OBJECTION: 160 Oxford St Paddington

Dear Victor,

I will keep this short. We cannot transform the heritage suburb of Paddington into another eye sore full of tasteless high rises like Zetland. The proposed development along Oxford Street is completely wrong in both scale and aesthetic, and agreeing to this proposal would be a tragic outcome for the broader Sydney community.

Also, the developers 'affordable housing' plan is laughable given it is literally ripping out 27 affordable studio apartments for luxury homes. Make it make sense.

I urge you and the department to please deny this proposal.

Thank you,

160 Oxford Street – State Significant Development SSD-97528708

We lodge our objection to this application. SSD-97528708 Mixed use development with infill affordable housing - 160 Oxford Street, Paddington.
 
Our reasons mirror our concerns about a similar proposal at 8-10 New McLean Street, Edgecliff, for which we will also be making a submission.
Firstly, the bulk, scale and design of the 160 Oxford Street proposal are totally out-of-keeping with its immediate surroundings which are an integral part of the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area.
It will detract from the visual appearance and amenity of Little Paddington, an historic pocket of Sydney directly opposite Victoria Barracks and surrounded by original terrace houses.
We know this area well, having lived in upper Glenmore Road for eight years in the 1980s. We lived in a terrace house from the mid-1800s said to be built for the victualling sergeant at Victoria Barracks. Next door was a former grocery shop that served families from the Barracks who lived nearby. Both of these houses and the adjoining terraces retain their historic street appearance.
The unique charm of this part of Paddington will be lost forever if the proposed building goes ahead.
Its eight storeys (30m height) and overall bulk will dominate the skyline and intrude on the streetscapes of Oxford Street, Shadforth Street and the local neighbourhood. In particular, it will present a visual confrontation to the elegance of Victoria Barracks directly across the road. The large, excavated car park (four levels/83 cars) indicates that the building’s residents will add substantially to traffic congestion in the area.
In our view, large multi-storey buildings with large car-parking capacity should not be allowed within the traditional Paddington & Woollahra environs. Of course, there are existing multi-storey buildings in these areas, mostly built around the 1960s, but they are out of place and have not blended in over time. We should learn from past mistakes – not repeat them.
If there is a pressing need to update the current building and its amenities, this option should be explored. The recently completed The Olympia further down Oxford Street is a very good example of sympathetic building refurbishment.
Secondly, the developer is clearly taking full advantage of the State Government’s policy to allow a substantial 30% increase in height in return for providing a modest number of affordable housing units for a limited time.
In this case, the developer intends to knock down 27 affordable housing units and replace them with just 10 to be let out at 20% lower than market rent for 15 years, still a significant expense for low income renters in this area. As at New McLean Street, the developer expects to gain significantly greater space to sell for high prices while actually reducing the number of affordable housing units. It’s to be expected that developers will take every opportunity to maximise their return but in these cases the outcome is a perversion of public policy intent. Instead of helping low-income people, it is actually reducing opportunities for them to access affordable housing.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment.
Madeleine & Duncan Fairweather
9 Roylston Street, Paddington 2021
15 March 2026

Paddington is a historic village and I thought it had heritage protection. This is one of the reasons I moved here, first as a renter and then as an owner.
Secondly, this development does not seem to reference existing buildings at all. The current flat building is also unattractive, but it blends in because it is not very large.
Please think of the urban landscape for future generations. Even though we have a housing shortage, we are a first world country and should be able to look after the aesthetics of our cities.

Excessive height: The 14 level tower is "wholly inconsistent" with Paddington’s 2-4 storey heritage character. It will dominate the streetscape and cause significant overshadowing of public spaces.
Net Loss of Affordable Housing: Demolishing 27 existing affordable studios to build 40 luxury apartments results in a net loss of low-cost housing for the community.
Infrastructure & Heritage Risk: The two-level basement excavation threatens the historic Busby’s Bore and will create unacceptable traffic congestion on narrow local streets like Shadforth and Gipps.

