My submission focuses on the impact of housing supply of this development. Whilst I am a supporter of increasing housing density in Sydney, I am concerned that the net effect of this project will be to reduce the number of units that are reasonably priced, which I believe runs counter to the Government's priority to make housing more accessible in Sydney.

I object to the proposal due to the following reasons:

• Potential loss of affordable housing – I am concerned that whilst this development does include affordable housing within it, that the net effect on the supply of housing around the median price will be negative. It would be a perverse outcome if 28 studio flats that are close to the median rental value turn into 4 luxury penthouses, 26 units that are significantly above median rent and 10 that are affordable. Whilst more affordable housing is welcome (i.e. those which are 20% below market), it is important to take a balanced and holistic view of how housing supply changes. My concern with this development is that these ten affordable houses are used as a smokescreen to turn 28 reasonably priced apartments into housing that is much more expensive and inaccessible for most people. I do not believe this fits with the values and intent of the NSW policy to increase housing supply.

• Luxury penthouses in the development – my understanding is the development includes four multi-story penthouses. I find this to be completely inappropriate, given the current housing crisis and the need for more affordable housing.

The proposed Paddington Tower development is deeply concerning to many residents, including me, because it threatens not only the physical character of our suburb but also the stability of the community that has existed here for generations. Paddington is widely known for its historic terraces, narrow streets, and village-style atmosphere, which are core parts of its identity and a major reason why people choose to live here. A large high-rise tower would fundamentally disrupt this environment by introducing a scale of development that simply does not match the existing urban form. Beyond the broader community impacts, the development is personally devastating because my own home is one of the properties slated for demolition to make way for the project. The removal of existing homes to construct a high-rise also sets a worrying precedent for the suburb. If developments like this are approved, it signals that long standing residential communities can be displaced whenever land becomes financially attractive for large projects. Additionally, there are environmental considerations that should not be ignored. Large construction projects generate significant waste, noise, and dust, which would affect residents for years during the building phase. Many if not all residents of the area are desperately speaking out against going ahead with the project and what is Paddington if not its community. So, stop Paddington tower being built!

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: SSD-97528708 – Mixed use development with infill affordable housing, 160 Oxford Street, Paddington

I am writing as a local resident to object to the proposed development at 160 Oxford Street. As someone who lives in the area, I have direct experience of the neighbourhood and its heritage character and would like to provide observations based on that local knowledge.

Paddington is a recognised Heritage Conservation Area characterised by modestly scaled terraces and workers’ cottages. An eight storey building of approximately 52 metres in length, 25 metres in width and around 30 metres in height is clearly out of scale with this historic context. The proposed bulk and massing would overwhelm the surrounding streetscape when viewed from Oxford Street, Shadforth Street, Gipps Street and Glenmore Road, and would diminish the character of the Little Paddington Village precinct.

The development would also have a significant visual impact on Victoria Barracks directly opposite the site. The scale of the proposed building risks detracting from the heritage significance of this landmark.

The proposal includes minimal setback from Oxford Street and no setback along Shadforth Street, which further increases the visual bulk of the building at street level. Approval of a development of this scale may also set a precedent for further oversized developments along Oxford Street and nearby streets within the conservation area.

Traffic impacts are another concern. The development proposes four basement levels servicing 83 cars, which will increase traffic movements and congestion in surrounding streets that are already under pressure.

The project also appears to result in a net loss of affordable housing. The site currently contains 27 affordable dwellings, yet only 10 are proposed. A reduction of 17 affordable units does not appear to justify the 30 percent Affordable Housing Bonus being claimed.

Finally, construction and deep excavation may place the four London Plane trees on Oxford Street at risk. These trees are an important civic feature and contribute significantly to the streetscape.

For these reasons I respectfully request that the proposal be reconsidered.

