Objection to SSD-97528708 Mixed use development with infill affordableis housing – 160 Oxford Street, Paddington.

I am a property owner on Oxford Street in Darlinghurst. I have owned property and run businesses in the neighbourhood near 160 Oxford Street for approximately 35 years.

I am not an objector to all SSD developments on Oxford Street in Paddington. I supported the SSD application for the Verona site on 13-17 Oxford Street and 2 Verona Street Paddington. The Verona site proposal has a similar height and mass to the 160 Oxford Street SSD, however the Verona proposal has buildings nearby of a similar height and mass, for example, next door is the 25-Hours Olympia Hotel and across the road nearby is St Vincents Clinic and St Vincent’s Health Care Campus. The Verona site is also in a proposed Special Entertainment Precinct and is within the Darlinghurst and Paddington Town Centre (Oxford Street). These factors I believe make the Verona proposal’s height and scale acceptable due to the surrounding built up forms and less residential surrounds.

I object to the 160 Oxford St SSD proposal as its height and mass will create significant unacceptable impacts for others in the local community that surround it.

The 160 Oxford Street site is part of the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area and the proposal is completely out of character with its surrounds. The buildings in its vicinity are heritage and the proposal will stand alone in height and mass in a very residential area that has some commercial premises that are also low rise. Nearby properties are typically single and two story workers’ cottages. The site is not part of a town centre, or a proposed Special Entertainment Precinct. There are no buildings near it which have a similar height and mass. The proposal will stand alone in contrast, with its massive height and mass and modern design. The Paddington Heritage Conservation Area needs to be protected to preserve the significant character of this area, which attracts tourism and visitation to the small scale commercial businesses within it.

Approving this SSD application would not only damage the heritage character of the immediate area but also set a dangerous precedent for the rest of the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area, which could result in further erosion of the heritage character within the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area.

Another significant unacceptable impact of the proposal is the loss of privacy it will create for a significant number of residents on the northern side of the development as well for Victoria Barracks residents on its south side. The site is located at the top of the ridgeline. On the northern side, the hill slopes down to the harbour. The size and mass of the proposal at the top of the hill will allow many apartments in the building to look down into a significant numbers of backyards of the modest workers’ cottages and allow observation of people movements into and out of their homes. The loss of privacy must have a negative impact on the amenity of those affected and have a negative effect on mental health. Similarly the proposal will look down into Victoria Barracks which is also residential. The number of peoples’ lives that will be negatively affected will be significant. It must be hundreds, possibly thousands.

Additionally the net loss of existing ‘low-cost housing’ which currently exists on the site, is an unacceptable impact of the proposal and I believe against the spirit of the SSD to increase supply of low-cost housing for essential services personnel and others with low incomes.
The existing ‘low-cost housing’ at 160 Oxford Street are small apartments e.g. studios. If retained, they would likely continue to be accessible for low income earners in perpetuity, as their small size limits the demand for such properties. When the existing low-cost housing is demolished, their residents will lose their low-cost housing, which will increase the number of people looking for low-cost housing. They may have to relocate out of the area which would reduce the diversity of residents in the area. The “affordable housing” that will replace it is defined as ‘affordable’ as it has to be offered at a discounted market commercial rent, rather than the rent being calculated on low-incomes. As a consequence the new ‘affordable housing’ may well be out of the reach of essential service personnel and other low income earners. Additionally ‘affordable housing’ expires after 15 years, from which time full market commercial rent can be charged, making this housing even more out of reach.
With St Vincent’s Health Care Campus nearby, there is a high demand for ‘low-cost housing’ in Paddington because of a large, local, essential services workforce.
Destroying existing ‘low-cost housing’ to replace it with ‘affordable housing’ should not be permitted as it is reduces the supply of genuine low-cost housing.

Please do not approve the SSD proposal for the 160 Oxford Street Paddington site.

Dear Madam/Sir

I am strongly opposed to this application for many reasons including:

1. Loss of affordable housing.

Replacing 27 existing student housing sites for a handful of luxury homes.
I’m completely unconvinced by any “affordable housing” claims opportunistic developers make to get approval.
This is a net loss of homes, specifically affordable homes, for profit.
Isn't this contrary to a key NSW government policy and its core values?

2. Heritage loss
Concerns regarding plans for demolition and extensive excavation within the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) and the huge, inappropriate hulking size of this thing.

The construction this developer wants is totally out of scale and incompatible with the suburb’s heritage value and streetscapes.
If it goes ahead, everyone loses (except the developer): current and future residents of the existing property at this site; and current and future residents of, and visitors, to this unique and beautiful area.
And anyone who cares about Australian history.

