Tyson Sumich
Object
Tyson Sumich
Object
PADDINGTON
,
New South Wales
Message
Submission of Objection – Proposed Development at 160 Oxford Street, Paddington
To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development at 160 Oxford Street, Paddington. After reviewing the proposal and the concerns raised by community organisations and residents, I strongly believe the development should not proceed in its current form.
1. Loss of Existing Affordable Housing
One of the most significant concerns is that the proposal results in a net loss of affordable housing. The current site includes approximately 27 existing affordable studio apartments. Under the proposal, only around 10–12 affordable apartments would be provided within the new development. This would result in the loss of approximately 15–17 genuinely affordable homes in the local area. (The Paddington Society)
In a suburb such as Paddington, where housing affordability is already severely constrained, removing existing affordable housing undermines the stated objective of increasing housing accessibility and diversity. Replacing affordable dwellings with fewer “discounted” units does not meaningfully address the housing crisis and may instead accelerate the loss of lower-cost housing in inner-city Sydney.
2. Inappropriate Scale and Bulk for the Heritage Context
The proposal includes construction of an eight-storey (nine-level) mixed-use building with multiple basement levels for parking. (The Paddington Society)
This scale is fundamentally incompatible with the surrounding built form of Paddington, which is characterised by low-rise Victorian terraces, cottages, and historically significant streetscapes. An eight-storey building would dramatically alter the visual character of the precinct and create a dominant structure that is inconsistent with the scale of surrounding heritage buildings.
The site sits within the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area, an area valued for its intact historic character. Large-scale redevelopment risks eroding the distinctive architectural identity that defines Paddington and attracts residents and visitors alike.
3. Destruction of Historically Significant Buildings
The proposal involves demolition of multiple existing structures across Oxford Street, Gipps Street, and Shadforth Street. (The Paddington Society)
These buildings form part of the historic Little Paddington Village, an early settlement area established on land originally granted to the Australian Subscription Library in 1840. The cottages in this precinct were built to house tradespeople who worked on the construction of the nearby Victoria Barracks and represent an important part of Paddington’s social and architectural history. (The Paddington Society)
Demolishing buildings within such a historically significant precinct undermines heritage conservation principles and risks permanently erasing important cultural and architectural assets.
4. Excavation, Traffic, and Amenity Impacts
The proposed development includes four levels of basement excavation for car parking. (The Paddington Society)
Such large-scale excavation within a dense heritage neighbourhood raises concerns regarding construction impacts, traffic congestion, noise, and disruption to nearby residents. The increased residential density and parking capacity would also place additional pressure on already constrained local streets and infrastructure.
5. Impacts on Streetscape, Trees and Public Space
The development would significantly alter the character of Oxford Street through its height, massing and design. Community concerns have also been raised regarding potential impacts on the area’s iconic plane trees and jacaranda trees along Oxford Street. (The Paddington Society)
Overshadowing of public space and surrounding buildings would further diminish the amenity of the street and surrounding neighbourhood.
6. Lack of Adequate Community Consultation
Residents have also expressed concern about the limited opportunity for community engagement in the planning process. The proposal is being assessed as a State Significant Development, which reduces the role of local council and can limit meaningful community input. (The Paddington Society)
In addition, concerns have been raised that the exhibition period may occur during the holiday season, reducing the ability of residents and stakeholders to properly review and respond to the proposal.
7. Precedent for Future Overdevelopment
Approving a development of this scale within the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area would set a dangerous precedent for future developments. If permitted, it could encourage further high-rise redevelopment that gradually erodes the heritage character and human scale of Paddington.
Conclusion
For these reasons namely the net loss of affordable housing, the excessive scale and bulk of the building, the demolition of historically significant structures, the impact on the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area, and insufficient community consultation I respectfully request that the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure reject the proposed development at 160 Oxford Street in its current form.
Paddington is one of Sydney’s most historically and culturally significant suburbs. Development should respect and protect its heritage, community character, and existing affordable housing rather than undermine them.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Yours sincerely,
Tyson Sumich
To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development at 160 Oxford Street, Paddington. After reviewing the proposal and the concerns raised by community organisations and residents, I strongly believe the development should not proceed in its current form.
1. Loss of Existing Affordable Housing
One of the most significant concerns is that the proposal results in a net loss of affordable housing. The current site includes approximately 27 existing affordable studio apartments. Under the proposal, only around 10–12 affordable apartments would be provided within the new development. This would result in the loss of approximately 15–17 genuinely affordable homes in the local area. (The Paddington Society)
In a suburb such as Paddington, where housing affordability is already severely constrained, removing existing affordable housing undermines the stated objective of increasing housing accessibility and diversity. Replacing affordable dwellings with fewer “discounted” units does not meaningfully address the housing crisis and may instead accelerate the loss of lower-cost housing in inner-city Sydney.
2. Inappropriate Scale and Bulk for the Heritage Context
The proposal includes construction of an eight-storey (nine-level) mixed-use building with multiple basement levels for parking. (The Paddington Society)
This scale is fundamentally incompatible with the surrounding built form of Paddington, which is characterised by low-rise Victorian terraces, cottages, and historically significant streetscapes. An eight-storey building would dramatically alter the visual character of the precinct and create a dominant structure that is inconsistent with the scale of surrounding heritage buildings.
The site sits within the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area, an area valued for its intact historic character. Large-scale redevelopment risks eroding the distinctive architectural identity that defines Paddington and attracts residents and visitors alike.
3. Destruction of Historically Significant Buildings
The proposal involves demolition of multiple existing structures across Oxford Street, Gipps Street, and Shadforth Street. (The Paddington Society)
These buildings form part of the historic Little Paddington Village, an early settlement area established on land originally granted to the Australian Subscription Library in 1840. The cottages in this precinct were built to house tradespeople who worked on the construction of the nearby Victoria Barracks and represent an important part of Paddington’s social and architectural history. (The Paddington Society)
Demolishing buildings within such a historically significant precinct undermines heritage conservation principles and risks permanently erasing important cultural and architectural assets.
4. Excavation, Traffic, and Amenity Impacts
The proposed development includes four levels of basement excavation for car parking. (The Paddington Society)
Such large-scale excavation within a dense heritage neighbourhood raises concerns regarding construction impacts, traffic congestion, noise, and disruption to nearby residents. The increased residential density and parking capacity would also place additional pressure on already constrained local streets and infrastructure.
5. Impacts on Streetscape, Trees and Public Space
The development would significantly alter the character of Oxford Street through its height, massing and design. Community concerns have also been raised regarding potential impacts on the area’s iconic plane trees and jacaranda trees along Oxford Street. (The Paddington Society)
Overshadowing of public space and surrounding buildings would further diminish the amenity of the street and surrounding neighbourhood.
6. Lack of Adequate Community Consultation
Residents have also expressed concern about the limited opportunity for community engagement in the planning process. The proposal is being assessed as a State Significant Development, which reduces the role of local council and can limit meaningful community input. (The Paddington Society)
In addition, concerns have been raised that the exhibition period may occur during the holiday season, reducing the ability of residents and stakeholders to properly review and respond to the proposal.
7. Precedent for Future Overdevelopment
Approving a development of this scale within the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area would set a dangerous precedent for future developments. If permitted, it could encourage further high-rise redevelopment that gradually erodes the heritage character and human scale of Paddington.
Conclusion
For these reasons namely the net loss of affordable housing, the excessive scale and bulk of the building, the demolition of historically significant structures, the impact on the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area, and insufficient community consultation I respectfully request that the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure reject the proposed development at 160 Oxford Street in its current form.
Paddington is one of Sydney’s most historically and culturally significant suburbs. Development should respect and protect its heritage, community character, and existing affordable housing rather than undermine them.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Yours sincerely,
Tyson Sumich
Nina Witenden
Object
Nina Witenden
Object
PADDINGTON
,
New South Wales
Message
Submission regarding Development Application SSD-97528708 – Paddington Tower
Dear Reader,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development SSD-97528708 (Paddington Tower).
