these reasons, I object to the proposed development and request that the application be refused or modified to preserve the existing views enjoyed by surrounding residents.

Response to re-exhibition – Mixed-use development with in-fill affordable housing at 164-172 and 174-194 William Street, Woolloomooloo (SSD- 80211463)

I own, and have lived at, Unit 46, 1 Tewkesbury Avenue, Darlinghurst, NSW 2010 for 20 years.

I have read the developer’s response to Objections to the above development application.

My principal objection to this proposed development is that it will take away the views of Sydney Harbour, the Opera House, and the Harbour Bridge for THOUSANDS of residents of buildings to the south and east, including those in Tewkesbury, the Top of the Town, the Horizon, the Palisades, Kirketon Manor, Kirketon Towers, and others. The loss of views will substantially reduce the amenity of the many affected local residents and will significantly reduce the value of all of these hundreds/thousands of properties.

It appears that the developers have responded to concerns about the height of the proposed buildings by reducing one building by one storey and increasing another by the same. They have not responded to resident concerns about loss of views and amenity in any meaningful way. They have classified the impact of the development on Tewkesbury as “low” even though 44 of the 70 apartments in the complex will lose their views of the Harbour. On that basis, it would be reasonable to assume that their assessment of loss of amenity for residents in the other buildings mentioned above is also flawed and biased in favour of their proposed development.

This proposed development has been appropriately rejected by the Council of the City of Sydney on a number of occasions over the past ten years because its height is not in accord with the character of the area and with the Council’s reasonable height restrictions. The current application appears to be a cynical attempt to bypass the Council's reasonable planning process and the rights of local residents on the basis of alleged affordable housing which will make up about 5% of the development and only for a limited number of years.



Associate Professor John Raftos MBBS FACEM
46/1 Tewkesbury Avenue, Darlinghurst 2010
Telephone: 0402114906
Email: [email protected]

RE: OBJECTION — SSD-80211463 "Bayswater" — 164–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo

Objector: Jacob Ohlson, Owner — Unit 1210/227 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst NSW 2010

I formally object to this application and request that it be refused, or in the alternative that building heights be reduced to the maximum permitted under the applicable planning controls including the 30% Housing SEPP bonus.

A detailed 12-ground submission is attached as a PDF to this submission. This text summarises the key grounds.

GROUND 1 — THE HEIGHT EXCEEDANCES ARE EXTRAORDINARY

The SLEP 2012 sets a maximum building height of 35m (southern/William Street portion) and 22m (northern/Dowling Street portion). With the 30% Housing SEPP bonus applied for delivering 15% affordable housing, the maximum permitted heights become 45.5m and 28.6m respectively. These are the absolute maximum heights permissible under any available planning instrument.

The proposed development dramatically exceeds these limits. The proponent's own Amended Clause 4.6 Variation Report (Appendix I, Table 2, April 2026) confirms:

William Street East building (William St frontage): proposed 66.1m — breach of 20.6m above SEPP maximum (45.3% breach)
William Street East building (internal park face): proposed 68.8m — breach of 23.3m above SEPP maximum (51.2% breach)
Apex height: RL +89.65
Dowling Street building (NW corner): proposed 35.1m — breach of 6.5m above SEPP maximum (22.7% breach)
The William Street East tower is nearly DOUBLE the base 35m height control. This is not a minor or technical variation. The Concept DA approved by the CSPC on 7 December 2023 (Ref D/2022/139) contemplated a maximum of RL57.9 (33.4m). The proponent is now seeking to relinquish the Concept DA entirely rather than amend it — removing an important safeguard that was subject to community consultation.

GROUND 2 — THE CLAUSE 4.6 VARIATION IS NOT LEGALLY JUSTIFIED

Under Clause 4.6(3) of the SLEP 2012, the proponent must demonstrate both (a) that compliance would be unreasonable or unnecessary, and (b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the breach. Neither limb is satisfied.

The proponent's variation report (Appendix I) relies solely on the argument that concentrating height in the eastern portion of the site produces a "better" outcome than a uniformly applied 30% uplift. This comparison is misconceived. The test is not whether the proposed non-compliant design is better than a hypothetical alternative non-compliant design — it is whether compliance with the 45.5m maximum would be unreasonable. The proponent has not demonstrated this. See Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827.

