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

We strongly oppose the proposed development at 160 Oxford St in its current form.

We speak as residents of Paddington for over 40 years. In all that time, having had to face quite a few development proposals that have threatened our unique heritage precinct, we have never encountered a proposal that is so without merit and which will have such a potentially negative impact on our neighbourhood.

Given its location adjacent to Little Paddington Village, a Paddington Heritage Conservation Area, and across from the Victoria Barracks and given its proposed massive bulk and scale, the only public benefit that this proposed development might conceivably offer would be to provide significant additional affordable housing. This is clearly not the case.

The proposed development will in fact result in a significant net loss of genuinely affordable housing from 27 existing dwellings to only 10 proposed. It’s quite outrageous to hear that the developers are claiming the 30% Affordable Housing Bonus while in fact exacerbating the affordable housing crisis.

The developers are probably arguing that the addition of luxury units like these will enhance the neighbourhood. Instead we are facing a heartbreaking attack on a heritage precinct which is unique not only to Australia, but the world. The preservation of Paddington was hard fought, yet we now see it being eroded by sheer greed and a cynical exploitation of the current urgency for affordable housing in Sydney.

More than any other part of Paddington, the proposed development fronts a particularly special precinct: Little Paddington Village is primarily made up of small single storey houses constructed to house the artisans building the Victoria Barracks. It is the oldest part of Paddington and older than most parts of Sydney. As the Paddington Society has pointed out, the site in question is therefore of particular importance and its development should be treated in an appropriately sympathetic way.

The proposed eight story development is oversized and bulky with minimal setback from Oxford street and none from Shadforth St that leads into Little Paddington Village. Its visual impact is incompatible with the surrounding streetscape: totally out of scale and incompatible with the suburb’s heritage values. Approval will inevitably set a precedent for future overscale developments on Oxford Street and surrounding precincts.

We ask that you reject this proposal and require the developers to propose a development that is less bulky, lower in height and suitably setback to fit into the surrounding structures.

Josefa Green & John Millbank
46 Renny St, Paddington

Design does not fit with Paddington heritage - this ugly building will overshadow the beauty and uniqueness of the precinct and houses in the surrounding area
Plan does not offer low cost housing
4 levels of car parking underground suggests people need cars. This is at odds with the current thinking of using public transport. Should not be allowed.
Surrounding streets allow for one car at a time. This will prohibit trucks from coming and going.

I object to this proposal as Paddington is a heritage listed area and the proposed development is not in keeping with the buildings in this beautiful suburb. This would be the thin edge of the wedge and we would end up with a mish-mash of modern buildings as other developers use this as a precedent in the future. The other issue is that this proposal would do away with much needed affordable housing and the apartments in the proposed complex would only be accessible by the wealthy. This development should not be approved.