I have been a resident and homeowner in Paddington for more than thirty years. Living here over that time has given me a deep understanding of how this area functions day-to-day and how people move through it, where the pressures already exist, and what makes this village unique. Local residents are in a position to observe things that cannot easily be captured in reports or modelling, simply because we live with the reality of the streets, the traffic and the built environment every day.
Paddington is widely recognised as one of the most intact and restored Victorian terrace precincts in the world. What makes the suburb special is its human scale, narrow streets, low-rise buildings, and a village atmosphere created by small businesses and long-term residents. Many of us accept limited parking and compact living precisely because it allows this character to be preserved.
The proposed development does not respect that character.
Loss of affordable housing
The proposal suggests that it contributes to housing supply, however in reality it removes existing lower-cost housing options and replaces them with a development that is unlikely to be genuinely affordable for the types of residents who currently live in the area. This results in a net loss of affordable housing within Paddington, not a gain.
Traffic and underground car parking impacts
The proposal includes a four-level underground car park. This is deeply concerning given the structure of the surrounding streets.
Much of Paddington is made up of narrow streets originally designed in the Victorian era, many of which are one-way with limited visibility and minimal turning space. Streets such as Gipps Street, Shadforth Street and Liverpool Street already experience congestion from local traffic, deliveries to shops, rideshare vehicles, and visitors.
Footpaths are narrow and in many areas only allow two people to pass at a time. Delivery vehicles often need to stop partially in the roadway. Residents frequently need to wait for cars to pass in order to move safely along the street.
Introducing the vehicle movements associated with a four-level underground car park into this street network will inevitably increase congestion, create safety risks for pedestrians, and place further strain on streets that were never designed for this level of density.
Construction impacts on local businesses
Oxford Street and the surrounding village businesses are already facing pressure from changing retail patterns and infrastructure works. A large-scale development of this intensity will bring prolonged construction activity which may significantly impact nearby businesses through reduced access, noise, and disruption.
Small independent businesses are a core part of Paddington’s character. Construction impacts that last several years could have serious financial consequences for them.
Cumulative infrastructure impacts
It is also important that this proposal is not considered in isolation. The area is already facing a number of major changes including:
The Oxford Street cycleway project
Potential future redevelopment pressures associated with Victoria Barracks
Increasing traffic volumes from surrounding suburbs
These cumulative impacts have the potential to dramatically alter how traffic flows through Paddington and should be properly considered when assessing any development of this scale.
Protection of the Paddington Conservation Area
Paddington is a designated Conservation Area, and this status exists for good reason. The low-rise built form and cohesive Victorian streetscape are central to the suburb’s identity.
A development of the proposed height and scale risks setting a precedent that could gradually erode the very qualities the conservation protections are designed to safeguard.
Once a precedent is established, it becomes far more difficult to maintain the architectural integrity of the area.
Sydney absolutely needs additional housing. However, developments of this scale are far more appropriate in nearby locations that are already designed for higher density, such as Kensington, Zetland, or Randwick, where street networks, building forms and infrastructure are suited to taller developments.
Paddington’s village structure simply cannot absorb this intensity without significant and irreversible change.
For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposal.
Paddington is a rare and historically significant precinct. Protecting its scale, streetscape and livability will ensure that future generations can continue to experience the character that residents and visitors value today.
Please protect Paddington.
Yours Sincerely,
Nina Witenden
Dear Reader,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development SSD-97528708 (Paddington Tower).
I have been a resident and homeowner in Paddington for more than thirty years. Living here over that time has given me a deep understanding of how this area functions day-to-day and how people move through it, where the pressures already exist, and what makes this village unique. Local residents are in a position to observe things that cannot easily be captured in reports or modelling, simply because we live with the reality of the streets, the traffic and the built environment every day.
Paddington is widely recognised as one of the most intact and restored Victorian terrace precincts in the world. What makes the suburb special is its human scale, narrow streets, low-rise buildings, and a village atmosphere created by small businesses and long-term residents. Many of us accept limited parking and compact living precisely because it allows this character to be preserved.
The proposed development does not respect that character.
Loss of affordable housing
The proposal suggests that it contributes to housing supply, however in reality it removes existing lower-cost housing options and replaces them with a development that is unlikely to be genuinely affordable for the types of residents who currently live in the area. This results in a net loss of affordable housing within Paddington, not a gain.
Traffic and underground car parking impacts
The proposal includes a four-level underground car park. This is deeply concerning given the structure of the surrounding streets.
Much of Paddington is made up of narrow streets originally designed in the Victorian era, many of which are one-way with limited visibility and minimal turning space. Streets such as Gipps Street, Shadforth Street and Liverpool Street already experience congestion from local traffic, deliveries to shops, rideshare vehicles, and visitors.
Footpaths are narrow and in many areas only allow two people to pass at a time. Delivery vehicles often need to stop partially in the roadway. Residents frequently need to wait for cars to pass in order to move safely along the street.
Introducing the vehicle movements associated with a four-level underground car park into this street network will inevitably increase congestion, create safety risks for pedestrians, and place further strain on streets that were never designed for this level of density.
Construction impacts on local businesses
Oxford Street and the surrounding village businesses are already facing pressure from changing retail patterns and infrastructure works. A large-scale development of this intensity will bring prolonged construction activity which may significantly impact nearby businesses through reduced access, noise, and disruption.
Small independent businesses are a core part of Paddington’s character. Construction impacts that last several years could have serious financial consequences for them.
Cumulative infrastructure impacts
It is also important that this proposal is not considered in isolation. The area is already facing a number of major changes including:
The Oxford Street cycleway project
Potential future redevelopment pressures associated with Victoria Barracks
Increasing traffic volumes from surrounding suburbs
These cumulative impacts have the potential to dramatically alter how traffic flows through Paddington and should be properly considered when assessing any development of this scale.
Protection of the Paddington Conservation Area
Paddington is a designated Conservation Area, and this status exists for good reason. The low-rise built form and cohesive Victorian streetscape are central to the suburb’s identity.
A development of the proposed height and scale risks setting a precedent that could gradually erode the very qualities the conservation protections are designed to safeguard.
Once a precedent is established, it becomes far more difficult to maintain the architectural integrity of the area.
Sydney absolutely needs additional housing. However, developments of this scale are far more appropriate in nearby locations that are already designed for higher density, such as Kensington, Zetland, or Randwick, where street networks, building forms and infrastructure are suited to taller developments.
Paddington’s village structure simply cannot absorb this intensity without significant and irreversible change.
For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposal.
Paddington is a rare and historically significant precinct. Protecting its scale, streetscape and livability will ensure that future generations can continue to experience the character that residents and visitors value today.
Please protect Paddington.
Yours Sincerely,
Nina Witenden
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
CLOVELLY
,
New South Wales
Message
I was a long term resident in Paddington for 20 years. Until recently I owned a house near the proposed development site where I raised family and contributed to the local community through public schools, community gardens and belonged to local groups such as the Paddington society. We lived in Paddington because we loved the heritage, the people friendly scale where walking from one end of the suburb and surrounds is normal. I know the retail end around 160 Oxford street extremely well and the local heritage streets behind it which include the oldest houses in Paddington, constructed by those who built the Victoria Barracks.
On every level this proposed development must be rejected. There are also errors of fact in some documents which are part of the Development plan.
1. Its scale is outrageous for a very low rise, dense, mainly pedestrian environment and hugely historic site. It would be adjacent to the narrowest heritage streets with very small workers cottages.
2. It’s height is out of all proportion to surrounding streets and area and will overshadow and invade the modest low impact lives of those who currently live on the site and those who live in adjacent streets. It will tower over historic buildings of huge heritage value which has taken generations of community members hard fought battles to preserve.
3. It will not meet objectives for providing low cost housing, halving the number of the occupancy of the current building on the site and doubling rent for potential ‘low cost ‘residents will be - to $1000/week.
4. It will add 83 carparks to a site which currently has 16 adding massive traffic flow impacts to access and egress and add traffic stress on streets never designed for cars and used extensively by pedestrians.
