Please find my objection submission "Submission for 164-194 William St Woolloomooloo amendment.pdf" attached. My prior submission "Prior Submission for 164-194 William St Woolloomooloo.pdf" has also been re-attached as it has been referred to in the new submission.

I object to SSD-80211463. The amended scheme exceeds the affordable housing bonus height control by 23.3 metres, a figure confirmed in the applicant's own Statutory Compliance Table, with the excess height delivering market apartments rather than affordable housing.

The applicant's Visual Impact Assessment has not properly assessed my dwelling in 26 Kirketon Road) despite two Departmental requests for dwelling-specific, verified assessment; Urbis's own report confirms it has relied on unverified desktop review only and that "no views have been modelled from objector dwellings."

Traffic on William Street, Forbes Street and Dowling Street is already heavily congested, as these streets form a major arterial route to the eastern suburbs, and four levels of basement excavation and construction will add substantial heavy vehicle movements and disruption on top of this existing strain.

I also note that Transport for NSW has previously raised concerns regarding excavation and geotechnical risk near the Cross City Tunnel, given the site's proximity to it, and I ask the Department to ensure this has been properly addressed before determination. Full details, including the relevant Tenacity assessment and supporting evidence, are set out in my attached submission.

I am writing to express my opposition to the amended State Significant Development Application (SSDA) for 164-194 William Street, Woolloomooloo.
As a local resident, I am alarmed by the extent to which this proposal attempts to bypass critical development standards.
My submission and explanation is attached.

Hi there,
I am one of the owners of 603/184 Forbes Street, Darlinghurst.
Please find attached my objection to the proposed development.
Yours faithfully,
Callum Bruford

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