Objection to DA SSD‑97528708 - 148–160 Oxford Street, Paddington
I am a long time local resident of Paddington and I am writing to formally object to the State Significant Development application SSD‑97528708 for the proposed eight‑storey mixed‑use development at 148–160 Oxford Street, 6 Shadforth Street and 13 Gipps Street.
As someone who lives in and uses this area daily, I have direct experience of the scale, character and heritage significance of Little Paddington Village and the surrounding streets. My objections are based on the serious and lasting impacts this proposal would have on heritage, streetscape, housing diversity and residential amenity. Once so drastically changed it will be irreversible.
1. Incompatible bulk, scale and height
The proposed eight‑storey development is entirely out of character with its surroundings. At approximately 52 metres long, 25 metres wide and around 30 metres high, the building’s bulk and massing would dominate Oxford Street, Shadforth Street and Gipps Street. This scale is incompatible with the very modest workers’ cottages and fine grain built form that define these oldest and earliest parts of Paddington.
Rather than responding sensitively to its context, the proposal is incongruent and completely overwhelms it.
2. Harm to the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area
Paddington’s heritage value lies in its consistent scale, historic streetscape and human‑scale development. This proposal would cause irreversible harm to the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area and undermine the very qualities that planning controls are meant to protect. The preservation of local heritage has been hard‑fought and formally recognised as valuable in a city undergoing constant change. This should continue to be safeguarded for future generations.
Approval of this development would also set a dangerous precedent for further oversized developments along Oxford Street and surrounding precincts.
3. Impact on Victoria Barracks
The excessive height and massing of the proposal would negatively impact the heritage significance and setting of Victoria Barracks, which sits directly opposite the site. The visual dominance of an eight‑storey building in this location would diminish the historic and civic presence of this important landmark.
4. Poor setbacks and streetscape impacts
The development proposes minimal setbacks from Oxford Street and no setback along Shadforth Street. This lack of transition to neighbouring properties will exacerbate the visual bulk of the building and significantly degrade the existing streetscape, to the detriment of residents and the wider community. The development completely fails to take into account the character of surrounding buildings and feel of the suburb.
5. Traffic and construction impacts
The proposal includes four levels of basement excavation to service 83 car parking spaces. This will generate substantial construction disruption and ongoing traffic impacts on already congested local streets – not to mention potential excavation damage to surrounding structures. These impacts will affect residents, pedestrians and local businesses and are not appropriate for this location.
6. Loss of genuinely affordable housing
While the proposal claims an Affordable Housing Bonus, the reality is a significant net loss of affordable housing on the site. Existing dwellings (27) are being replaced with only 10 infill affordable apartments, resulting in the loss of 17 affordable homes.
This outcome does not justify the scale uplift being sought and highlights how the In‑Fill Affordable Housing Bonus is being exploited to deliver luxury apartments at the expense of genuinely affordable housing and housing diversity.
7. Threat to significant trees
Construction and excavation place the four London Plane trees on Oxford Street at risk. These trees are of high civic and environmental value and contribute significantly to the character and amenity of the street. Significant tree loss in the area is causing loss of habitat for birds and wildlife. The loss or damage of these existing trees would be unacceptable.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I strongly object to SSD‑97528708. The proposal is excessive in scale, harmful to heritage, damaging to streetscape and residential amenity in our suburb, and results in a net loss of genuinely affordable housing.
I respectfully request that the NSW Department of Planning refuse this application or require substantial redesign to ensure any development on this site is consistent with the established scale, heritage character and community values of Paddington.
Thank you for considering my submission.

This development provides much needed housing in a very well located area with great access to amenities and transport infrastructure. The concerns from local residents about the loss of the old housing stock on the site should be ignored as the development provides more housing than what currently exists on the site, relieving pressure on housing prices and rents in the overall area. It makes sense that the existing housing is 'affordable' as it is old and relatively low quality, but this does not mean it needs to be retained. The economic literature is very clear that the higher amount of housing supply will reduce rents and prices across the area. If the existing housing were to be retained and no extra supply was provided in the area, the prices/rents of that housing would continue increasing, eventually pricing out existing residents.

I am a local resident who lives and works in the area and am writing to formally object to the proposed development at 160 Oxford Street, Paddington.

My reasons for objection are outlined below.

"State Significant Development" with Limited Local Oversight
I'm concerned that this proposal is missing significant input from local council and lacks community insight which is critical in determining the outcome of any project, especially one that will have substantial and long-term impacts on the Paddington area. Given the scale of the development and its location within a heritage conservation area, strong local planning scrutiny and meaningful community consultation are essential in ensuring that this development is serving local needs.

Height, Bulk and Scale
The proposed development is much too large for its location and would significantly impeed the established scale of the surrounding local (heritage) area. A structure of this magnitude would dwarf the surrounding one- and two-storey terrace homes and dominate the Oxford Street streetscape.
Oxford Street within Paddington is generally characterised by buildings of approximately four storeys or less. A development of this scale would tower over the existing built form and fundamentally alter the protected visual character of the precinct.