Yours sincerely,
Dr Robert Mathews
Paddington NSW

1. There is within 3 kms of the site no registered/CHP managed affordable housing, despite there being 6 major hospitals and specialized medical centres, 4 fire stations, 10 pharmacies, 4 fire and rescue stations, 6 schools, 4 police statiions, 2 telecommunications stations, 12 childcare centres, many restaurants, and other essential facilities in the area employing well over 1000 key-workers* who cannot afford to live in the area. Yet this proposal is to terminate 27 cheap housing units occupied by key workers and replace them with just 10 affordable apartments! The area desparately needs affordable key worker housing not luxury apartments.
2. St Luke's hospital sold off its nurses' quarters many year ago and there was no key worker housing to replace it.
3. There are a number of registered/CPH managed social housing sites within 3 kms of the site but they do not accomodate key workers.
4. The proposal will cause major vehicle congestion in the local streets: vehicle access from the site is shown as Shadforth Street which is a 1 lane, 2 way street, leading into Liverpool St and Glenmore Road, which is already heavily congested in peak hours with queues often over 150ms, or into Gipps Street which is very narrow and 1 way also into Glenmore Road.
It appears that the affect of the construction traffic and post completion traffic have not been modelled.
5. The proposal is substantially higher and unlike any of the existing terraces in the immediate area and would totally spoil the amenity and heritage conservation of the suburb, which is one of the few if not the last remianing historic suburbs left in Sydney.
*Reference: 'The Key Worker Challenge', Dr Catherine Gilbert, School of Architecture, University of Sydney.

I have concerns regarding existing infrastructure being able to support such a large project
I also feel that the “affordable” housing being provided is not adequate

I object to the proposal in the strongest terms for the following reasons:
- lack of synergy with heritage values
- inappropriate height
- in appropriate scale
- loss of amenity for existing owners
- unwelcome traffic impacts
- undesirable precedent

I object to the proposal based on a number of factors.
Firstly, there are numerous examples of sites that have been developed enhancing the local Paddington and Woollahra suburbs.
The multi--terrace development on George Street in Paddington and the multi-terrace development located on Oxford Street opposite Centennial Park in Woollahra are great examples. These should be used as what can be achieved as appropriate major development for the area. They maintain the unique "look and feel" of the heritage suburb and surrounding homes, maintain height levels and increase capacity or usage levels appropriately.
The scale of the eight storey building is completely inappropriate for the area, impacting the crucial heritage Paddington suburb. It overcrowds exisiting homes, in a style that conflicts with the suburb. The creative visual impact photography should be reviewed. It is simply not a proper representation of the size impact. The suburb is littered with poor building height mistakes of the past. The apartment block on Underwood Streets is a great examples.
However, I acknowledge that the exisiting buildings and site could well be improved but with a more appropriate size and style as noted above with the two examples provided.
Secondly, the size of the development has been justified with "In-Fill" apartments. (Affordable). This seems to conflict with only 10 new such apartments replacing the current 24 studio apartments currently available? This project cannot claim such an allowance as it conflicts with the stated aim of the State Policy. To provide more affordable homes. There is a reduction of affordable homes in the area. These are luxury apartments, using State Planning guidelines to justify the projects size and gain approval. Let's improve the site but with appropriate development.
Any development should be limited to exisiting height levels of the suburb and surrounding area. Four levels would be appropriate and provide development and improvement opportunities. Two levels above typical homes and shops in the area.

Come one. This is too much. Waaaaaay too tall. Too much bulk. And shit design. The applicant should be ashamed. Boooooo.

I strongly support his proposal and have some commentary to provide.
1. I strongly support this proposal as it is close to public transportation, active transportation links, and shops. We need more housing supply as we are in a housing crisis. As per https://grattan.edu.au/report/more-homes-better-cities/ = "Allowing more housing in established suburbs would mean cheaper housing in all suburbs."
2. It will provide additional retail to the area
3. I encourage the use of induction or standard electric cook-tops be used as well as heat pump hot water instead of gas appliances. This is because gas is a fossil fuel, as there are more efficient and less costly to the environment and for people who will live in the apartments, its use should be reconsidered. If gas is to be used for cooktops and hot water, then apartment owners will be forced to pay for a separate daily connection fee to use the gas cooktop and for hot water they will be paying an estimated additional $479 a year (https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/how-sydneysiders-could-save-730-a-year-by-ditching-gas-20240325-p5feyf.html). You can find evidence to show that hot water heat pumps are more efficient than gas hot water heating and that induction cooktops are more efficient than gas cooktops. Gas is also a fossil fuel, has potential health impacts when used as part of cooking. This is especially of note for this proposal as it contains - "Minimum 20kW solar photovoltaic (PV) system" which could be used to power a hot water heat pump or electric/induction cooktops but as they are gas ... it won't be able to do that. I note that pool is to be heated using a heat pump.