To whom it may concern
I object on the following bases:
1. The proposal goes beyond the Housing SEPP uplift
2. The affordable housing benefit is temporary, but the building is permanent
3. The development appears future-proofed for long-term private residential use
4. The Design Integrity Panel’s comments do not support extra height
5. Affordable housing equity issues should be resolved before the uplift is accepted
6. The applicant’s preferred option is not enough
7. Conditions are not an adequate answer
Further supporting information is contained in the attachment.
With regards
Name withheld

Refer to attached letter.

Thank you.

Kathleen Jamieson

I object to the proposed development due to its excessive height and visual bulk, particularly when compared with the previously approved scheme for the site. The proposal would materially impact the outlook and visual amenity of my apartment at 1 Kings Cross Road, introduce an intrusive built form into a prominent ridgeline location, and create an inappropriate transition in scale within the surrounding neighbourhood. While I support the provision of affordable housing, I do not believe the scale of the proposed uplift is necessary to achieve that objective. My submission includes photographs demonstrating the likely impact on residential amenity and requests that the proposal be substantially reduced in height and bulk before any approval is considered.

As an owner, resident, and Chairperson within Strata Plan 20087, I am writing to lodge my second formal objection to the proposed development at 164 to 194 William Street. This submission supplements my primary objection lodged in November 2025 and specifically addresses the lack of genuine resolution in the applicant’s amended documentation.
Our strata community comprises 105 homes across four residential buildings: Palisades, Kirketon Gardens, Kirketon Mews, and Kirketon Manor. Situated directly south and uphill from the subject site, these buildings were architecturally designed by Meriton in the early 1980s with distinct cascading balconies and extensive glazing specifically configured to capture panoramic views of Woolloomooloo, the Sydney Harbour interface, and iconic city landmarks. The amended proposal fails to rectify the issues raised in my previous submission and continues to threaten my residential amenity, well-being, and property value by completely blocking these highly valued views without offering any meaningful view sharing.
Overdevelopment and Non-Compliant Bulk, Scale, and Height
The amended proposal still represents a massive departure from established Local Environmental Plan (LEP) standards and Housing SEPP bonus provisions. The applicant continues to rely on unjustified Clause 4.6 variations to defend an excessive, non-compliant visual envelope that is completely out of character with the existing and expected scale of the Woolloomooloo precinct.
Misleading Future Context: The "future context massing" (indicated in pink within the applicant's documentation) remains speculative, block-like, and lacks reference to actual statutory controls. It should not be utilised as a baseline to validate an otherwise unacceptable height breach.
Precedent Risk: Approving a State Significant Development Application (SSDA) with such severe departures overrides previous rigorous community and Council consultation processes, setting a highly damaging precedent for ridge-line developments in this sensitive corridor.
Severe Visual Impact and Failure of Tenacity View-Sharing Principles
The views currently enjoyed from our apartments are not narrow or isolated glimpses; they are whole, panoramic views encompassing the Sydney Opera House sails, the Sydney Harbour Bridge, St Mary's Cathedral, the Royal Botanic Gardens, and the Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf.
Complete Blockage versus Equity: Under the established Tenacity planning principles, development potential must be balanced with the equitable sharing of views. The applicant’s massive, wide "block" design maximises its own commercial views by completely stripping them from hundreds of existing residents.
Topographical Disregard: The site's cascading topography offers an organic opportunity to step and scale the built form to preserve regional view corridors. The current proposal completely ignores this opportunity.
Fundamental Inaccuracies and Bias in the Applicant’s VIA
Despite extensive community feedback since November 2025, the Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) and subsequent peer reviews submitted by the applicant's consultant (Urbis) remain fundamentally biased.
Inadequate Assessment Methodology: The consultant claims to have reviewed individual dwellings but has explicitly failed to conduct internal inspections. Instead, the assessment relies on real estate floor plans and drone photography taken over adjoining parklands.
Misrepresentation of Impact: Drone angles do not accurately capture the specific sitting and standing sightlines from within our living areas and balconies. Consequently, the consultant's "low risk" impact ratings are fundamentally false. For the residents of SP 20087, the actual impact is severe and devastating.
