My objections are:
• Demolition of affordable housing with replacement of less affordable housing for a limited period of 15 years.
• Lack of relationship/continuity between the very bulky proposed development and the very small heritage houses and laneways surrounding
• Overshadowing and lack of privacy for neighbours
• Excessive density
• Excessive height of 10 above ground stories, which will be used as a precedent for creation of a wall of building along Oxford St - see attempt to use Telstra building and Dinosaur Design building as a precedent in this DA
• Excessive carparking with creation of 4 x basement levels requiring excavation, causing risks to trees, water table levels and

This project will DECREASE the amount of affordable housing in the area. It will also completely change the feel of the surrounding streets off Oxford Street. Please, planners, walk down the little narrow streets behind and beside the block and see how congested they are already with parking. There is just no way this area can support additional traffic. There is no suitable infrastructure to avoid additional cars (eg no metro or tram station nearby).

If this letter is published, please redact my name and personal details.

I object to this development for two primary reasons:

1. That is grossly misuses the NSW Government's recent in-fill affordable housing reforms — perversely, this development proposes to demolish 27 relatively affordable studio apartments, which , and replace them with only 10 affordable homes, which will only be rented as such for a limited number of years.

2. That it proposes an excessive and unnecessary number of parking spaces for a site that is very close to the city, and is well served by public and active transport, including bus, light rail, and the recently completed Oxford St cycleway.

Thank you for considering these points.

The development is not in keeping with Paddington’s architectural heritage. It will stand out and be an unattractive but unavoidable feature of the landscape. It does nothing to increase affordable housing in the region. The streets adjacent are very narrow and will not cater for the increase in traffic flow. This will set an unwanted precedent which, if allowed to proceed, could change the character of Paddington forever. Paddington is one of Australia’s first city suburbs, it plays an important part in our colonial history. This development threatens the integrity of this culturally important region.

From: Susan Ardill – Wendy Young – Oliver Ardill-Young
11 Liverpool St, Paddington 2021
We live on Liverpool St about two blocks – 150 metres - from this proposed massive development. We are extremely concerned about the impact that this proposal, when finished and during construction, would have on the surrounding historic streetscape, the local community and on the traffic congestion we already experience. We strongly object to this proposal.

Social heritage
We have lived in Paddington for 33 years and in Liverpool St for 22 years. We have raised our son here, he is now a young adult. We live in a terrace house, we are surrounded by mostly two-storey terraces and in some of the streets – Spring St, Shadforth St, Gipps St – there are significant very old single-storey sandstone cottages. This is very much a pedestrian area. Residents walk around to get to public transport or to nearby shops and cafes, and as such, we often walk along these very narrow streets, but they are on a human scale. They are not alienating and people often have their front doors open, there is a strong sense of community and connection. The residents of Prospect and surrounding streets often hold street parties. The hsitoric legacy of this area is a daily reality for us.
If this development goes ahead according to the current plan, we will be able to see it from our front gate simply by turning our heads to the left. Currently when we look to the left, we see terrace houses and sky and on the horizon we see foliage from the Oxford St trees. This high-rise tower would loom over this original historic part of Paddington in the Paddington Conservation Area – the area which sprang up in the 1830s and 1840s to service the Barracks nearby. It will be a complete anomaly and eyesore. We will not be able to avoid seeing it or evade its presence. The proposal will have a strong impact on our enjoyment of the area. We would strongly consider moving away to another part of Paddington even though we have invested significantly in our current home and garden and in the local community.
We often walk our dog along Paddington Reserve parklands outside the Barracks. This is opposite the proposed development and the reserve's character of sandstone wall, jacarandas and palm trees would be badly impacted by this looming modern apartment block. The Barracks are the genesis of Paddington and the Reserve is the face of the Barracks. This proposal will be totally out of character with the Reserve and thus diminish its lovely character, which attracts many tourists in jacarandah season.
The scale and nature of this proposal means that it will not fit in with the current local community. The apartments in the air will be removed from their surroundings and from the Paddington community. The proposal is historically inappropriate and unsympathetic to this very important streetscape.

Affordability
Our son Oliver who has grown up in this area is already largely priced out of being able to buy or even rent in this area. His only hope of renting would be the kinds of reasonable flats which already exist on the proposed development site (and others nearby) and which house low-income earners. The current 27 studio apartments would be replaced by majority luxury apartments completely out of reach of, for example, essential workers. This proposal would have a very detrimental impact on housing affordability in Paddington – into the future as well, given that it would be taken as a precedent by future developers. Claiming that there will be low rent apartments seems to be a very cynical exercise from the developers, lasting hardly any time at all.