I object very strongly to this project. The height is totally inconsistent with the heritage of Paddington and will result in overshading and loss of privacy. Paddington's heritages is unique and draws tourists to the area to enjoy it, this will be a permanent loss clearly evident from the much trafficked Oxford Street. The size and scale of the project is extremely excessive, adding further congestion and chaos to traffic in this busy precinct, as well parking nightmares. To include "affordable housing" in the project title makes a sham of the need for true "affordable housing" despite government legislation. This is unnecessary housing for the wealthy and does not in any way address the need the shortage of affordable housing crisis in our city and country

OBJECTION

reference: SSD-97528708 Mixed use development with infill affordable housing - 160 Oxford Street, Paddington.

My family has resided in Paddington for over 40 years. Among the attractions of making Paddington our home are the wonderful heritage buildings, its history, its parks and leafy streets, and its village and community atmosphere. The proposal to redevelop the site around 160 Oxford St has filled me with dismay. My concerns include:

- there has been a lack of community consultation on the proposed delevopment. Many of my neighbours are completely unaware of it. In addition the time to make submissions is too short ( I am emailing this from overseas as I will not be back in time to submit it from home).
- The height and bulk of the proposed building is completely inappropriate for Paddington, particularly in this area with surrounding 1840s sandstone and timber workers cottages which will almost certainly be overshadowed. There is no other building of this height and scale in the area, and furthermore, if it proceeds it opens the door for similar proposals. This will completely destroy the very precious heritage and uniqueness which is Paddington, not just for its residents but for all future generations. Once it is gone, it is gone forever. The Paddington Heritage Conservation Area must be protected.
- I understand that the proposal seeks a building height of 32.4 m. This is 22.9 m above the LEP height control of 9.5 m. It is also 4 m higher than the 28.4 m maximum height permitted under the Housing State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) using the non-discretionary development standard (the “non-refusal” provision). This raises concerns that the proposed development’s bulk, scale and heritage impacts may be inadequately assessed and are inappropriate for the area.
- If the proposal proceeds, I understand that more than 20 trucks a day will be entering into the already congested area around the intersection of Oxford Street and Glenmore Road. Glenmore Road is one of the main arterial roads running through Paddington. It is inconceivable how local traffic can continue to function with this disruption. In addition, on either side of the Glenmore Road/Oxford Street area, there are parklets where people currently sit outside and enjoy food and beverages. The proposal will severely impact their ability to do so and the enjoyment of village life in general.
- I further understand that there are 83 private car spaces on 4 basement levels in the development proposal. The implications of this on already strained traffic flow along Glenmore Road into Oxford Street is mind-boggling. Traffic will be grid locked!
- One of the joys of Paddington is its diversity. Over the years this has been diminished. If this proposal proceeds it will further reduce diversity in Paddington by decreasing truly affordable housing. Even using the government’s own definition of affordable housing there will only be 10 such apartments which is 17 less than the current number. The affordability of the remaining apartments will be out of reach of most people, particularly the two penthouse apartments with private swimming pools. Again, this will completely change the small scale village atmosphere of Paddington and reduce diversity.
- Lastly, I also have great concern for the impact any building works will have on the health of the wonderful trees which are in close proximity to the proposed development.

Please do not allow this development proposal to proceed!

I oppose the proposed development because it will have a major negative impact on the heritage precinct, with Victoria Barracks directly opposite and small cottages behind which were built for those who worked on constructing the Barracks. The scale is excessive and completely out of keeping with the area. Nor can it be justified as providing affordable housing as it will result in a 63% reduction in the number of affordable units, to just 10.

Re: SSD-97528708, Mixed Use Development, 160 Oxford Street, Paddington

I am a Paddington resident and I object to this proposal. It should be refused in its current form for the following reasons.

It destroys affordable housing under the guise of delivering it. The site currently provides approximately 27 genuinely affordable studio apartments. This proposal replaces them with only 10 “affordable” units, resulting in a net loss of around 17 affordable dwellings in one of Sydney’s tightest rental markets. This directly contradicts the stated purpose of the Infill Affordable Housing SEPP provisions being used to justify the SSD pathway. The developer is exploiting an affordable housing policy to deliver a predominantly luxury outcome.