Heritage Conservation Area Impacts
The site is located within the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area, which is recognised and valued by the community for its irreplaceable historical and aesthetic character. Important elements that contribute to the heritage significance of a Heritage Conservation Area include:
• Architectural styles of buildings
• The relationship between buildings and their surrounding land
• Streetscapes, fences, gardens and trees
• The consistent low-rise urban form and human-scale environment
Developments within such areas should protect and reinforce these characteristics - the proposed development does not and it risks creating a poor precedent for future developments within the area. The proposed development introduces a building form and scale that is inconsistent with the established character of the area and risks permanently altering the heritage streetscape that the conservation area is intended to protect. Our local community is proud of the heritage and the landscape it provides us and has gone to great lengths to protect it as can be demonstrated by previous development proposal objections. To clarify, we are not opposed to development but want to see it have a positive impact on the community issues at hand, one of which is protecting our local history and heritage by developing buildings that are respectful and in keeping with the look and feel of the area we choose to call home.

Lack of Respect for Heritage Context
Planning within heritage conservation areas should ensure that new development respects the spatial relationships and boundaries that contribute to the significance of the area. New buildings should not overwhelm or dominate the surrounding heritage fabric. Instead, development should sit comfortably within the existing streetscape and respect the scale, rhythm and spatial arrangement of neighbouring buildings. The proposed development appears to prioritise maximising development yield rather than respecting the heritage context. The height, bulk and density of the project introduce a built form that conflicts with the established urban pattern of Paddington’s terrace streets and village-scale character.

Risk of Setting a Harmful Precedent
The site sits within the jurisdiction of Woollahra Municipal Council, which contains some of the most significant and is arguably the most well-preserved heritage conservation area in Sydney, if not Australia. It holds great historical value and links to the beginning Australia's history.
I'm deeply concerned that approval of a building of this scale within the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area would set a dangerous planning precedent for future developments within the area. Future development, including this proposal should instead aim to improve the relationship between new buildings and heritage areas, not replicate earlier developments that failed to respect the surrounding heritage context and are gradually eroding the historic character of the area.

Strong Concerns Regarding the “Affordable Housing Bonus” & Net Loss of Existing Affordable Housing
The proposal reportedly seeks a 130% height bonus in exchange for providing only ten affordable apartments, consisting of two- and three-bedroom units.
Several concerns arise from this; The existing building on the site currently contains 27 studio apartments that provide genuinely affordable accommodation.
These dwellings have historically housed students, creatives and essential workers, including healthcare staff.
The redevelopment would remove these homes and replace them with a small number of temporary “affordable” units, resulting in what appears to be a net loss of accessible housing for the community. Despite the scale of the project, the proposal would reportedly result in only a small net increase in total dwellings, raising questions about whether the development meaningfully contributes to addressing housing demand within NSW.

Across NSW we are currently facing a severe housing shortage which has consistently driven up demand and in turn cost of rent affordabilty. I am a local that has experienced a rent rise every year since COVID ended. State Government approved developments should be seeking to correct this issue rather than driving efforts towards approving luxury dwellings. The future owners and tenants of the proposed luxury apartments are not citizens who are impacted by the housing shortage challenges and rent rises across our state and local area. Providing more luxury homes and dwellings is a real step-back for those who are currently challenged by the housing shortage and finding affordable housing.

The affordable housing bonus incentive should not be able to be applied to developments whereby they are removing current genuine affordable housing to replace it with luxury housing and a smaller quota of affordable housing than the site originally started with. Where will the current tenants be able to find comparable housing and what issues will this development solve?

Construction Traffic and Safety Concerns
The Construction Traffic Management Plan indicates that approximately 20 trucks per day would travel through nearby residential streets including Glenmore Road, Liverpool Street, Gipps Street, and Shadforth Street.

