I believe the development proposal is attempting to take unfair advantage of affordable housing provisions to build something that is 3-4 times the height of the rest of the suburb.

The affordable housing rules are being taken advantage of because the proposal is providing 10 affordable units and demolishing a building containing 27 studio apartments (which are genuinely affordable). The proposal is providing that these 10 units will be offered at below market rent for 15 years. This is a short-term measure as these apartments won't remain affordable after 15 years. This proposal is a backward step in terms of the availability of affordable housing in Paddington. However, the proposal is attempting to gain increases in height on the basis that it is an affordable project. This undermines the affordable housing rules.

The proposal is too high and out of place with the surrounding area. It will create over-shadowing and dominate the sky line. A key reason why Paddington is a desirable place to live is because its heritage character has been carefully maintained. It is very short-sighted to start eroding that character so that high-rise apartments with views can be built (and sold for a high price to benefit the developer).

Paddington is already a high density suburb. The typical terrace house in Paddington occupies around 100 square metres of land. 2/3 story terrace house developments with small blocks of land are an excellent model for high quality housing for the whole of Sydney. We should be looking to expand this form of housing through more parts of Sydney rather than trying to demolish it in places like Paddington where it already exists.

Dear Mr Victor Casasanta,
This objection has been prepared by the owners of 15, 17, 19 and 21 Gipps Street, Paddington, NSW. 2021, in relation to State Significant Development Application (SSDA) SSD-97528708.
Thank you kindly for your time in reviewing this document.
Best Regards

This project will reduce the number of affordable housing units that are currently on site in the existing development. The bulk and scale of the proposed development will completely overshadow the surrounding heritage areas which were some of Sydney’s earliest houses . The developers are using the state governments planning changes for profits only with no regard for providing extra affordable housing. This is a profit driven development and will not increase any housing for key workers in the area. It will diminish any affordable accommodation and we strongly oppose this application. The state government have consistently stated that they want to increase housing as well as providing housing for essential workers, this development will provide upper price bracket housing at the expense of existing affordable housing, whilst the developers will be targeting higher end buyers and affordable housing is being taken away. This development goes completely against the ethos of what the state government is trying to achieve. Please think of the affordable housing that we will lose if this development is approved. Paddington is a tourist destination as well as a residential neighbourhood so if the heritage is lost this will also have impacts on the state tourism revenue in addition to the loss of affordable accommodation. The existing accommodation on site serves as long term affordable housing in its current form. Thanks to many people that objected to the demolition of the Rocks area of Sydney we have an incredible part of our history and a wonderful tourism precinct. Please keep our existing affordable housing and heritage in this area. We strongly object to this proposal.

This area is a special slice of Paddington’s history. Having recently completed a renovation of our house in the vicinity, my wife and I were subject to the strictest of guidelines regarding all sorts of matters including sight lines, height, scale and heritage. We appreciated council’s thoroughness even though we didn’t gThis submission is running to different standards in the same neighbourhood as me and therefore does not meet standards of fairness. Furthermore I am sceptical about the use of affordable housing commitments as a Trojan horse of a development like this. As admirable as that component may be in principle (and I can’t judge either way on the strength of the submission in this regard) it should not be an excuse to run roughshod over all the various regulations I have been required to uphold just around the corner. If this development is approved then the state government should work with the council it has overrode to even the playing field for nearby dwellings. But I doubt this will happen and I believe anyway that this development should not proceed given what it will do to an area which has long been acknowledged as special and historic.

This submission is made on behalf of Paddington United, a community group.