5. Its design makes no reference to the colonial Victorian architecture of the area - the Victoria barracks, the Paddington Town Hall and Post office are imposing and preserved buildings in the immediate vicinity. It is a design of no architectural merit and will add no value to the existing high heritage values and will instead detract. Its design references are purely contemporary. It is too big, extravagant eg 5 private swimming pools? And its design adds no value to the heritage of an important part of Sydney - the largest extant colonial barracks and important intact and unaltered heritage streets of early Paddington. The development is completely at odds with 160 Oxford street’s adjacent environs.
6. Further, in the heritage report included in the development proposal, it refers to all the retail spaces from Glenmore rd to 160 Oxford as having no heritage value. This is entirely incorrect. On the corner of Glenmore rd there are two substantial heritage buildings which are surviving examples of the original Victorian streetscape. They were altered in the last 20 years to accommodate new retail spaces but two important early Paddington buildings were preserved and retail adjustments to accommodate current occupants had to be low impact and reversible.
This error should be corrected and the assertion that there is no heritage value in the retail strip from Glenmore rd to 160 Oxford st must be refuted and not used to justify more new retail.
In conclusion, the proposed development must be rejected on every possible ground. It is entirely inappropriate to the heritage environment of preserved early Paddington, its potential impacts on heritage value, resident amenity, traffic flows, pedestrian impacts are significant and entirely justify rejecting the proposal. It removes, rather than adds, ANY additional low cost housing. Any application on these grounds is spurious and wrong.
And the heritage report with the proposal includes errors of fact. It should be scrutinised very carefully and some assertions rejected. The heritage impact assessments attempt to justify the proposed development and DO NOT seriously address heritage impacts and inevitable loss in this area.
The proposed development must be rejected.
On every level this proposed development must be rejected. There are also errors of fact in some documents which are part of the Development plan.
1. Its scale is outrageous for a very low rise, dense, mainly pedestrian environment and hugely historic site. It would be adjacent to the narrowest heritage streets with very small workers cottages.
2. It’s height is out of all proportion to surrounding streets and area and will overshadow and invade the modest low impact lives of those who currently live on the site and those who live in adjacent streets. It will tower over historic buildings of huge heritage value which has taken generations of community members hard fought battles to preserve.
3. It will not meet objectives for providing low cost housing, halving the number of the occupancy of the current building on the site and doubling rent for potential ‘low cost ‘residents will be - to $1000/week.
4. It will add 83 carparks to a site which currently has 16 adding massive traffic flow impacts to access and egress and add traffic stress on streets never designed for cars and used extensively by pedestrians.
5. Its design makes no reference to the colonial Victorian architecture of the area - the Victoria barracks, the Paddington Town Hall and Post office are imposing and preserved buildings in the immediate vicinity. It is a design of no architectural merit and will add no value to the existing high heritage values and will instead detract. Its design references are purely contemporary. It is too big, extravagant eg 5 private swimming pools? And its design adds no value to the heritage of an important part of Sydney - the largest extant colonial barracks and important intact and unaltered heritage streets of early Paddington. The development is completely at odds with 160 Oxford street’s adjacent environs.
6. Further, in the heritage report included in the development proposal, it refers to all the retail spaces from Glenmore rd to 160 Oxford as having no heritage value. This is entirely incorrect. On the corner of Glenmore rd there are two substantial heritage buildings which are surviving examples of the original Victorian streetscape. They were altered in the last 20 years to accommodate new retail spaces but two important early Paddington buildings were preserved and retail adjustments to accommodate current occupants had to be low impact and reversible.
This error should be corrected and the assertion that there is no heritage value in the retail strip from Glenmore rd to 160 Oxford st must be refuted and not used to justify more new retail.
In conclusion, the proposed development must be rejected on every possible ground. It is entirely inappropriate to the heritage environment of preserved early Paddington, its potential impacts on heritage value, resident amenity, traffic flows, pedestrian impacts are significant and entirely justify rejecting the proposal. It removes, rather than adds, ANY additional low cost housing. Any application on these grounds is spurious and wrong.
And the heritage report with the proposal includes errors of fact. It should be scrutinised very carefully and some assertions rejected. The heritage impact assessments attempt to justify the proposed development and DO NOT seriously address heritage impacts and inevitable loss in this area.
The proposed development must be rejected.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
PADDINGTON
,
New South Wales
Message
To whom it may concern,
I am writing as a local resident to object to the proposed development at 160 Oxford Street, Paddington.
This submission is not opposing additional housing in Paddington, rather it asks that any new housing be delivered in a way that respects the established heritage scale of the area and does not result in a net loss of genuinely affordable homes. While I recognise the importance of increasing housing supply in Sydney, this proposal appears significantly out of scale with the surrounding neighbourhood and risks undermining the historic character that makes Paddington unique.
Paddington is widely recognised for its unique heritage streetscapes of two and three-storey terraces and cottages. The proposed building of eight to nine storeys would be dramatically taller than the surrounding buildings and would dominate the streetscape. Introducing a development of this height and breadth within a heritage conservation area would permanently alter the visual character of the area and create a concerning precedent for similar projects in the future. The site sits within the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area, one of Sydney’s most historically significant and well-preserved precincts. The existing buildings on the site form part of the history of the area, which developed in connection with nearby Victoria Barracks and housing for workers and tradespeople. Replacing these buildings with a the proposed structure will erode the historic fabric that the conservation area is intended to protect.
Inconsistency with Heritage Planning Objectives
Planning controls that apply to the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area are intended to ensure that new development respects the scale, form and historic character of the precinct. The proposal for a building of up to nine storeys appears inconsistent with the established low-rise character of the area and raises questions about whether the development appropriately responds to the heritage objectives that apply to this precinct. Heritage conservation areas exist to protect the character of historic neighbourhoods, and developments that depart significantly from the prevailing scale risk undermining those protections.
Net Loss of Affordable Housing
A key justification for this development appears to be the delivery of affordable housing. However, the site currently contains a number of relatively modest apartments that already provide comparatively affordable accommodation within inner Sydney. Based on publicly available information, it appears that a larger number of existing homes may be replaced by a smaller number of designated affordable units within the new development. If this is the case, the project would represent a net loss of affordable housing, which directly contradicts the stated objective of improving housing affordability. Redevelopment that displaces existing lower-cost housing in order to deliver fewer affordable homes is not in keeping with legislative intent. Paddington is adjacent to St Vincent's Hospital, a major tertiary hospital operating 24 hours a day and relying on a substantial nursing and other workforce across rotating and non-standard hours. Nurses are essential workers whose capacity to perform safely and sustainably is closely linked to their ability to live within reasonable proximity to their workplace. This is particularly relevant given the fatigue risks, irregular hours, and safety considerations associated with shift-based clinical work. This is just one such group that will be negatively impacted.
Construction, Excavation and Traffic
The scale of excavation and construction proposed is another significant concern. The development includes multiple basement levels and extensive excavation works. Construction of this scale in a tightly built historic area raises legitimate concerns about potential impacts on neighbouring heritage buildings, as well as prolonged disruption for nearby residents through noise, heavy vehicles and construction activity on already narrow streets. Traffic and access impacts should also be carefully considered. Oxford Street and surrounding residential streets are already busy, and many of the streets adjacent are extremely narrow.Additional vehicle movements associated with basement parking and servicing will place further pressure on local infrastructure. Heavy machinery and vehicles involved in construction will have a catastrophic impact on traffic flow over a long period of time.
Oxford Street Tree Canopy and Public Domain
Oxford Street is defined not only by its heritage buildings but also by its established tree canopy and distinctive public domain. The mature plane trees along Oxford Street contribute significantly to the character and environmental quality of the area. A development of this scale, particularly one involving major excavation and construction, raises concerns about potential impacts on these trees and the broader streetscape.
Precedent and Cumulative Impact
Approving a building of this height and bulk within the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area risks setting a significant planning precedent. Once a development of this scale is approved, it becomes much more difficult to resist similar proposals elsewhere along Oxford Street or in surrounding streets. It is also important to consider the cumulative impact of incremental change. Paddington’s heritage value comes from the consistency of its built form and streetscapes. Approving developments that depart significantly from the prevailing scale and character risks gradually eroding the qualities that make the area historically and culturally significant.