Enclosed Photographic Evidence: To rectify the clinical and inaccurate desktop modeling used by the applicant, I have attached a series of personal verification photographs taken directly from my own property. These photographs explicitly demonstrate my authentic standing and sitting sightlines. They capture the precise composition of the panoramic land-to-water interface, the clear visibility of iconic harbour elements, and the spatial relationship to the lower-lying subject site. A comparison between these true perspectives and the applicant's block massing makes it undeniable that the proposed width and non-compliant height will cause total visual obstruction rather than equitable view sharing.
Traffic, Access Congestion, and Deficient Developer Consultation
The local road network surrounding the site is already severely constrained, congested, and poorly equipped to handle a major injection of residential density.
Failure to Address Community Concerns: I personally attended the original consultation meeting hosted by the developers. During this forum, I explicitly raised urgent concerns regarding the severe traffic congestion this scale of development would cause on the narrow local lane network. At that time, the developers admitted to me that they had no traffic impact reports, assessments, or concrete data to answer my inquiries.
Years into this planning process, the documentation filed by the applicant still fails to robustly or objectively address these issues. The shortfall in visitor parking combined with the reliance on narrow, congested lanes for heavy service and residential vehicle access will severely degrade local traffic flow and pedestrian safety.
Environmental, Landscape, and Infrastructure Deficiencies
Landscape Shortfall: The proposal offers a minimal 9% deep soil planting area and fails to meet the City of Sydney’s 15% post-dedication canopy tree requirement, providing just 15.85% total canopy context before deductions. This lack of greenery fails to soften the sheer vertical massing of the building.
Unresolved Flooding and Groundwater Risks: The extensive excavation required for the underground parking network poses unaddressed risks to the local water table, and the increase in hard surfaces creates clear, unresolved localised flooding risks.
Compromised Amenity of the Proposed Affordable Housing: The applicant attempts to justify an extreme breach of public scale controls under the banner of providing affordable housing. However, the actual percentage of floor space allocated to affordable housing is kept to an absolute minimum, and the units themselves are physically segregated in highly trafficked zones with substandard solar access, poor storage, and limited natural ventilation.
Formal Requests to the Department (DPHI)
To ensure a balanced, fair, and legally robust assessment of this application, I formally request that the Department execute the following actions:
Appoint an Independent View Expert: Commission a fully independent, qualified visual and urban design expert to assess the true visual impact on surrounding properties, completely bypassing the applicant’s prejudiced VIA reports.
Conduct Mandatory Site Inspections: Organise official site visits to individual apartments within SP 20087 (including my own property) to witness firsthand the standing and sitting sightlines demonstrated in the attached photographs that will be obliterated by the current non-compliant envelope.
Obtain Independent Legal Advice: Seek external legal counsel on how Land and Environment Court principles regarding "reasonableness" and "view sharing" apply to an application of this scale that severely violates statutory height and FSR limits.
Reject the Clause 4.6 Variations: Refuse to support the requested scale variations, as the applicant has failed to prove that compliance with standard LEP/SEPP controls is unreasonable or unnecessary, and has failed to demonstrate that the development serves the broader public interest.
Summary Conclusion
The amended proposal continues to represent an unmodulated, aggressive overdevelopment that seeks maximum yield at the direct expense of our community's established amenity. The concerns raised in my initial November 2025 objection stand unaddressed. A compliant, redesigned proposal aligning strictly with the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) and true design excellence frameworks could easily achieve equitable view sharing while maintaining a sustainable development yield.
I thank the Department for thoroughly considering this second submission and reviewing the attached visual evidence. I welcome further dialogue, technical inquiries, and the coordination of formal site inspections to my property.

Sincerely concerned,
Kristin Jermolajew

Attached are 12 verification photographs taken directly from our apartment (Unit 99, Level 6, Kirketon Gardens South Tower). These images illustrate the authentic panoramic perspectives from both our internal dining room and external balcony living spaces facing the subject site. The photographs capture the clear visual line from both sitting and standing positions, utilising the roofline of the adjacent 'No Birds' building on the right as an established height benchmark to demonstrate the scale of the potential obstruction.