Car parks
The proposal to provide 83 car parking spaces – to be accessed from what are essentially single lane streets - is frankly ludicrous and very excessive. This building would be on Oxford St which will have a cycleway within the next few years and which is already one of the best public transport corridors in Sydney. It is also eminently walkable from the CBD and other local features such as Centennial Park, the stadium and even Bondi Junction. Offering two parking spaces to each apartment's future residents underscores the elite nature of the proposal. [It is high time NSW began to build new projects without car parking spaces at all – just like most of the current surrounding terraces do not have garages. ]
These car parks would be accessed from Shadforth and Gipps Streets – come and look at the current traffic hold-ups on these streets already! It is mostly impossible for two cars to pass on Shadforth – cars have to wait at either end to allow one vehicle to come past. Adding perhaps at least 100 vehicle movements a day to this is a future migraine for everyone who lives in Shadforth, Gipps and Liverpool Sts. Currently these streets are quiet and peaceful, with that much increased heavy traffic, they would lose their amenity.
In any case, the number of car spaces should be cut dramatically, if not entirely, to reduce the need for excessive excavation, to reduce future congestion, to be more in line with environmental sensitivity and to educe apartment prices.

Construction
Construction would involve heavy trucks being routed up the lovely historic Glenmore Rd, with its relaxed café and pub precinct, turning right into our street, Liverpool, where again, the street at the top is so narrow that vehicles currently have to wait for one to go past before proceeding and then somehow accessing the construction site. How big trucks will get onto the construction site without causing chaos is unclear to me. Wishful thinking on behalf of the developer.
Construction over a long period would also dramatically impede businesses in that stretch of Paddington, including Love Supreme, a very popular restaurant, and several clothing shops and gyms. Outdoor seating at the pub and cafes on Glenmore Rd will be subject to heavy truck traffic which will probably impact on business.

Objection
Please protect inner-city low-cost housing by refusing the development proposal altogether. Please ensure this letter is taken as an objection for the purposes of the Department’s environmental impact assessment.

I request that my name and details be withheld.

As a local resident I support the development for the following reasons:
- The developer has engaged a quality architect
- The massing is nuanced and appropriate
- The site is only overshadowing Oxford Street
- The proposal will replace a run down building that offers nothing to the streetscape
- Increased density in the area will improve viability of public transport including the Oxford Street cycleway
- The project will provide much needed housing in the area

Thank you for taking the time to review this submission.

The merit of the design is poor due to impacts on heritage and privacy outcomes and the applicant has confused the matter of their 4.6 variation of the LEP height limit with the discretionary development standard for RFBs from Chapter 6 of the housing SEPP.

Heritage: The bulk and prominence of the proposal will mean a dominance of a large intrusive building to the heritage conversation area. It must be underlined that the building is almost 50m wide on the street with a continuous height of ~30m. This will make it extremely prominent. More prominent than the Paddington town hall or the opposite Victoria barracks. It doesn't matter how many existing examples of tall intrusive buildings the applicant provides (most of which predate the planning Act itself), the development still means a (to my mind) unacceptable negative impact on the heritage conservation area.

Privacy: The northern facade contains 7 levels and a roof top space which are set back ~9m from the terraces. These terraces outdoor spaces will simply not be private after the development. Building separation between apartment's balcony spaces under the ADG is more strict.

The non discretionary standard prevents the consent authority from refusing the DA on ground with non compliance to the particular performance metric (in this case building height) IF they meet the non discretionary development standard in chapter 6 (that is fall below the height limit that is enhanced by the bonus height due to affordable housing or ~28m), if that happens the consent authority is so restrained.

This is not a development standard, and non discretionary development standards in the housing SEPP do not have a clause 4.6 variation equivalent to allow the consent authority to decide to constrain themselves (nor would such a thing make any sense).

The result of this misunderstanding by the applicant is that they have not made an argument for why varying the height from 9.5m to~32m would have a good planning outcomes or how the objectives of the R3 zone are still met despite the non compliance.

This is not just pointless legal minutiae. It exists to ensure that a proper assessment takes place for the community's benefit and also, just as significantly, to ensure that every applicant is treated equally by government and the relevant officers by undergoing the same predictable and regular process.

The proposal in front of you is a a high density development, a 30m high shoptop apartment. It is a significant departure from the built environment for oxford street contemplated by the previous decades of strategic planning at state and local levels. The significant heritage and privacy impacts are just the two most obvious concerns arising from such a development. It's the applicant's job to convince the consent authority (acting for the community) that the merits of the development on balance outweight the environmental costs. I am not personally convinced they have done this for heritage and privacy.

Though the site benefits from the Chapter 6 of the housing SEPP, it still is contained by the surrounding environment and the current planning envisioned for it. The surrounding Victorian terraces and Victoria Barracks are heritage and currently intended to remain and contribute to cultural history/heritage. Unfortunately for the applicant, these are constraints on development yield in my view, both due to overlooking concerns and the impacts the bulk of a maximally yielding design will have for the area. The Government's planning reforms with chapter 6 has meant that the (often too slow) work to place high density development in the best locations with the least adverse impacts have been short circuited and none of the many considerations including master planning and testing of the impact on upzones sites on a heritage conservation zone has never taken place. That means that much of the consideration now flows down to the development application stage as a now previously not well considered built environment is freshly proposed and considered by the community.