The scale is grossly incompatible with the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area. An 8-storey tower with 4 levels of excavated basement car parking has no precedent on this stretch of Oxford Street and is completely out of character with the surrounding 1 to 2 storey Victorian terraces and workers’ cottages of Little Paddington Village. This area has been largely intact since the 1840s. The bulk and height would exceed even St Vincent’s Hospital opposite and set an irreversible precedent for further high-rise approvals across similarly zoned Paddington sites.

Congestion and infrastructure impacts are unacceptable. Oxford Street is already severely congested, with TfNSW concurrently proposing to reduce traffic lanes for a cycleway. Adding 83 car parking spaces accessed via narrow surrounding streets, including Gipps, Shadforth and Bethel Lane, will compound traffic, reduce safety and create years of construction disruption for residents and local businesses. The surrounding road network simply cannot absorb this.

The net housing contribution is negligible for the harm caused. Once the existing studios and terraces are demolished, the development delivers a net increase of approximately 8 dwellings, while requiring a 9-level structure with 5 swimming pools and 4 basement levels. This is not a meaningful contribution to housing supply. It is an outsized development for a marginal uplift.
I urge the Department to refuse this application, or at minimum refer it to the Independent Planning Commission for determination.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

I would like to write to OBJECT to proposed development at 160 Oxford St, Paddington.
Not only is the proposed development completetly oversized and inappropriate, it is in no way sympathetic to the homes in the surrounding heritage suburb. It is being proposed under the "affordable housing" pretence but in no way is the housing going to be affordable. You are getting rid of existing apartments that actually DO fit the affordable house mandate, for apartments with penthouse pools.
If it does go ahead, the small suburban streets of Paddington do NOT have the capacity to accomodate heavy vehicles

This is not a decision that can be undone. Once Paddington's heritage is gone, it is gone forever — and that is precisely why I urge the planning authority to reject this application in its entirety.

Paddington is one of Sydney's most treasured historic suburbs. Its Victorian and Edwardian terraces, its leafy laneways, its human-scale streetscape — these are not incidental features of the neighbourhood. They are the neighbourhood. They are the reason families choose to raise their children here. They are the reason visitors from across Australia and around the world make Paddington a destination. They are irreplaceable, and they are under direct threat from this proposal.

HERITAGE CHARACTER — AN IRREVERSIBLE LOSS

Paddington's heritage character is not merely aesthetic. It is cultural, historical and civic. The suburb represents one of the finest intact examples of 19th century urban residential development in Australia. Generations of Sydneysiders have fought to preserve it precisely because they understood what would be lost if they did not.

This community has been here before. Residents of Paddington have previously faced down attempts to introduce incompatible development into our historic streetscape — and only through determined, organised community opposition was that threat defeated. We remember. We are organised again. And we are just as determined.

The proposed development is fundamentally incompatible with the heritage character of this area. Its scale, massing and design language bear no relationship to the low-rise Victorian terrace houses that define Paddington's streets. Approving it would not simply alter one site — it would set an irreversible precedent that signals to developers across Sydney that Paddington's heritage protections can be overcome. That signal, once sent, cannot be recalled.

Once a heritage streetscape is lost to overdevelopment, no future planning decision can restore it. The terraces demolished for a high-rise do not come back. The sight lines obliterated by a tower block cannot be recovered. The human scale of a historic street, once broken, is broken permanently. This authority has the power to prevent that outcome. It must do so.

OVERSHADOWING AND LOSS OF PRIVACY

The immediate neighbours of this proposed development face unacceptable impacts on their daily lives and the amenity of their homes. The proposed building height and bulk will cast significant shadows across adjoining properties for large parts of the day — robbing residents of natural light in their gardens, courtyards and living spaces that they have every right to enjoy.

The overlooking impacts are equally serious. The elevated position and scale of the proposed development means that residents of neighbouring properties will lose meaningful privacy in their outdoor spaces and within their homes. This is not a minor inconvenience. For families with children, for older residents, for anyone who values the ability to live in their home without being observed from above, this represents a profound and permanent reduction in quality of life.

These impacts fall disproportionately on long-standing residents who invested in their homes and their community on the understanding that the planning framework would protect the character of the neighbourhood. To approve this development would be to break faith with those residents.