Planning Process
More broadly, many residents are concerned that a development of this scale within a heritage conservation area is being assessed through the State Significant Development pathway rather than the normal local planning process. Decisions that have the potential to substantially alter the character of Paddington should involve careful consideration of local planning controls and meaningful community input.
Conclusion
Paddington residents are not opposed to thoughtful development or to increasing housing supply. However, redevelopment in this area should be context-sensitive, respectful of heritage, and genuinely contribute to housing diversity and affordability. Paddington’s heritage character has been carefully protected for generations. Planning decisions made today will determine whether that character is preserved for the future or gradually eroded through developments that are out of scale with the area, reduce genuinely affordable homes and negatively impact existing natural features. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Department to reject the proposal in its current form and require a revised development that is consistent with the heritage character and scale of Paddington and provides a substantial increase in genuinely affordable housing.
Your sincerely,
Concerned resident
I am writing as a local resident to object to the proposed development at 160 Oxford Street, Paddington.
This submission is not opposing additional housing in Paddington, rather it asks that any new housing be delivered in a way that respects the established heritage scale of the area and does not result in a net loss of genuinely affordable homes. While I recognise the importance of increasing housing supply in Sydney, this proposal appears significantly out of scale with the surrounding neighbourhood and risks undermining the historic character that makes Paddington unique.
Paddington is widely recognised for its unique heritage streetscapes of two and three-storey terraces and cottages. The proposed building of eight to nine storeys would be dramatically taller than the surrounding buildings and would dominate the streetscape. Introducing a development of this height and breadth within a heritage conservation area would permanently alter the visual character of the area and create a concerning precedent for similar projects in the future. The site sits within the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area, one of Sydney’s most historically significant and well-preserved precincts. The existing buildings on the site form part of the history of the area, which developed in connection with nearby Victoria Barracks and housing for workers and tradespeople. Replacing these buildings with a the proposed structure will erode the historic fabric that the conservation area is intended to protect.
Inconsistency with Heritage Planning Objectives
Planning controls that apply to the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area are intended to ensure that new development respects the scale, form and historic character of the precinct. The proposal for a building of up to nine storeys appears inconsistent with the established low-rise character of the area and raises questions about whether the development appropriately responds to the heritage objectives that apply to this precinct. Heritage conservation areas exist to protect the character of historic neighbourhoods, and developments that depart significantly from the prevailing scale risk undermining those protections.
Net Loss of Affordable Housing
A key justification for this development appears to be the delivery of affordable housing. However, the site currently contains a number of relatively modest apartments that already provide comparatively affordable accommodation within inner Sydney. Based on publicly available information, it appears that a larger number of existing homes may be replaced by a smaller number of designated affordable units within the new development. If this is the case, the project would represent a net loss of affordable housing, which directly contradicts the stated objective of improving housing affordability. Redevelopment that displaces existing lower-cost housing in order to deliver fewer affordable homes is not in keeping with legislative intent. Paddington is adjacent to St Vincent's Hospital, a major tertiary hospital operating 24 hours a day and relying on a substantial nursing and other workforce across rotating and non-standard hours. Nurses are essential workers whose capacity to perform safely and sustainably is closely linked to their ability to live within reasonable proximity to their workplace. This is particularly relevant given the fatigue risks, irregular hours, and safety considerations associated with shift-based clinical work. This is just one such group that will be negatively impacted.
Construction, Excavation and Traffic
The scale of excavation and construction proposed is another significant concern. The development includes multiple basement levels and extensive excavation works. Construction of this scale in a tightly built historic area raises legitimate concerns about potential impacts on neighbouring heritage buildings, as well as prolonged disruption for nearby residents through noise, heavy vehicles and construction activity on already narrow streets. Traffic and access impacts should also be carefully considered. Oxford Street and surrounding residential streets are already busy, and many of the streets adjacent are extremely narrow.Additional vehicle movements associated with basement parking and servicing will place further pressure on local infrastructure. Heavy machinery and vehicles involved in construction will have a catastrophic impact on traffic flow over a long period of time.
Oxford Street Tree Canopy and Public Domain
Oxford Street is defined not only by its heritage buildings but also by its established tree canopy and distinctive public domain. The mature plane trees along Oxford Street contribute significantly to the character and environmental quality of the area. A development of this scale, particularly one involving major excavation and construction, raises concerns about potential impacts on these trees and the broader streetscape.
Precedent and Cumulative Impact
Approving a building of this height and bulk within the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area risks setting a significant planning precedent. Once a development of this scale is approved, it becomes much more difficult to resist similar proposals elsewhere along Oxford Street or in surrounding streets. It is also important to consider the cumulative impact of incremental change. Paddington’s heritage value comes from the consistency of its built form and streetscapes. Approving developments that depart significantly from the prevailing scale and character risks gradually eroding the qualities that make the area historically and culturally significant.
Planning Process
More broadly, many residents are concerned that a development of this scale within a heritage conservation area is being assessed through the State Significant Development pathway rather than the normal local planning process. Decisions that have the potential to substantially alter the character of Paddington should involve careful consideration of local planning controls and meaningful community input.
Conclusion
Paddington residents are not opposed to thoughtful development or to increasing housing supply. However, redevelopment in this area should be context-sensitive, respectful of heritage, and genuinely contribute to housing diversity and affordability. Paddington’s heritage character has been carefully protected for generations. Planning decisions made today will determine whether that character is preserved for the future or gradually eroded through developments that are out of scale with the area, reduce genuinely affordable homes and negatively impact existing natural features. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Department to reject the proposal in its current form and require a revised development that is consistent with the heritage character and scale of Paddington and provides a substantial increase in genuinely affordable housing.
Your sincerely,
Concerned resident
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
REDFERN
,
New South Wales
Message
I write to object to SSD-97528708.
The proposal seeks approval for an eight to nine storey mixed use development comprising residential apartments, retail space and multiple basement levels of parking across a consolidated site on Oxford Street in Paddington. While increasing housing supply and delivering affordable housing are important policy objectives, the scale and form of this proposal raise serious planning concerns.
Built form and scale
The proposed height and bulk appear excessive relative to the established character of Paddington and the surrounding Oxford Street precinct. The built form in the immediate area is generally two to three storeys and forms part of the fine grain urban fabric that defines Paddington.
A building of eight to nine storeys represents a substantial departure from this context. Introducing development of this scale risks dominating the streetscape and significantly altering the character of the precinct.
Oxford Street functions as an important commercial corridor, however its built form through Paddington has historically remained relatively consistent in scale with the surrounding heritage fabric. Development along the corridor should reinforce this character rather than introduce building forms that are more typical of high density centres elsewhere in Sydney.
Heritage context
Paddington contains one of Sydney’s most intact Victorian terrace precincts and includes numerous heritage conservation areas. The surrounding neighbourhood is valued not only for individual heritage buildings but for the consistent streetscape and fine grain urban pattern that has been preserved over many decades.
Development of this scale within such a sensitive context requires an exceptional design response and careful integration with the surrounding built form. From the material publicly available, it is not clear that the current proposal adequately responds to the heritage character and urban grain that define the area.
The cumulative impact of development that exceeds the established scale of the precinct risks gradually eroding the heritage character that planning controls are intended to protect.
Net loss of affordable housing
A key justification for the proposal appears to be the inclusion of affordable housing under the Housing SEPP provisions. However, it is understood that the existing site currently contains affordable housing that will be demolished as part of the redevelopment.
If the redevelopment results in fewer affordable dwellings than currently exist on the site, the project would represent a net loss of affordable housing despite relying on affordable housing incentives to achieve increased height and density.
The proposal appears to rely on affordable housing incentives to obtain significant planning concessions while potentially reducing the existing affordable housing stock on the site.
The intent of the Housing SEPP is to increase the supply of affordable housing across NSW, not to reduce or replace existing affordable housing with a smaller number of units while obtaining substantial planning concessions.
For this reason, the Department should require clear evidence demonstrating that the proposal will deliver a genuine net increase in affordable housing both on this site and within the local area. If this cannot be demonstrated, the planning justification for the additional height and density should be reconsidered.