I hope take my objections on board and i thank you for any consideration you give my thoughts.

Regards,
Max Bardsley

16 March 2026
The Secretary
NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: Objection submission – Proposed development at 160 Oxford Street, Paddington SSD-97528708
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to lodge an objection to the proposed development at 160 Oxford Street, Paddington, currently being assessed under the State Significant Development (SSD) pathway.
I understand SSD pathways are intended for projects of genuine state significance. However, this proposal delivers only a modest net increase in housing supply (8 additional apartments) and a reduced affordable housing outcome (10 dwellings, down from 27). In practical terms, the SSD process appears to facilitate a building of substantially greater height and scale than would ordinarily be contemplated at this location, while bypassing the usual local assessment framework that applies within the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area.
As such I request that the proposal be referred back to Council for assessment against the Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014 (WLEP 2014) planning controls.
Key concerns
• Excessive parking: 83 car parking spaces for 40 dwellings (more than two spaces per dwelling), which is inconsistent with an inner-city location with strong public transport access.
• Housing mix: the proposal includes no studio or one-bedroom apartments, which is a missed opportunity in the context of housing affordability and diverse household needs.
• Height and built-form incompatibility: the proposed height is out of step with the prevailing two-to-four storey character of Oxford Street, Paddington. Examples cited in the EIS of eight-to-twelve storey buildings are generally institutional or landmark buildings, not comparable continuous street-wall development.
• Heritage and streetscape impacts: an eight-storey building (nine storeys at the rear, plus rooftop terraces) across most of the site would materially alter the visual amenity of Oxford Street and disrupt the established relationship with adjoining heritage workers’ cottages.
• Traffic and construction impacts on narrow streets: surrounding nineteenth-century streets are extremely constrained (e.g., Shadforth Street’s effective single-lane width and Gipps Street’s unsuitability for large vehicles). The EIS does not adequately assess the practical limits of the network or cumulative construction/operational traffic impacts on congestion, safety and residential amenity.
Yours sincerely,
Amanda Pullinger

Objection to 160 Oxford Street development proposal

I am a long-term Paddington resident. I have lived in Paddington continuously since 1986 and before that from 1968-70. Like many Paddington residents I value the fact that I live in this unique Heritage Conservation Area which connects us to our past while offering a desirable lifestyle.

Heritage
Paddington is unique; it tells the story of Australia’s early white settlement throughout the 19th century. It is not just the residents that enjoy its heritage status ; it is also a prime tourist destination, attracting visitors from all over the world and the rest of the country. If this development goes ahead Paddington’s unique heritage character will be lost and importantly, it will set an irreversible precedent for further gross overdevelopment of this historic, low-rise streetscape.

Scale and Bulk
I have witnessed many changes to the Paddington environment during the time that I have lived here but most have been respectful of the area’s heritage values and conscious of preserving its unique character.
This is certainly not the case with this proposed development. The proposal is for an 8 storey, 9 level luxury tower with a four-level excavated carpark for 83 cars and 5 swimming pools. At 30m high, 52m long and 25m wide, its enormous scale and bulk would, if approved, be completely incompatible with, and have a disastrous and irreversible impact on, the surrounding heritage precinct. This development would negatively impact the significant heritage site of Victoria Barracks opposite and would overwhelm the modest and beautifully preserved early Paddington workers cottages in Shadforth Street and Gipps St. The proposed development also shows minimal setbacks from the site boundary on Oxford Street and none along Shadforth Street.

Loss of affordable housing
The current apartment building on Oxford Street, that would be replaced by this proposed development, has 27 studio apartments over three levels, housing essential workers. Rent is approximately $500 per week. The proposed development is for 40 luxury apartments with 10 - 12 “affordable” at a minimum of $1000 per week. This represents a significant net loss of 17 genuinely affordable housing, thus decreasing the availability of affordable housing in Paddington. This does not qualify for the “affordable housing bonus” that the developer is claiming.

Impact on residents
The proposed development would involve years of construction work, including extensive demolition and excavation work (for the four level basement car park) resulting in intolerable disruption for residents. When completed the residents would be faced with overshadowing and loss of privacy.

Traffic chaos
The years of construction of this project would involve the movement of heavy trucks through the narrow streets of Paddington that are not designed for the estimated 20 truckloads a day carrying building material to and from the site.

In summary:
The scale and bulk of this development would irreversibly degrade the nationally significant heritage character of Paddington
Set a precedent for more gross overdevelopment in Paddington
Contribute to a loss of affordable housing in Paddington
Create intolerable disruption for Paddington residents
Create traffic chaos
Contribute nothing to the community