The height of the building exceeds the previously approved envelope. It will completely shadow our building, cutting off light and obstructing views, significantly reducing the value of our apartments. The number of apartments will cause traffic congestion in an already busy small street. We recognise the use for the site but cannot support the scale and size of this submission.

To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: SSD-80211463 – Objection to Proposed Development at 164–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo
From: samantha Wagner Resident/Owner – 608 Top of the Town, 227 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst NSW 2010
Date: 31st October 2025
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to object to the proposed 18-storey development at 164–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo. As a resident of the Top of the Town building at 227 Victoria Street, I am concerned about the scale and impact of this proposal on our community and surrounding environment.
Below is a list of issues that I believe warrant serious consideration. Please note that not all may apply to every resident, but I encourage you to consider those relevant to your experience:
☐ View Loss and Visual Impact
The proposed height (61 metres) will obstruct views of Sydney Harbour, the Opera House, and the Harbour Bridge from many units in our building. These views are a key part of the value and amenity of our homes. The development is located in a sensitive visual catchment and should be scaled down to preserve iconic vistas.
☐ Excessive Height and Overdevelopment
The proposal exceeds the City of Sydney’s planning controls for height and floor space ratio. Even with Housing SEPP bonuses, the scale is unreasonable and inconsistent with the character of the area. A development of 8–9 storeys would be more appropriate.
☐ Rooftop Noise and Amenity Impacts
Plans for rooftop communal areas raise concerns about noise transmission, especially during evenings and weekends. Elevated outdoor spaces can carry sound across the neighbourhood, affecting sleep and quality of life.
☐ Traffic and Parking Pressure
The development will increase traffic on already congested streets and may worsen parking availability. Construction traffic and long-term vehicle movements should be carefully assessed and mitigated.
☐ Overshadowing and Sunlight Loss
A building of this height will cast long shadows over neighbouring properties and public spaces, reducing sunlight and affecting environmental amenity.
☐ Heritage Context
Although the site itself is not heritage-listed, it adjoins the Woolloomooloo Heritage Conservation Area and is near several listed buildings. The proposed bulk and scale would visually dominate these heritage assets.
☐ Infrastructure Strain and Cumulative Impact
The area has seen several large developments recently. The cumulative impact on local infrastructure, public transport, and community services must be considered.
I respectfully request that the Department require a significant reduction in the height and density of the proposal. Should the project proceed to the EIS stage, I ask that the following be included:
A detailed view impact analysis from affected properties.
A noise and vibration assessment, particularly for rooftop use.
A traffic and parking impact study, including cumulative effects.
A heritage impact statement.
Oversight by the State Design Review Panel.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Yours sincerely,
Samantha Wagner
608 Top of the Town
227 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst NSW 2010
[email protected]

I believe the currently approved 18 levels needs to be revised back to the original 10 stories due to a few reasons.
First is the wind – if there is excessive height, which there is with the requested DA, Dowling street, McElhone street and Forbes street will have an unlimited amount of extra wind which will be directed down these streets, from the north and the south.
Views from other buildings will be severely impacted.
Also the traffic will be impacted - there is not multiple vehicular cross overs along Forbes street.

I support the development as I believe it will increase housing availability and affordability in the area

The additional height added to this project will be a MONSTROSITY for this local community. The original approved plan is fine. The addition of the new levels to make the project taller will significant destroy the aesthetics of the neighbourhood. It will also block the view of all current buildings along William St to the East Side. No impact study was made on that side which is the most impacted.

Formal Objection Submission
Proposed Mixed-Use Development at 164–172 & 174–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo (SSD-80211463)

1. Introduction

I object to the proposed redevelopment at 164–172 and 174–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo. While I support appropriate urban renewal, this proposal is excessive in scale, poorly integrated with the surrounding context, and will diminish local amenity, heritage character and infrastructure capacity.

The application does not adequately satisfy the design and performance objectives of the Sydney LEP 2012, SEPP 65, or the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), particularly with respect to built form, amenity, and public benefit.