Grounds (b)–(e) of the variation table are all marked "Not Applicable." There is no exceptional circumstance that justifies a 51% departure above the maximum. The Housing SEPP Clause 16 bonus is the legislature's calibrated response to affordable housing delivery — using Clause 4.6 to go beyond even that SEPP maximum subverts the legislative framework.

GROUND 3 — THE VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT IS DEFICIENT FOR 227 VICTORIA STREET

I reside at Unit 1210 (Level 12) of 227 Victoria Street. The Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) is fundamentally inadequate in its treatment of my property:

No site inspections were conducted. The RTS VIA (Appendix H, p.5) explicitly states: "Urbis have not had the benefit of inspections."
No photomontages were taken from any viewpoint at 227 Victoria Street. All 6 photomontages (VP01–VP06) are from 5–15 Farrell Avenue only.
The unit numbers at 227 Victoria Street were never confirmed. The RTS VIA Table B (p.27) acknowledges: "The level of each objector dwelling is unknown for this RFB. The Urbaine report does not identify unit numbers only levels."
The assessment covered only Levels 5, 7 and 9 at 227 Victoria Street — my unit at Level 12 was never assessed.
The assessments for 227 Victoria St relied on CGI images produced by the applicant's own architects (FJC Studio), not independent photomontages.
The DPHI's own RFI of 19 December 2025 specifically directed the proponent to address impacts at objector buildings including 227 Victoria Street and to provide photomontages. This direction was not complied with. The application cannot be determined on the basis of this deficient assessment.

GROUND 4 — THE IMPACT ON UNIT 1210 HAS BEEN UNDERSTATED

The RTS VIA Table A (p.26) rates Unit 1210 as "low-medium" with "potential blocking of icons in north-westerly views." The icons in question are the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Sydney Opera House — the highest-order scenic icons recognised by the NSW Land and Environment Court. For an elevated Level 12 apartment with a wide arc of views to the north-west, a "low-medium" Tenacity rating is not supportable where blocking of these icons is acknowledged.

The proponent's own Clause 4.6 report (p.19) concedes: "It is acknowledged that a small number of dwellings experience partial view loss to harbour landmarks, including elements of the Sydney Opera House and Sydney Harbour Bridge." This concession in the Clause 4.6 report is inconsistent with the "low-medium" rating assigned in the VIA. On a proper Tenacity analysis (Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140), Unit 1210 would attract a substantially higher rating.

GROUND 5 — CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS

The same firm — Urbis Ltd — prepared the EIS, the original VIA (Appendix S), the "peer review" RTS VIA (Appendix H), both Clause 4.6 Variation Reports (Appendices F, G, I, J), the Heritage Impact Statement (Appendix PP), the Social Impact Assessment (Appendix NN), the Engagement Reports, and the Response to Submissions. A firm cannot peer-review its own work.

The DPHI identified concerns with the original VIA and issued an RFI in December 2025. The proponent engaged the same firm to respond. The deficiencies in the assessment of 227 Victoria Street have not been remedied. Independent assessment is required.

GROUND 6 — HERITAGE AND CHARACTER IMPACTS

The site directly adjoins the Woolloomooloo Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) on its northern boundary. SLEP 2012 Clause 4.3(b) requires appropriate height transitions to adjoining heritage areas. A 68.8m tower adjacent to a neighbourhood of Victorian terrace houses does not meet this objective. The Heritage Impact Statement was prepared by Urbis — no independent heritage advice has been obtained.

GROUND 7 — HOUSING SEPP BONUS USED BEYOND LEGISLATIVE INTENT

The 30% Housing SEPP bonus is the legislature's calibrated response for affordable housing delivery. The proponent has fully utilised that bonus (lifting heights from 35m to 45.5m) and then separately seeks Clause 4.6 to exceed even the SEPP maximum. The affordable housing component (58 dwellings, 15.1% GFA) is the price of the SEPP uplift — it cannot simultaneously justify an additional 45–51% exceedance above the uplifted maximum. This "double uplift" was not contemplated by the legislature and would, if permitted, render SEPP height maximums meaningless.