Traffic and infrastructure impacts
The surrounding street network is composed of narrow historic streets that were never designed to accommodate significant increases in density or traffic volumes. Additional residential and commercial activity of this scale will place further pressure on local traffic movements, servicing access and parking availability.
While Oxford Street is a major corridor, surrounding streets such as Gipps Street and Shadforth Street are local residential streets with limited capacity to absorb additional traffic and servicing demands associated with a development of this scale.
Planning precedent
Approving a development of this scale within Paddington risks establishing a precedent for further departures from the planning framework that has protected the suburb’s character for decades. Once height and density increases are permitted in this way, it becomes increasingly difficult to resist similar proposals in nearby locations.
Planning decisions in sensitive heritage areas should be particularly careful to ensure that incremental changes do not cumulatively undermine the qualities that make these neighbourhoods distinctive.
Paddington’s heritage character and human scale built form are among the defining qualities of the suburb. Development in this location should reinforce those qualities rather than undermine them.
For these reasons, I urge the Department to carefully reconsider the height, scale and overall planning merits of the proposal and ensure that any development remains consistent with the heritage context and established character of Paddington.
The proposal seeks approval for an eight to nine storey mixed use development comprising residential apartments, retail space and multiple basement levels of parking across a consolidated site on Oxford Street in Paddington. While increasing housing supply and delivering affordable housing are important policy objectives, the scale and form of this proposal raise serious planning concerns.
Built form and scale
The proposed height and bulk appear excessive relative to the established character of Paddington and the surrounding Oxford Street precinct. The built form in the immediate area is generally two to three storeys and forms part of the fine grain urban fabric that defines Paddington.
A building of eight to nine storeys represents a substantial departure from this context. Introducing development of this scale risks dominating the streetscape and significantly altering the character of the precinct.
Oxford Street functions as an important commercial corridor, however its built form through Paddington has historically remained relatively consistent in scale with the surrounding heritage fabric. Development along the corridor should reinforce this character rather than introduce building forms that are more typical of high density centres elsewhere in Sydney.
Heritage context
Paddington contains one of Sydney’s most intact Victorian terrace precincts and includes numerous heritage conservation areas. The surrounding neighbourhood is valued not only for individual heritage buildings but for the consistent streetscape and fine grain urban pattern that has been preserved over many decades.
Development of this scale within such a sensitive context requires an exceptional design response and careful integration with the surrounding built form. From the material publicly available, it is not clear that the current proposal adequately responds to the heritage character and urban grain that define the area.
The cumulative impact of development that exceeds the established scale of the precinct risks gradually eroding the heritage character that planning controls are intended to protect.
Net loss of affordable housing
A key justification for the proposal appears to be the inclusion of affordable housing under the Housing SEPP provisions. However, it is understood that the existing site currently contains affordable housing that will be demolished as part of the redevelopment.
If the redevelopment results in fewer affordable dwellings than currently exist on the site, the project would represent a net loss of affordable housing despite relying on affordable housing incentives to achieve increased height and density.
The proposal appears to rely on affordable housing incentives to obtain significant planning concessions while potentially reducing the existing affordable housing stock on the site.
The intent of the Housing SEPP is to increase the supply of affordable housing across NSW, not to reduce or replace existing affordable housing with a smaller number of units while obtaining substantial planning concessions.
For this reason, the Department should require clear evidence demonstrating that the proposal will deliver a genuine net increase in affordable housing both on this site and within the local area. If this cannot be demonstrated, the planning justification for the additional height and density should be reconsidered.
Traffic and infrastructure impacts
The surrounding street network is composed of narrow historic streets that were never designed to accommodate significant increases in density or traffic volumes. Additional residential and commercial activity of this scale will place further pressure on local traffic movements, servicing access and parking availability.
While Oxford Street is a major corridor, surrounding streets such as Gipps Street and Shadforth Street are local residential streets with limited capacity to absorb additional traffic and servicing demands associated with a development of this scale.
Planning precedent
Approving a development of this scale within Paddington risks establishing a precedent for further departures from the planning framework that has protected the suburb’s character for decades. Once height and density increases are permitted in this way, it becomes increasingly difficult to resist similar proposals in nearby locations.
Planning decisions in sensitive heritage areas should be particularly careful to ensure that incremental changes do not cumulatively undermine the qualities that make these neighbourhoods distinctive.
Paddington’s heritage character and human scale built form are among the defining qualities of the suburb. Development in this location should reinforce those qualities rather than undermine them.
For these reasons, I urge the Department to carefully reconsider the height, scale and overall planning merits of the proposal and ensure that any development remains consistent with the heritage context and established character of Paddington.
Peter Marshall
Object
Peter Marshall
Object
PADDINGTON
,
New South Wales
Message
My concern at the moment is the legitimacy of the qualification of the developer for the SSD. They have submitted works of $78M which conveniently allows them SSD status, the cut off is $75M. Making this one of the smallest housing projects to qualify for this SSD classification to date. The nett result on this project after the removal of the existing studio apartments is removing 27 affordable units to replace them with 12 AH which can removed in 15 years time. The SSD classification is on the basis of the proposed Estimated Development Costs (EDC) they have submitted. This is done by a Quantity Surveyor, (QS) chosen by them and apparently at this stage it will not be an exhaustive analysis but it was enough to get the SSD rating from the NSW Planning Authority. My research has informed me that the EDC process was introduced by ICAC to stop the underestimating of build costs and avoid deflating commensurate fees and levies. In this regard it would not be hard to get a QS to overestimate as they typically only have liability if they underestimate costs. I have asked the developer for a copy of the EDC to analyse. We may not get a detailed EDC for some time but this will help us understand more about the nature of the build and the reality of the costings. So by potentially inflating the EDC the developer could get a SSD that gives them more freedom from local council oversight and fast tracks the process. They are planning around 6000 squares metres at a build cost of $78m which is close to $13000 per square metre. At face value this is twice the price per square metre of a top end build? Meaning that I think the developer is comfortable with higher building costs to qualify the project. At face value it might seem strange to spend more money than necessary but the concessions that come with the SSD classification make it a good return on investment. The developer has frequently mentioned the expensive sandstone finish he is incorporating to make the site fit the surroundings. I think while this may make the apartments easier to sell it is a another way of getting to $78m.
For a high-quality, low-to-medium rise build in NSW, the price per square meter generally ranges from $2,800 to over $6,000, depending heavily on the complexity of the design and the specific quality of finishes. A mid-range build with better finishes will likely cost around $2,800-$3,800 per square meter, while a more custom, luxury build could be $4,000-$6,000+ per square meter. These estimates are for construction only and do not include site costs like land, demolition, or specific council requirements.
So we have a more realistic SSD that may be really $36m to $40m not $78m for the apartment build. Let's say you have half these costs again to go underground 4 levels and it gets us to $60m. This is particularly relevant when you consider the 4 level underground basement. Going underground is one of the most expensive parts of construction as it involves many unknown variables. My worry is that that developer is using the unnecessarily large basement to increase the building costs and qualify for the SSD classification (it is hard to spend any more money above ground and justify the price per square metre). Another concern is that the developers may decide to put in a modification to the consent at a later stage to not go 4 levels below ground but to only 2 which is more in keeping with the size of the build. This would allow them to continue the project if still above $75M (but perhaps this is where a QS can help) but not have the risk of excavating deeper underground. Plans currently show parking and storage for 78 vehicles which is more than adequate for the apartment complex when you consider the access to transport. If they reduced the development of the basement they would still have 42 car parks. The NSW SEPP does not require any parking for the AH and maybe 1-2 per apartment depending on the number of bedrooms. The development's proximity to amenities is one of the reasons developments such as this are allowed. In other words the priority is building AH not car parking.
My real annoyance is with the abuse of the SSD. Is the government simply creating a methodology or loophole for these mid-sized luxury developments to get fast tracked if the developer is prepared to spend a little more. Knowing that if they do it in the right area they will still get a good return on the luxury apartments without all of the local council oversight. Better still they get to sell the affordable housing in 15 years to create another 12 luxury apartments. The nett result then is that no AH exists but rather 32 luxury apartments!