2. Excessive Height, Bulk and Built Form

The proposal includes multiple buildings ranging from 7 to 18 storeys — far exceeding the prevailing scale of Woolloomooloo’s fine-grain, low-rise urban fabric. This will create a visually dominant “wall” effect along William Street and nearby lanes.

Such scale fails to achieve a sensitive transition to the adjoining terraces and heritage precincts, contrary to LEP objectives requiring developments to respect the desired future character of the locality.

Logical objection:

If a new building substantially exceeds surrounding scale, it inevitably causes overshadowing and visual intrusion.

The design lacks sufficient modulation, setbacks or articulation to reduce bulk and integrate with the human-scale street pattern.

Requested action: Reduce height and overall floor space, introduce stronger upper-level setbacks, and re-design façades to reflect local proportions and rhythm.

3. Impacts on Amenity (Sunlight, Views, Privacy)

Shadow studies indicate substantial loss of winter sunlight to adjacent dwellings, open spaces and laneways. The massing will also obstruct existing view corridors toward the Domain and Harbour.

Separation distances between buildings fall short of ADG privacy standards, particularly where podium apartments directly face existing homes. The continuous form also reduces natural ventilation and breezeways.

Logical objection:
If overshadowing, view loss and privacy intrusions materially reduce the amenity of neighbours, the proposal cannot be considered compatible or “in the public interest.”

Requested action: Provide independent solar, view and wind studies and adopt revised setbacks to protect existing amenity.

4. Infrastructure, Traffic and Parking

The development adds approximately 280 new dwellings and associated retail/commercial floor space — generating hundreds of new residents and vehicles.

Local roads around William Street, Forbes Street and Brougham Street already experience congestion and limited on-street parking. The EIS underestimates these pressures and fails to consider cumulative impacts of other major projects in the area.

Logical objection:
If infrastructure and transport capacity remain static while population increases, congestion, safety and livability will decline.

Requested action: Require an independent traffic and transport assessment addressing cumulative impacts, and implement binding measures for parking management and active-transport improvements.

5. Affordable Housing Provision

While 60 affordable apartments are proposed, this equates to only about 21% of the total yield. The EIS provides little detail about tenure, management or duration of affordability.

Without enforceable covenants or integration across the development, the “affordable” component risks being tokenistic and short-term.

Logical objection:
If affordability is temporary or isolated, the development will accelerate gentrification rather than maintain social diversity.

Requested action: Secure long-term affordable housing (minimum 15 years), fully integrated within the broader development, and managed by a registered community housing provider.

6. Public Realm, Open Space and Community Benefit

Although the proposal includes new laneways and pocket parks, these appear small, internalised, and primarily serve future residents rather than the broader community.

The additional population will strain existing public spaces such as Fitzroy Gardens and Brougham Street Park. True public benefit requires generous, accessible and green open spaces at ground level, not semi-private courtyards.

Logical objection:
If open space and community benefit are not proportional to the development’s scale, the public bears the costs without receiving adequate amenity.

Requested action: Increase public open space area and ensure unrestricted public access with high-quality landscaping.

7. Heritage and Character Impacts

The site sits within view and influence of several heritage items. The bulk and contemporary façade treatments risk overwhelming the historic character of Woolloomooloo’s terraces and streetscapes.

Logical objection:
If the form and materials of a new development dominate heritage settings, it conflicts with LEP Clause 5.10 and the Burra Charter principle of minimal visual impact.

Requested action: Redesign upper levels and façades to better integrate with local scale, materials and rhythm.

8. Environmental and Construction Impacts

While the EIS references BASIX compliance, there is little evidence of genuine leadership in sustainability (e.g. on-site renewables, passive design). The demolition and excavation phase will generate noise, dust and vibration for years, severely affecting residents in nearby social housing.

Logical objection:
If environmental and construction impacts are not mitigated, the project contradicts NSW Net-Zero and ESD principles.