This plan raises significant safety concerns because it fails to consider the following:
• Glenmore Road is subject to a heavy-vehicle load limit of 3 tonnes - it is not suitable for the type of vehicles/trucks that will be used for the development.
• The surrounding area is designated as a high pedestrian activity zone - what will be done to ensure safety of our local pedestrians which includes school children, students and the elderly?
• The intersection of Shadforth Street and Gipps Street is signposted as “Unsuitable for Large Vehicles”
• There have been two serious injury accidents recorded in the immediate area - safety of locals needs to be more considered within this Traffic Management Plan.
Paddington’s narrow street network was originally designed in the 19th century and is not suitable for frequent heavy-vehicle movements.

Traffic and Parking Impacts
The development includes excavated parking for approximately 83 vehicles, which will increase traffic movements in an area already experiencing congestion during school and peak hours. Combined with ongoing infrastructure changes such as the Oxford Street cycleway, this additional traffic is likely to further strain the local road network and affect accessibility for residents and businesses.

Long-Term Community Impact
This proposal represents more than a single building. It risks setting a precedent that could reshape Paddington's future.
The community is at risk of losing:
• Existing affordable housing and long-term community residents
• The historic village-streetscape and character of the area
• Safe and accessible streets for residents and businesses

The proposed development raises significant concerns regarding heritage impacts, excessive height and bulk, loss of existing affordable housing, disproportionate planning bonuses, construction disruption, traffic safety and the precedent it would set within a heritage conservation area. It fails to address any real concerns and challenges that the community is currently facing, rather causing further burden and problems to our community, it's local services and infrastructure.
Development within heritage conservation areas should protect and enhance the qualities that make these places significant. This proposal fails to achieve that objective.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure refuse the application or require substantial redesign to ensure the development respects the heritage, scale and community character of Paddington and addresses the challenges that are currently being faced by locals around genuine housing affordability, rent rises driven by shortages of affordable housing, traffic congestion, access to public services and infrastructure.

I am a long term resident and ratepayer of Paddington. We have lived at 420 Moore Park Road for 20 years.
I am very concerned that the proposed development at 160 Oxford Street will be a blot on the landscape and should not be allowed.
This monstrous building will loom over Paddington’s oldest residential quarter. This historic area holds the cottages of the workers who built Victoria Barracks across the road.
The entire area is part of our national estate and should be kept for future generations to appreciate.
The proposed building is completely out of proportion to the surrounding environment and exemplifies the greed of developers.
I object most strongly to this development.

I am writing to object to the proposed development for 148-160 Oxford Street. I have lived, worked and walked in the streets of Paddington since the 1960s. I am deeply committed to the unique qualities of this suburb, its historic buildings, vibrant life and liveable future. As a child I watched the campaign to save Jersey Road and a swath of houses from development, a victory that helped preserve what residents and visitors love about the area.
We are now seeing the first steps in a new assault on Paddington’s character. If the proposed development is approved, it will signal a capitulation to buildings that are out of scale and style with their surroundings.
The current proposal places an eight-storey building in a position where it will loom over the two-storey terraces and cottages behind it and be visible from many nearby properties and streets. This is unacceptable anywhere in a heritage area and especially damaging to an intact village of Paddington’s oldest houses. Its position opposite Victoria Barracks is an insult to the graceful, low-rise buildings of that historic precinct.
The building design is generic, bombastic, and takes no account of its neighbours. The suggestion that it will increase affordable housing is ludicrous as it replaces a modest block of small apartments and its affordable component is temporary. Construction of the apartments and four levels of underground parking will risk serious or fatal damage to existing houses.
I am not opposed to all development in Paddington. There are sites where sympathetic new buildings have enhanced Oxford Street, such as the replacement for the Academy Twin building. I accept that we need to increase housing and I am not a fan of Victorian pastiche, but the current proposal is greedy.
Too many suburbs of Sydney are being turned into towering corridors that resemble any city in the world. Paddington should not be one of them. No doubt this site will eventually be redeveloped, but please protect the residents who rent these flats and rethink the way the site should be used. There is a great opportunity to show Sydney how to be creative, practical and appealing.

I oppose the proposal. Please see attachment