TRAFFIC AND PARKING — A SUBURB ALREADY UNDER PRESSURE

Paddington's streets were not designed to accommodate the traffic volumes that the modern city generates. They are narrow, they are historic, and they are already under significant pressure from existing residential and commercial demand. Parking in the area is a daily challenge for residents and visitors alike.

The proposed development will materially worsen both problems. The additional vehicle movements generated by this development will push already-congested local streets beyond their capacity. Delivery vehicles, construction traffic, and the ongoing traffic associated with a larger residential population will compound the existing difficulties. There is no realistic plan presented by the applicant that adequately addresses these impacts, because there is no adequate solution to be found — the streets simply cannot absorb what this development would add.

Parking displacement is a related and serious concern. When the development's residents and visitors are unable to park on site — as will inevitably occur — they will compete for the limited on-street parking that existing residents depend upon. This is not a hypothetical problem. It is the predictable and well-documented consequence of approving high-density development in areas with constrained street infrastructure.

YEARS OF CONSTRUCTION DISRUPTION

The residents who would bear the immediate brunt of this approval are those who live closest to the proposed site. They face not a brief inconvenience but years of severe disruption — heavy construction vehicles on narrow residential streets, noise at the limits of what planning regulations permit, vibration impacts on heritage buildings that were not constructed to withstand them, dust, and the daily intrusion of a major building site into what is currently a quiet residential neighbourhood.

Heritage buildings are particularly vulnerable to the vibration and ground movement associated with major construction. The risk of damage to neighbouring terraces — some of which are among the finest examples of their era in Sydney — is real and significant. The applicant's documentation does not adequately address this risk, and the residents who would bear the consequences deserve a far more rigorous analysis before any approval is contemplated.

For families with young children, for residents who work from home, for older and disabled residents with health conditions exacerbated by noise and disruption — the human cost of years of heavy construction in a dense residential neighbourhood is substantial. It deserves to be weighed seriously.

PRECEDENT AND THE FLOODGATES CONCERN

I want to be direct about what is truly at stake in this decision, because I believe the planning authority must confront it plainly.

Paddington and surrounding areas have already seen significant rezoning that has increased development pressure across the suburb. Developers are watching this application closely. The outcome here will be read as a signal — either that Paddington's heritage protections are real and will be upheld, or that they are negotiable and can be overcome with a sufficiently ambitious application.

If this development is approved, it will not be the last. The precedent created will be cited in the next application, and the one after that. Each approval makes the next one easier to argue for. The cumulative effect — which must be considered now, because it cannot be undone later — would be the systematic erosion of the low-rise heritage streetscape that makes Paddington what it is.

This is not a hypothetical trajectory. It has happened in suburb after suburb across Australian cities. Communities that did not act when they had the chance watched their neighbourhood character dissolve over a decade of incremental approvals, each one justified by pointing to the last. Paddington has already fought this battle once and won. We should not have to fight it again — but we will, as many times as necessary.

The planning authority, however, has the power to prevent the battle from being necessary. By refusing this application clearly and on principled grounds, it can send the signal that Paddington's heritage character is not available for compromise.

PADDINGTON'S VALUE TO SYDNEY

I want to close by speaking to something that transcends the immediate impacts on the residents immediately affected, important as those are.

Paddington is not just a neighbourhood. It is one of Sydney's great civic assets. It attracts tourists, it anchors the identity of the inner east, it provides Sydney with something that most global cities have lost and cannot recover — a genuine, intact, lived-in historic district. The terraces on its streets are not museum pieces. They are homes, and the families in them are part of a living community with deep roots.

That community sustains local businesses, local schools, local institutions. It generates enormous economic value for the broader city through tourism and the creative industries that cluster in the area. It provides Sydney with a narrative about its own past that is available to everyone who walks its streets.

All of that is at risk if the planning framework fails to hold the line. The character that draws people to Paddington — as residents, as visitors, as investors in the local economy — is precisely the low-rise, human-scale, heritage-rich environment that this development would damage.

FOR THESE REASONS, I respectfully but firmly urge you to refuse this application. I urge you to do so on clear and principled grounds that affirm the primacy of heritage protection, neighbourhood amenity, and the legitimate expectations of existing residents. I urge it to consider not only the immediate impacts of this single development but the precedent its approval would set and the cumulative harm that would flow from that precedent.