Requested action: Require a full environmental management plan, life-cycle carbon analysis, and stronger commitments to on-site renewable energy and sustainable materials.

9. Social Impact and Community Consultation

Woolloomooloo has a diverse, long-standing community. The social impact assessment in the EIS is superficial and fails to meaningfully address how large-scale redevelopment may change community character or displace vulnerable residents.

Logical objection:
If social consequences are not properly assessed, decision-makers cannot determine whether the proposal is truly “in the public interest.”

Requested action: Require a comprehensive social impact assessment, with consultation of local residents, Indigenous representatives and community organisations.

10. Conclusion

The proposal, as lodged, does not meet the strategic, environmental or social objectives of the NSW planning framework. Its excessive height, inadequate amenity protections, limited public benefit and weak affordability outcomes make it unsuitable in its current form.

Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure:

Refuse the application in its current form; or

Require substantial redesign to:

Reduce height, bulk and density;
Protect sunlight, views and privacy;
Strengthen affordable housing and public realm outcomes; and
Mitigate traffic, construction and environmental impacts.

Only a significantly revised scheme can ensure that new development contributes positively to Woolloomooloo’s heritage, liveability and community wellbeing.

Please see the attached response with supporting documentation. I ask that this is PDF'd prior to publishing & my name is not published.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to object to the proposed 18-storey development at 164–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo. As a resident of the Top of the Town building at 227 Victoria Street, I am concerned about the scale and impact of this proposal on our community and surrounding environment.
Below is a list of issues that I believe warrant serious consideration. Please note that not all may apply to every resident, but I encourage you to consider those relevant to your experience:
☐ View Loss and Visual Impact
The proposed height (61 metres) will obstruct views of Sydney Harbour, the Opera House, and the Harbour Bridge from many units in our building. These views are a key part of the value and amenity of our homes. The development is located in a sensitive visual catchment and should be scaled down to preserve iconic vistas.
☐ Excessive Height and Overdevelopment
The proposal exceeds the City of Sydney’s planning controls for height and floor space ratio. Even with Housing SEPP bonuses, the scale is unreasonable and inconsistent with the character of the area. A development of 8–9 storeys would be more appropriate.
☐ Rooftop Noise and Amenity Impacts
Plans for rooftop communal areas raise concerns about noise transmission, especially during evenings and weekends. Elevated outdoor spaces can carry sound across the neighbourhood, affecting sleep and quality of life.
☐ Traffic and Parking Pressure
The development will increase traffic on already congested streets and may worsen parking availability. Construction traffic and long-term vehicle movements should be carefully assessed and mitigated.
☐ Overshadowing and Sunlight Loss
A building of this height will cast long shadows over neighbouring properties and public spaces, reducing sunlight and affecting environmental amenity.
☐ Heritage Context
Although the site itself is not heritage-listed, it adjoins the Woolloomooloo Heritage Conservation Area and is near several listed buildings. The proposed bulk and scale would visually dominate these heritage assets.
☐ Infrastructure Strain and Cumulative Impact
The area has seen several large developments recently. The cumulative impact on local infrastructure, public transport, and community services must be considered.
I respectfully request that the Department require a significant reduction in the height and density of the proposal. Should the project proceed to the EIS stage, I ask that the following be included:
A detailed view impact analysis from affected properties.
A noise and vibration assessment, particularly for rooftop use.
A traffic and parking impact study, including cumulative effects.
A heritage impact statement.
Oversight by the State Design Review Panel.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Mark Russell
Unit 905, Top of the Town
227 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst NSW 2010
[email protected]

The updated DA has significantly increase the height of the building. This is no longer in keeping with the suburb, and also will cause several environment and social impacts.
The wind tunnels it will create will be significant.
The shadow it casts over my apartment and building will be significant. Essentially blocking the sun for a large part of the day.
The traffic that will come into Doing Street will be unmanageable. Along with the parking.
I support the redevelopment in its original form but this has gone too far. This will be an eyesore and lead to significant disruption