GROUND 8 — WIND IMPACTS

The proponent's Clause 4.6 report (p.17) acknowledges the proposed scheme "results in a slight reduction in average pedestrian comfort when compared with the approved concept envelope" and that "localised increases in wind speed at laneway entrances" occur. The central plaza requires mitigation measures to achieve acceptable conditions. These are direct consequences of the height exceedances and weigh against granting the variation.

REQUESTS

I request that the Department:

Refuse the application, or require building heights to be reduced to the 45.5m maximum (William Street) and 28.6m maximum (Dowling Street) permitted under the SLEP 2012 and Housing SEPP;
Refuse the Clause 4.6 height variation, which does not satisfy the legal test;
Commission an independent Visual Impact Assessment from an unconflicted firm, including photomontages taken from within Unit 1210/227 Victoria Street at Level 12;
Require independent heritage advice on the impact on the Woolloomooloo HCA;
Notify me of any determination of this application.
I reserve the right to supplement this submission with additional technical and legal evidence prior to determination. A detailed 12-ground submission with full citations to the application documents is attached.

I object to this increase in height. I am in favour of some development but the City of Sydney and builders and approvers are making a MASSIVE mistake by making this building go too high. It needs to be shortened substantially and will dramatically alter the look and feel of the place and neighbourhood for the worse.

The original project was objectionable as being too high and not providing enough affordable housing (see my original comments).
The changes just published are even more objectionable:
- increase the height of the William Street East building by 3.3m to 68.8m.
- reduce the number of affordable housing apartments from 60 to 58.
These changes are outrageous adn show complete disregard towards the opnions and wishes of the local community.

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

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

The height of this development is outside regulations. My apartment wil lose iconic views of both parts of the skyline as well as the visual amenity of the green space of the domain.
I object to this proposal in its current excessive design

RE: Objection — SSD-80211463 "Bayswater", 164–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo
From: Owner — Unit 1105, Top of the Town, 227 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst NSW 2010 Date: 17th of June 2026
Dear Assessment Officer,
I write to formally object to SSD-80211463 and request that the application be refused, or that building heights be substantially reduced to comply with the planning controls applicable to this site.

I am the owner of Unit 1105 at 227 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst — an 11th-floor apartment in the Top of the Town building, located immediately uphill and south of the proposed development site. I am directly affected by this proposal.

GROUND 1 — THE PROPOSED HEIGHTS ARE UNLAWFUL WITHOUT A VALID CLAUSE 4.6 VARIATION

The Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 (SLEP 2012) sets a maximum building height of 35 metres for the southern (William Street) portion of the site, and 22 metres for the northern (Dowling Street) portion. With the 30% bonus available under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 — which requires delivery of at least 15% of gross floor area as affordable housing managed by a registered community housing provider for 15 years — the maximum permissible heights become 45.5 metres and 28.6 metres respectively.

The proposed development dramatically exceeds these maximums. The proponent's own Amended Clause 4.6 Variation Report (Appendix I, Table 2, April 2026) discloses:

— William Street East building (street frontage): 66.1 m proposed / 45.5 m permitted / breach of +20.6 m (45.3% above maximum) — William Street East building (internal park frontage): 68.8 m proposed / 45.5 m permitted / breach of +23.3 m (51.2% above maximum) — Dowling Street building (NW corner): 35.1 m proposed / 28.6 m permitted / breach of +6.5 m (22.7% above maximum)

The tallest building reaches an apex of RL +89.65. It is nearly double the base 35-metre SLEP height limit. This is not a minor or technical departure. The original Concept DA approved by the Central Sydney Planning Committee on 7 December 2023 (Ref: D/2022/139) contemplated a maximum height of only RL57.9 (33.4 metres) with buildings of 5, 6 and 10 storeys. Rather than amending that Concept DA to reflect the much larger proposal, the proponent is seeking to relinquish it entirely.

GROUND 2 — THE CLAUSE 4.6 VARIATION FAILS THE LEGAL TEST

The proponent requires a Clause 4.6 variation because the proposed heights exceed even the maximum already granted by the Housing SEPP. Under Clause 4.6(3) of the SLEP 2012, the proponent must demonstrate (a) that compliance with the height standard would be unreasonable or unnecessary, and (b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the standard.

