I object to the proposed mixed-use development at 160 Oxford Street, Paddington.

While I recognise the importance of increasing housing supply, this proposal appears to be out of scale with the surrounding character of Paddington. The height, bulk, and density of the development risk overwhelming the existing streetscape and may negatively impact the heritage character that makes this area unique.

The proposal may also increase traffic congestion and place additional pressure on already limited parking, local roads, and public transport infrastructure. Oxford Street and surrounding streets already experience significant traffic and pedestrian activity, and further intensification without adequate infrastructure upgrades could reduce safety and amenity for residents and visitors.

Additionally, the development may create overshadowing and privacy impacts for neighbouring properties, reducing

I write to formally object to the proposed tower development on Oxford Street, Paddington.

This proposal raises significant concerns regarding the character of the area, housing outcomes and planning integrity.

1. Loss of Affordable Housing

The proposal appears to involve the removal of existing affordable housing without clear and equivalent replacement. At a time when Sydney is facing a significant housing affordability crisis, the loss of established affordable dwellings is a serious concern. Planning decisions should prioritise the protection and expansion of affordable housing stock, not facilitate its removal.

2. Inconsistent Scale and Built Form

Paddington is a suburb defined by its low-rise terrace housing, heritage streetscapes and village-scale built form. Introducing a large tower development on Oxford Street is inconsistent with the established character of the area and risks permanently altering the scale and visual identity of the precinct.

The height and bulk proposed appear excessive relative to surrounding development and would set an undesirable precedent for further overdevelopment along Oxford Street.

3. Heritage and Streetscape Impact

Paddington is one of Sydney’s most historically significant suburbs. Development within or adjacent to heritage areas must be carefully managed to ensure the historic character and streetscape are not undermined. A tower of this scale risks dominating nearby heritage buildings and eroding the historic fabric of the neighbourhood.

4. Local Amenity Impacts

Developments of this scale can create significant impacts including:
• Overshadowing of neighbouring properties and public spaces
• Increased traffic and congestion along Oxford Street and surrounding streets
• Increased pressure on already constrained local infrastructure and parking
• Wind and microclimate impacts typical of tower developments

These impacts appear disproportionate to the benefits claimed by the proposal.

5. Precedent for Future Development

Approving a tower development in this location risks setting a precedent for similar developments along Oxford Street, which would fundamentally transform the character of Paddington over time.

Please refer attached objection letter

Ref: Application Number. SSD-97528708
 
Proposed 160 Oxford Street development. 

My main concerns are:

Affordable housing
The development amounts to a reduction in the number of affordable dwellings, from 27 studio apartments to 10 allegedly affordable apartments. The new apartments will be far more expensive to rent than those they replace. At a community consultation, the developer of another proposed development admitted that in Paddington they couldn’t offer rents that conformed to the Low and Moderate Income Rental Housing Policy. Resulting rents are likely to be well above affordable levels for low-income households.
 
Amenity, heritage and local character
The proposal does not respect amenity, heritage and local character. Conservation measures supported by Heritage NSW and local councils should be followed. New developments should be in harmony with the character of their areas. The portal is too big and insensitively designed.

I am writing in strong opposition to the proposed SSD at 160 Oxford Street.
While there is clearly a need for more low-cost housing in Paddington, we need to ensure it means we can have emergency workers, hospital staff, retail workers, students etc as part of our rich community.
This development represents a net loss of affordable housing for our neighbourhood. The proposed “affordable” housing (I believe around 15 apartments) is to be 20% below market which in Paddington will not make it affordable to the type of neighbours we need mentioned above. It will also only be “affordable’ for 15 years. Any new development needs to consider the future of the neighbourhood by making affordable housing permanent.
It will also mean the loss of the 27 genuinely affordable studios, its this type of housing that we need to keep a balanced community and the right people to service the businesses, education and healthcare we need.
Successful development enhances the locality and community and this proposed development achieves neither, it removes the kind of housing we need and is completely out of scale at 8 storeys.
This area of Paddington and Paddington Village in particular is a unique environment, I understand it to be the oldest Victorian village in Australia, this will negatively impact the neighbourhood due to its scale. The Heritage Impact Statement addresses the Barracks over the road but completely ignores the village over which it will dominate. Its is completely out of scale with any surrounding buildings and completely out of character.
As a resident of the village for over ten years, I know the area and our neighbours’ homes intimately. I find many of the renders, and artists impressions misleading in terms of impact. I can see why the developer would present them like this, in their favour but it takes only a quick look at street level to see they are a gross misrepresentation.
We are a neighbourhood of mostly 2 or 3 story dwellings, and this property will over look and see into the (small) gardens and windows of many of its inhabitants.
For the reasons above, and many others which I am sure my neighbours will put forward, the development is strongly objected to in its current form.
For the reasons above, and many others which I am sure my neighbours will put forward, the development is strongly objected to in its current form.

On behalf of the property owner at 8 Shadforth Street Paddington, I wish to submit an objection to the above-referred application.

The application has not adequately considered within its design and justification the following core concerns;
A - The Development Does Not Genuinely Qualify for SSD Status
B - The Affordable Housing Component Worsens the Housing Crisis and Misuses the SEPP
C - Excavation Depth and Structural Risk to neighbouring properties
D - Impact to the Heritage Fabric - the First 8-Storey Development in Paddington in 50 Years
E - The Basement Car Park Design requires clarification
F - Traffic and Construction Impacts

We request you acknowledge this submission in reply and the applicant address the above concerns and that you update as it progresses.

How is this proposal fair or equitable? Is this in the public interest to demolish 27 affordable studios and replace them with 30 luxury apartments and 10 supposedly affordable apartments that will only be offered at a reduction of market rent (the developers say the rent will be up to 85% of market price - page 16 EIS) for 15 years?

Which essential works are going to be able to afford 85% of the market rent for apartments in Paddington?

The 10 “affordable” apartments are all located on the lower floors, are smaller in size and face Oxford St so as well as being smaller, they will be subject to much more noise than the build to sell apartments.
The for sale 1B apartments are 53, 63 and 67m2. The 5 x 1B affordable apartments are all very small at 50m2.
The for sale 2 B apartments are all located at the rear of the building where they will not have the street noise impact and are 83m2.
The 4 x affordable 2 B apartments are at the front of the building and are 72, 73, 76 and 77 m2. This is up to 10m2 smaller.
There is only 1 x 3B affordable apartment which is also the smallest 3B apartment in the development.
83 underground parking spaces for 40 apartments? Why do they need so many? Will any of the ‘affordable’ apartments have car spaces?

The agreement to allow 30% extra height and GFA should require the affordable apartments to actually have the same amenity as the for sale apartments and at an affordable rent. This is NOT the case in this proposal.

Paddington is one of the very few environments where there has been a long history of preservation of heritage properties. This proposal is totally out of character with the surrounding heritage properties and should not be allowed.

Dear sir/madam,
Please find my letter of objection attached.
Yours sincerely,
Lucy Wheatley