3. Destruction / loss of amenity
For profit (I don’t see any social benefit, here), this project will reduce or destroy:
- privacy and amenity of people who live nearby.
- sunlight reaching public space on Oxford Street
- the magnificent Plane & Jacaranda trees
- the surrounding area’s streetscape and village character
- access to Paddington and local businesses — years of construction mess on narrow 19th century streets already struggling with traffic and then excavated garaging for another 83 cars.

There’s a risk that the new state planning rules, with good intent, will backfire in the same way the tobacco tax did.
Except, in this case, the damage (public and heritage) will be permanent.

Given the obvious human, heritage, aesthetic and community loss this proposal represents, urge that it be rejected.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely
Louise
~~~~~~~~~~
Louise Butler
36 Hardie Street
Darlinghurst NSW 2020
0414 996 703 | [email protected]

We are writing to formally object to the proposed development affecting the heritage precinct around Glenmore Road and Liverpool Street.

We reside at 97 Glenmore Road, and our only vehicular access is via the rear lane leading onto Liverpool Street. Our parking is also located on Liverpool Street. The prolonged use of this street by construction vehicles and trucks during the development period (estimated 20 trucks a day plus parking of vehicles by construction workers) will significantly affect our ability to enter and exit our property, will also severely disrupt already limited parking in the area for residents. It will also severely impact the quiet enjoyment of our home and neighbourhood. This level of disruption over an extended construction period is unreasonable for those living in the immediate vicinity. Essential parking for local terrace-dwellers holding permits is already at a premium , and will be severely impacted by the increase in parking by the huge number of construction workers required for such a project.

The proposal will also have a serious impact on one of Sydney’s few remaining intact historical enclaves. The scale and height of the proposed building are well above the surrounding built form, including the historic workmen’s cottages that characterise the area. Such a structure would dominate and visually overwhelm this heritage streetscape and undermine the architectural integrity that makes the precinct historically significant.

Of particular concern is the building’s relationship to the historic Victoria Barracks opposite, an important heritage site whose scale and setting should be respected. A development of this height and bulk would overpower the barracks and diminish the historic character of the area.

Traffic impacts have also not been adequately addressed. Oxford Street already struggles to cope with existing traffic volumes, and the substantial increase in traffic during the construction phase — followed by increased usage once the development is complete — will place additional strain on already congested roads and local infrastructure.

Equally troubling is the loss of genuinely affordable housing. The proposal appears to replace 27 truly affordable apartments ( rentals of $400 - 500 pw) with only 10 “so-called affordable” units. These units, priced at only 20% below market value, will remain far beyond the reach of those who genuinely require affordable housing. Essential workers, including those employed at nearby hospitals such as St Vincent’s, would not realistically be able to afford these apartments. This represents a net loss of accessible housing in an area where it is urgently needed.

The proposed scale, bulk and height are inconsistent with theVictorian heritage and character of Paddington’s low rise terraces and are visually incompatible with the surrounding conservation area

Community engagement has been limited with the proposal treated as a “State Significant Development” bypassing council decision making.

In summary, this proposal would:

Severely disrupt access and parking for residents on Liverpool Street due to prolonged construction traffic.

Damage a rare and historically significant heritage enclave in Sydney.

Overwhelm nearby historic workmen’s cottages and the setting of Victoria Barracks.

Exacerbate existing traffic pressures on Oxford Street.

Replace 27 genuinely affordable homes with only 10 units that are unlikely to be affordable in practice.

Introduce a building whose height and bulk are entirely out of keeping with the surrounding area.

For these reasons,we strongly urge the NSW Government to reject or substantially revise this proposal so that the heritage character of the precinct, the needs of existing residents, and the provision of genuinely affordable housing are properly protected.
Elizabeth and Roger Wragby

Name: Dr Gary Nicholls
Application name: Mixed use development with infill affordable housing – 160 Oxford Street, Paddington
Application No: SSD‑97528708

I strongly object to the proposed State Significant Development at 142–148 and 160 Oxford Street, 13 Gipps Street and 6 Shadforth Street, Paddington (SSD‑97528708).

I acknowledge the policy objective of increasing housing supply, including infill affordable housing, in well‑located inner‑city areas. However, this application represents an over‑intensification of the site which fails to respond appropriately to the heritage conservation context, fine‑grained urban form and constrained local street network of Paddington. The scale and configuration of the proposal will generate significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on neighbouring properties, local traffic conditions and residential amenity, including my own.
It's a vulgar proposal and a cynical play to abuse the State planning rules around provision of 'affordable housing'. This proposal actually removes a large number of properties that already provide affordable housing.

1. Height, bulk, scale and built form
The proposal for a bulky, ugly eight‑storey building over four basement levels is grossly disproportionate to the prevailing built form in this part of Paddington, which is characterised by predominantly two‑storey terraces and small‑lot development. The consolidated building envelope ignores the fine‑grain subdivision pattern and the human‑scale rhythm of the Oxford Street frontage and adjoining streets.