The proponent's case rests entirely on the argument that concentrating height in the eastern portion of the site is "better" than applying a uniform 30% uplift. This comparison is misconceived. The relevant test is not whether the proposed design is preferable to a hypothetical alternative non-compliant design. The test is whether compliance with the 45.5-metre maximum would be unreasonable or unnecessary — and this has not been demonstrated. The proponent's Clause 4.6 report marks grounds (b) through (e) of the variation framework as "Not Applicable," effectively conceding there are no exceptional circumstances.

Furthermore, the Housing SEPP's Clause 16 bonus is the legislature's specific, calibrated mechanism for rewarding affordable housing delivery with increased height. Using Clause 4.6 to then exceed even that maximum undermines the SEPP framework. If this approach is permitted, the Housing SEPP height caps become meaningless — any developer who meets the affordable housing threshold could then argue for unlimited additional height through Clause 4.6. This was plainly not Parliament's intent.

GROUND 3 — HERITAGE AND CHARACTER IMPACTS

The site directly adjoins the Woolloomooloo Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) on its northern boundary. SLEP 2012 Clause 4.3(b) requires that new development ensure appropriate height transitions to adjoining heritage items and conservation areas. A tower of 68.8 metres placed immediately adjacent to a neighbourhood of Victorian terrace houses and former warehouses is not an appropriate transition — the scale difference is not a matter of degree, it is categorical.

The Heritage Impact Statement submitted with this application was prepared by Urbis Ltd, the same firm engaged to prepare the EIS, both Clause 4.6 variation reports, and the Response to Submissions. This lack of independence undermines confidence in the conclusion that heritage impacts are acceptable. Independent heritage advice should be obtained before any determination.

GROUND 4 — THE VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT IS DEFICIENT

The Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) produced for this application has significant methodological deficiencies. The Response to Submissions VIA (Appendix H, p.5) acknowledges that assessments of 227 Victoria Street were conducted without site inspections. The assessment relied on computer-generated images produced by the applicant's own architects rather than independent photomontages. The original VIA did not confirm unit numbers — only floor levels — meaning it is impossible to verify that any specific unit in our building was properly assessed.

The Department's own Request for Further Information (19 December 2025) directed the proponent to address view loss impacts at objector buildings including 227 Victoria Street and to provide photomontages. No photomontages were prepared from any viewpoint at 227 Victoria Street. The Department's direction was not complied with.

As a resident, I have elevated northerly and north-westerly views that include aspects of Sydney Harbour on level 6, the city skyline and surrounding residential areas. The visual impact of an 18-storey tower at 68.8 metres on these views has not been independently or properly assessed. All six photomontages in the updated VIA were taken from 5–15 Farrell Avenue — a different building entirely. The proponent cannot claim to have assessed the impact on Top of the Town residents without having visited, photographed or modelled views from our building. I'm certain it will destory our view of the Sydney Harbour.

GROUND 5 — CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND LACK OF INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT

Multiple further development applications are currently in the planning pipeline in the immediate vicinity — including SSD-78363487 at 134 William Street, Woolloomooloo, and SSD-84718460 at 203–225 Victoria Street, Potts Point. The cumulative visual, traffic and infrastructure impacts of these developments have not been comprehensively assessed.

I am also deeply concerned that a single consultancy — Urbis Ltd — prepared virtually every technical report in this application, including the EIS, both VIAs, both Clause 4.6 variation reports, the heritage assessment, the social impact assessment, and the Response to Submissions. Genuine independent review is essential for a development of this scale seeking these extraordinary departures from planning standards.

REQUESTS
I request that the Department:
Refuse this application, or require heights to be reduced to the 45.5m (south) and 28.6m (north) maximums permitted under the SLEP 2012 and Housing SEPP;
Refuse the Clause 4.6 height variation, which does not satisfy the legal test;
Require an independent Visual Impact Assessment, including photomontages from within 227 Victoria Street at Level 6 (shared floor of our harbour views) and nearby levels;
Obtain independent heritage advice regarding the Woolloomooloo HCA; and
Notify me of any determination.
The proposed development exceeds its height controls by more than 50%, has been assessed without genuine independence, and has not properly addressed the impacts on residents of 227 Victoria Street. I urge the Department to refuse this application.

Yours sincerely, Owner Unit 1105, Top of the Town 227 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst NSW 2010.