Perhaps one headline is
Government doesn’t think anyone will need affordable housing in 15 years time.
For a high-quality, low-to-medium rise build in NSW, the price per square meter generally ranges from $2,800 to over $6,000, depending heavily on the complexity of the design and the specific quality of finishes. A mid-range build with better finishes will likely cost around $2,800-$3,800 per square meter, while a more custom, luxury build could be $4,000-$6,000+ per square meter. These estimates are for construction only and do not include site costs like land, demolition, or specific council requirements.
So we have a more realistic SSD that may be really $36m to $40m not $78m for the apartment build. Let's say you have half these costs again to go underground 4 levels and it gets us to $60m. This is particularly relevant when you consider the 4 level underground basement. Going underground is one of the most expensive parts of construction as it involves many unknown variables. My worry is that that developer is using the unnecessarily large basement to increase the building costs and qualify for the SSD classification (it is hard to spend any more money above ground and justify the price per square metre). Another concern is that the developers may decide to put in a modification to the consent at a later stage to not go 4 levels below ground but to only 2 which is more in keeping with the size of the build. This would allow them to continue the project if still above $75M (but perhaps this is where a QS can help) but not have the risk of excavating deeper underground. Plans currently show parking and storage for 78 vehicles which is more than adequate for the apartment complex when you consider the access to transport. If they reduced the development of the basement they would still have 42 car parks. The NSW SEPP does not require any parking for the AH and maybe 1-2 per apartment depending on the number of bedrooms. The development's proximity to amenities is one of the reasons developments such as this are allowed. In other words the priority is building AH not car parking.
My real annoyance is with the abuse of the SSD. Is the government simply creating a methodology or loophole for these mid-sized luxury developments to get fast tracked if the developer is prepared to spend a little more. Knowing that if they do it in the right area they will still get a good return on the luxury apartments without all of the local council oversight. Better still they get to sell the affordable housing in 15 years to create another 12 luxury apartments. The nett result then is that no AH exists but rather 32 luxury apartments!
Perhaps one headline is
Government doesn’t think anyone will need affordable housing in 15 years time.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
PADDINGTON
,
New South Wales
Message
I am lodging this submission to provide feedback on the State Significant Development proposal SSD 97528708 for an eight storey mixed use building containing 40 apartments (including 10 infill affordable units) and ground floor shops at 160 Oxford Street, Paddington.
After reviewing the publicly available documentation, I believe the proposal should not proceed in its current form due to its excessive scale, incompatibility with the Heritage Conservation Area, traffic and overshadowing impacts, net loss of affordable housing, and insufficient exhibition timeframe.
Excessive Height, Bulk and Incompatible Scale
The proposed eight storey height is significantly larger than the surrounding built form in this part of Oxford Street, which is characterized by low to mid rise heritage aligned buildings.
Key concerns:
• The building appears approximately 2-3 storeys taller than what is appropriate for the streetscape.
• Its massing introduces a visually dominant presence that overwhelms nearby buildings.
• The proposal does not demonstrate adequate sensitivity to its physical context, contrary to principles described in NSW planning guidance for State Significant Development.
This results in a built form that disrupts architectural consistency and undermines the heritage character of the area.
Precedent for Overdevelopment in a Heritage Conservation Area
Paddington’s Heritage Conservation Area depends on consistent scale, rhythm, and architectural cohesion. Allowing a large, bulky eight level structure here risks setting a precedent for future height and density increases.
Once such a precedent is established, it becomes harder to defend heritage protections throughout the precinct. The proposal therefore poses broader implications beyond its immediate site.
Overshadowing Impacts on Oxford Street
Given its height and bulk, the development will cast significant shadows on Oxford Street and surrounding areas. Predicted consequences include:
• Reduced sunlight for pedestrians, shopfronts, and outdoor activity spaces.
• A darker and less inviting public domain.
• Diminished amenity for surrounding buildings.
These impacts conflict with broader goals for Oxford Street’s revitalization and negatively affect the walkability and vibrancy of the area.
Traffic and Access Impacts
Oxford Street is already a congested corridor, carrying buses, service vehicles, cyclists, and high pedestrian traffic. The proposed development will:
• Increase vehicle movements, including resident, visitor, and service vehicles.
• Intensify congestion on narrow surrounding streets.
• Reduce pedestrian safety and compromise the overall accessibility of the nearby retail precinct on Glenmore Road.
The traffic network in this part of Paddington is constrained, and the proposal adds considerable pressure without adequate mitigation.
Net Loss of Affordable Housing
Although the application provides 10 infill affordable units, this represents a significant reduction from the 27 affordable dwellings currently associated with the site.
This outcome is troubling because:
• The proposal is classified as infill affordable housing yet delivers a net decline in affordable supply.
• It undermines strategic housing objectives aimed at expanding affordable housing stock.
• It reduces accommodation options for local low income households.
The development therefore fails to deliver a genuine public benefit in this regard.
Inadequate Exhibition Period
The application is on exhibition for only 14 days, from 3 March to 16 March 2026.
This timeframe is too short for a complex project of this scale, limiting the community’s ability to properly assess the documents and prepare a considered response. Community participation is an essential component of State Significant Development assessment, and the brief exhibition period undermines that intent.
In summary, for the reasons outlined above — including the excessive height and bulk, adverse heritage impacts, overshadowing, increased traffic, net loss of affordable housing, and inadequate public exhibition period — I submit that SSD 97528708 should not proceed in its current form.
The project, as proposed, does not represent a context sensitive, heritage appropriate, or community beneficial development outcome for Paddington. A refusal or substantial redesign is necessary to protect both the public interest and the character of the surrounding heritage area.
After reviewing the publicly available documentation, I believe the proposal should not proceed in its current form due to its excessive scale, incompatibility with the Heritage Conservation Area, traffic and overshadowing impacts, net loss of affordable housing, and insufficient exhibition timeframe.
Excessive Height, Bulk and Incompatible Scale
The proposed eight storey height is significantly larger than the surrounding built form in this part of Oxford Street, which is characterized by low to mid rise heritage aligned buildings.
Key concerns:
• The building appears approximately 2-3 storeys taller than what is appropriate for the streetscape.
• Its massing introduces a visually dominant presence that overwhelms nearby buildings.
• The proposal does not demonstrate adequate sensitivity to its physical context, contrary to principles described in NSW planning guidance for State Significant Development.
This results in a built form that disrupts architectural consistency and undermines the heritage character of the area.
Precedent for Overdevelopment in a Heritage Conservation Area
Paddington’s Heritage Conservation Area depends on consistent scale, rhythm, and architectural cohesion. Allowing a large, bulky eight level structure here risks setting a precedent for future height and density increases.
Once such a precedent is established, it becomes harder to defend heritage protections throughout the precinct. The proposal therefore poses broader implications beyond its immediate site.
Overshadowing Impacts on Oxford Street
Given its height and bulk, the development will cast significant shadows on Oxford Street and surrounding areas. Predicted consequences include:
• Reduced sunlight for pedestrians, shopfronts, and outdoor activity spaces.
• A darker and less inviting public domain.
• Diminished amenity for surrounding buildings.
These impacts conflict with broader goals for Oxford Street’s revitalization and negatively affect the walkability and vibrancy of the area.
Traffic and Access Impacts
Oxford Street is already a congested corridor, carrying buses, service vehicles, cyclists, and high pedestrian traffic. The proposed development will:
• Increase vehicle movements, including resident, visitor, and service vehicles.
• Intensify congestion on narrow surrounding streets.
• Reduce pedestrian safety and compromise the overall accessibility of the nearby retail precinct on Glenmore Road.
The traffic network in this part of Paddington is constrained, and the proposal adds considerable pressure without adequate mitigation.
Net Loss of Affordable Housing
Although the application provides 10 infill affordable units, this represents a significant reduction from the 27 affordable dwellings currently associated with the site.
This outcome is troubling because:
• The proposal is classified as infill affordable housing yet delivers a net decline in affordable supply.
• It undermines strategic housing objectives aimed at expanding affordable housing stock.
• It reduces accommodation options for local low income households.
The development therefore fails to deliver a genuine public benefit in this regard.
Inadequate Exhibition Period
The application is on exhibition for only 14 days, from 3 March to 16 March 2026.
This timeframe is too short for a complex project of this scale, limiting the community’s ability to properly assess the documents and prepare a considered response. Community participation is an essential component of State Significant Development assessment, and the brief exhibition period undermines that intent.
In summary, for the reasons outlined above — including the excessive height and bulk, adverse heritage impacts, overshadowing, increased traffic, net loss of affordable housing, and inadequate public exhibition period — I submit that SSD 97528708 should not proceed in its current form.
The project, as proposed, does not represent a context sensitive, heritage appropriate, or community beneficial development outcome for Paddington. A refusal or substantial redesign is necessary to protect both the public interest and the character of the surrounding heritage area.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
PADDINGTON
,
New South Wales
Message
To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: Objection to SSD-97528708 — Mixed Use Development with Infill Affordable Housing, 160 Oxford Street, Paddington
I am writing to formally object to the proposed 10-storey mixed-use development at 160 Oxford Street, Paddington (SSD-97528708), currently on public exhibition under the State Significant Development pathway.
1. Net loss of genuine affordable housing
The proposal claims an "affordable housing bonus" to justify its excessive height, yet it would demolish 27 existing studio apartments that currently house students, creatives, and essential workers — including medical staff from nearby hospitals. Replacing these with only 10–12 designated "affordable" apartments in a luxury development represents a net reduction in genuinely affordable housing stock in Paddington. The use of the infill affordable housing bonus in this context is a cynical, misapplication of the policy intent.
2. Non-compliance with heritage and built form controls
Oxford Street, Paddington is defined by its Victorian and Edwardian streetscape, terraced buildings, and consistent low-rise built form. A 10-storey tower at this location would be wholly inconsistent with the Woollahra Local Environmental Plan and the heritage character of the Paddington Conservation Area. The height bonus provisions should not override established heritage protections that exist specifically to preserve the unique character of this village streetscape.
3. Traffic and infrastructure impacts
The proposal includes four excavated basement levels accommodating 83 car spaces. Construction of this scale on Oxford Street — a narrow, high-traffic arterial road already under significant pressure — would cause years of unacceptable disruption to local residents, businesses, and pedestrians. The addition of 83 car spaces also runs contrary to current NSW Government transit-oriented development objectives.
4. Inappropriate use of the State Significant Development pathway
This development has been structured to bypass Woollahra Council and meaningful local consultation by invoking the SSD pathway. While I acknowledge that the SSD process does include a public exhibition period, the effective removal of local council assessment for a development of this localised character impact is deeply concerning and undermines community confidence in the planning system.
5. Disproportionate built form for marginal housing yield
The proposal delivers only 8 net new dwellings. A 10-storey building with 4 levels of basement carparking and 5 private swimming pools — permanently altering the Paddington skyline and village character — cannot be justified on housing supply grounds for such a minimal net outcome.
Requested outcome: I request that this application be refused, or at minimum that the height bonus be disallowed and the proposal be substantially redesigned to comply with existing height and heritage controls, with genuine consultation led by Woollahra Council.
Re: Objection to SSD-97528708 — Mixed Use Development with Infill Affordable Housing, 160 Oxford Street, Paddington
I am writing to formally object to the proposed 10-storey mixed-use development at 160 Oxford Street, Paddington (SSD-97528708), currently on public exhibition under the State Significant Development pathway.
1. Net loss of genuine affordable housing
The proposal claims an "affordable housing bonus" to justify its excessive height, yet it would demolish 27 existing studio apartments that currently house students, creatives, and essential workers — including medical staff from nearby hospitals. Replacing these with only 10–12 designated "affordable" apartments in a luxury development represents a net reduction in genuinely affordable housing stock in Paddington. The use of the infill affordable housing bonus in this context is a cynical, misapplication of the policy intent.
2. Non-compliance with heritage and built form controls
Oxford Street, Paddington is defined by its Victorian and Edwardian streetscape, terraced buildings, and consistent low-rise built form. A 10-storey tower at this location would be wholly inconsistent with the Woollahra Local Environmental Plan and the heritage character of the Paddington Conservation Area. The height bonus provisions should not override established heritage protections that exist specifically to preserve the unique character of this village streetscape.
3. Traffic and infrastructure impacts
The proposal includes four excavated basement levels accommodating 83 car spaces. Construction of this scale on Oxford Street — a narrow, high-traffic arterial road already under significant pressure — would cause years of unacceptable disruption to local residents, businesses, and pedestrians. The addition of 83 car spaces also runs contrary to current NSW Government transit-oriented development objectives.
4. Inappropriate use of the State Significant Development pathway
This development has been structured to bypass Woollahra Council and meaningful local consultation by invoking the SSD pathway. While I acknowledge that the SSD process does include a public exhibition period, the effective removal of local council assessment for a development of this localised character impact is deeply concerning and undermines community confidence in the planning system.
5. Disproportionate built form for marginal housing yield
The proposal delivers only 8 net new dwellings. A 10-storey building with 4 levels of basement carparking and 5 private swimming pools — permanently altering the Paddington skyline and village character — cannot be justified on housing supply grounds for such a minimal net outcome.
Requested outcome: I request that this application be refused, or at minimum that the height bonus be disallowed and the proposal be substantially redesigned to comply with existing height and heritage controls, with genuine consultation led by Woollahra Council.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
GRAYS POINT
,
New South Wales
Message
I write to object to the proposed development at 160 Oxford Street, Paddington.
The proposal raises significant concerns regarding the loss of existing affordable housing, excessive height and scale relative to the surrounding heritage context, traffic and construction impacts, and the use of affordable housing provisions to justify development intensity that does not deliver a genuine public benefit.
Loss of existing affordable housing
The site currently contains 27 studio dwellings that have historically provided genuinely affordable accommodation for students, creatives and essential workers, including healthcare staff.
The proposal would demolish these dwellings and replace them with ten two- and three-bedroom units described as affordable housing. This represents a substantial net loss of affordable housing on the site.
Affordable housing incentives are intended to increase the supply of affordable housing within the community. Replacing a larger number of smaller affordable units with a much smaller number of larger apartments does not achieve this objective and undermines the policy intent of the affordable housing provisions being relied upon to justify the increased height.
A proposal that results in the reduction of affordable housing stock while simultaneously receiving planning concessions intended to promote affordability cannot reasonably be considered to deliver a net public benefit.
Scale, height and heritage context
The proposed building height of ten storeys with four levels of basement parking is significantly out of scale with the surrounding built form.
Paddington is internationally recognised for its intact heritage streetscapes, terrace housing and fine-grain urban character. The introduction of a building of this scale would fundamentally alter the visual and spatial character of the area.
Planning controls that protect heritage environments exist precisely to prevent incremental erosion of character through developments that exceed the prevailing scale of their surroundings. Approving a building of this height would create a precedent for further overdevelopment, placing ongoing pressure on the heritage character that defines Paddington.
Traffic and infrastructure impacts
The proposal includes 83 car parking spaces across four basement levels, generating significant additional traffic movements in an area characterised by narrow streets and already constrained traffic conditions.
The excavation required for four levels of basement parking would also result in prolonged construction impacts, including heavy vehicle movements, noise, and disruption to surrounding residents and local businesses.
These impacts must be considered in the context of the limited capacity of Paddington’s street network and infrastructure.
Misuse of affordable housing incentives
The proposal appears to rely on affordable housing provisions to justify additional height and density beyond what would ordinarily be permitted.
Planning incentives of this nature are designed to encourage developments that deliver clear and measurable public benefit, particularly through the creation of additional affordable housing.
In this case, the proposal reduces the number of affordable dwellings currently available on the site while significantly increasing the development scale. This raises serious concerns about whether the proposed development satisfies the underlying policy intent of the planning incentives being invoked.
If planning concessions are granted in circumstances where public benefit is minimal or negative, this risks undermining the integrity of the planning framework and setting an undesirable precedent for future proposals.
Community impact and planning integrity
Planning decisions shape the long-term character and liveability of Sydney’s neighbourhoods. Paddington’s unique identity has been preserved through planning controls that recognise the importance of heritage character, human-scale streets and community cohesion.
There is increasing concern that developments of this scale, particularly when assessed outside the local council process, risk diminishing the role of local community input in planning decisions that fundamentally alter neighbourhood character.
Sydney must continue to grow and evolve, but this growth should occur in a way that balances development with the protection of established communities, heritage environments, and genuine public benefit.
The voices of the residents who live and work in these neighbourhoods should remain a meaningful part of that process.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, the proposed development at 160 Oxford Street, Paddington should not be approved in its current form.
The proposal results in:
the loss of existing affordable housing,
a building out of scale with the surrounding heritage context,
significant traffic and construction impacts, and
reliance on planning incentives that do not deliver a clear public benefit.
I respectfully request that the consent authority refuse the application or require a substantially revised proposal that genuinely protects affordable housing, respects the heritage character of Paddington, and demonstrates a clear and proportional public benefit.
The proposal raises significant concerns regarding the loss of existing affordable housing, excessive height and scale relative to the surrounding heritage context, traffic and construction impacts, and the use of affordable housing provisions to justify development intensity that does not deliver a genuine public benefit.
Loss of existing affordable housing
The site currently contains 27 studio dwellings that have historically provided genuinely affordable accommodation for students, creatives and essential workers, including healthcare staff.
The proposal would demolish these dwellings and replace them with ten two- and three-bedroom units described as affordable housing. This represents a substantial net loss of affordable housing on the site.
Affordable housing incentives are intended to increase the supply of affordable housing within the community. Replacing a larger number of smaller affordable units with a much smaller number of larger apartments does not achieve this objective and undermines the policy intent of the affordable housing provisions being relied upon to justify the increased height.
A proposal that results in the reduction of affordable housing stock while simultaneously receiving planning concessions intended to promote affordability cannot reasonably be considered to deliver a net public benefit.
Scale, height and heritage context
The proposed building height of ten storeys with four levels of basement parking is significantly out of scale with the surrounding built form.
Paddington is internationally recognised for its intact heritage streetscapes, terrace housing and fine-grain urban character. The introduction of a building of this scale would fundamentally alter the visual and spatial character of the area.
Planning controls that protect heritage environments exist precisely to prevent incremental erosion of character through developments that exceed the prevailing scale of their surroundings. Approving a building of this height would create a precedent for further overdevelopment, placing ongoing pressure on the heritage character that defines Paddington.
Traffic and infrastructure impacts
The proposal includes 83 car parking spaces across four basement levels, generating significant additional traffic movements in an area characterised by narrow streets and already constrained traffic conditions.
The excavation required for four levels of basement parking would also result in prolonged construction impacts, including heavy vehicle movements, noise, and disruption to surrounding residents and local businesses.
These impacts must be considered in the context of the limited capacity of Paddington’s street network and infrastructure.
Misuse of affordable housing incentives
The proposal appears to rely on affordable housing provisions to justify additional height and density beyond what would ordinarily be permitted.
Planning incentives of this nature are designed to encourage developments that deliver clear and measurable public benefit, particularly through the creation of additional affordable housing.
In this case, the proposal reduces the number of affordable dwellings currently available on the site while significantly increasing the development scale. This raises serious concerns about whether the proposed development satisfies the underlying policy intent of the planning incentives being invoked.
If planning concessions are granted in circumstances where public benefit is minimal or negative, this risks undermining the integrity of the planning framework and setting an undesirable precedent for future proposals.
Community impact and planning integrity
Planning decisions shape the long-term character and liveability of Sydney’s neighbourhoods. Paddington’s unique identity has been preserved through planning controls that recognise the importance of heritage character, human-scale streets and community cohesion.
There is increasing concern that developments of this scale, particularly when assessed outside the local council process, risk diminishing the role of local community input in planning decisions that fundamentally alter neighbourhood character.
Sydney must continue to grow and evolve, but this growth should occur in a way that balances development with the protection of established communities, heritage environments, and genuine public benefit.
The voices of the residents who live and work in these neighbourhoods should remain a meaningful part of that process.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, the proposed development at 160 Oxford Street, Paddington should not be approved in its current form.
The proposal results in:
the loss of existing affordable housing,
a building out of scale with the surrounding heritage context,
significant traffic and construction impacts, and
reliance on planning incentives that do not deliver a clear public benefit.
I respectfully request that the consent authority refuse the application or require a substantially revised proposal that genuinely protects affordable housing, respects the heritage character of Paddington, and demonstrates a clear and proportional public benefit.
Benjamin Dowson
Object
Benjamin Dowson
Object
PADDINGTON
,
New South Wales
Message
Whilst I have included an attachment that provides detail as to my objection, a brief summary is included in this template window below:
The existing proposal (SSD-97528708) for 160 Oxford Street misses the mark on what the State Significant Development pathway is meant to achieve. Instead of increasing affordable housing, it eliminates 17 existing low cost homes and replaces them with a scheme that overwhelmingly benefits the developer. In exchange for this loss, the project is asking for massive, permanent height and density concessions that will drop an eight storey "wall" into the middle of a two to four storey heritage precinct. It’s impossible to see how this serves the public interest.
As someone who has lived in Paddington for the past two decades and has deep roots in the neighbourhood, I find it unreasonable that the planning system would reward a proposal that reduces housing for key workers, disregards local character, and openly contradicts the objectives of the legislation it relies upon.
For our family, the personal impacts are even more immediate. Our home already bears the brunt of oversized vehicles squeezing through Gipps, Liverpool, and Shadforth Streets, damaging our guttering, blocking the only natural light into our kitchen, and creating daily gridlock. This development would turn those already regular incidents into a constant, two year plus construction reality. Heavy excavation machinery, rock breaking into sandstone just metres from our walls, and trucks navigating streets that already fail under normal loads present a real risk to the structural integrity of our home and the wellbeing of our family. The noise, dust, vibration, loss of amenity, and traffic chaos would fundamentally change the way we live day to day. And even after construction, the scale, massing, mechanical noise, and heat impacts of the new building would permanently diminish the quiet, human scale character that brought us, and has kept us, in this community for more than 20 years.
Given the measurable loss of affordable housing, the unacceptable heritage impacts, the unmanageable traffic and congestion impacts, and the unreasonable harm this project would cause the Paddington community, I respectfully request that this proposal be rejected in its current form.
The existing proposal (SSD-97528708) for 160 Oxford Street misses the mark on what the State Significant Development pathway is meant to achieve. Instead of increasing affordable housing, it eliminates 17 existing low cost homes and replaces them with a scheme that overwhelmingly benefits the developer. In exchange for this loss, the project is asking for massive, permanent height and density concessions that will drop an eight storey "wall" into the middle of a two to four storey heritage precinct. It’s impossible to see how this serves the public interest.
As someone who has lived in Paddington for the past two decades and has deep roots in the neighbourhood, I find it unreasonable that the planning system would reward a proposal that reduces housing for key workers, disregards local character, and openly contradicts the objectives of the legislation it relies upon.
For our family, the personal impacts are even more immediate. Our home already bears the brunt of oversized vehicles squeezing through Gipps, Liverpool, and Shadforth Streets, damaging our guttering, blocking the only natural light into our kitchen, and creating daily gridlock. This development would turn those already regular incidents into a constant, two year plus construction reality. Heavy excavation machinery, rock breaking into sandstone just metres from our walls, and trucks navigating streets that already fail under normal loads present a real risk to the structural integrity of our home and the wellbeing of our family. The noise, dust, vibration, loss of amenity, and traffic chaos would fundamentally change the way we live day to day. And even after construction, the scale, massing, mechanical noise, and heat impacts of the new building would permanently diminish the quiet, human scale character that brought us, and has kept us, in this community for more than 20 years.
Given the measurable loss of affordable housing, the unacceptable heritage impacts, the unmanageable traffic and congestion impacts, and the unreasonable harm this project would cause the Paddington community, I respectfully request that this proposal be rejected in its current form.