Key concerns include:
A continuous, monolithic façade that reads as a single large block rather than a series of smaller, articulated elements reflecting the underlying terrace‑scale grain.
Insufficient upper‑level setbacks and stepping to lower‑scale interfaces such as Gipps Street and Shadforth Street, resulting in a visually dominant and overbearing built form.
An effective departure in merit terms from the low‑ to mid‑rise scale the local expert Paddington Society has consistently argued is the upper limit for acceptable change in heritage conservation areas, noting their position that even 6–8 storeys will “overwhelm the consistent, tight 2‑storey scale” of Paddington and lead to extreme solar and privacy loss.
In built form and visual impact terms, the proposal resembles a CBD or major‑centre building rather than context‑sensitive infill in a heritage suburb, contrary to fundamental urban design principles of appropriate scale, transition and respect for established character.

2. Heritage conservation and townscape character
Paddington is widely recognised as a significant heritage conservation area, with one of the most intact collections of Victorian terrace housing in Australia. The Paddington Society’s primary objective is to “promote the conservation of all features of Paddington having beauty, architectural, historic and/or social value,” and to ensure that changes to private property do not diminish the heritage value of the area. New development in this context must sit within the historic framework, not dominate or redefine it.

This scheme:
Aggregates multiple sites into a single, large‑scale building that disrupts historic lot patterns and façade rhythm along Oxford Street.
Introduces a height and bulk that will visually completely overwhelm adjacent heritage buildings and diminish their contribution to the streetscape and townscape.
Provides only token mitigation (e.g. retention of 13 Gipps Street) which does not meaningfully offset the cumulative impact of the overall massing.
Surrounding properties would be very negatively affected by the building proposal by noise, traffic, ruined amenity and overlook.
The Paddington Society has previously expressed concern that proposals adding multiple storeys along Oxford Street “will irreparably degrade its character and the diversity of architectural styles,” and that mid‑rise housing standards should not apply in heritage conservation areas. This SSD application is precisely the kind of over‑scaled intervention that risks undermining decades of heritage protection and community effort.

3. Residential amenity impacts (overshadowing, privacy, noise, outlook)
Given the building’s height, footprint and rooftop activation, there is a high risk of unacceptable residential amenity impacts for adjoining and nearby properties:

Overshadowing: Increased overshadowing of dwellings and private open spaces, particularly in winter, with loss of sunlight to gardens and main living areas inconsistent with expectations for a low‑rise heritage area.

Privacy: Significant overlooking from upper‑level apartments, balconies and rooftop private open spaces into neighbouring backyards and habitable rooms, leading to loss of privacy and passive surveillance beyond reasonable limits.

Noise and activity: Elevated and frequent noise from rooftop and ground‑level pools, communal and private open space, and intensified activity associated with 40 apartments and ground‑floor retail.

The Paddington Society’s submissions on housing reforms emphasise that increased height and bulk on narrow streets “would increase the impact of bulk and scale and lead to extreme solar and privacy loss,” which directly aligns with the risks posed by this proposal. The proponent has not, in my view, demonstrated that reasonable standards of solar access, privacy, acoustic amenity and outlook will be maintained.

4. Traffic, parking, access and safety
The provision of 83 basement car spaces with vehicular access from Shadforth Street is incompatible with the narrow, historically constrained street network serving the site, including Shadforth Street, Gipps Street and Glenmore Road. These streets already experience parking pressure and difficult vehicle manoeuvres.

From a traffic and transport perspective:

The quantum of parking will substantially increase vehicle movements on streets not designed to serve as access routes to a high‑capacity basement car park.

The combined movements of resident vehicles, visitors, deliveries, waste collection and rideshare/taxi services will exacerbate congestion and increase the risk of conflicts with pedestrians and cyclists.

Narrow carriageways and limited sight lines in this heritage street pattern heighten safety risks, particularly for vulnerable road users.
Heritage and environmental considerations should be given more weight, and mid‑rise density should not be imposed on areas with narrow streets and sensitive amenity. The traffic and parking configuration for this SSD runs counter to these principles and effectively treats local heritage streets as access roads for a major car park.

5. Construction impacts and cumulative effects
The construction program, involving four basement levels, extensive excavation, demolition and associated works, will have serious short‑ to medium‑term effects on nearby residents and businesses - in an area of VERY narrow streets and the need for ongoing street car parking for residents.

High volumes of heavy vehicle movements for demolition, excavation, spoil removal and materials delivery.

Prolonged noise, dust and vibration in a tightly packed residential environment.

Temporary road closures, parking loss and restricted access, exacerbating existing traffic and amenity issues on narrow streets.

These construction impacts must be assessed cumulatively with the permanent operational impacts of the completed building.

6. Impact on my own amenity – Campbell Avenue
I reside on Campbell Avenue, between Boundary Street and Glenmore Road, within easy walking distance of the site. My amenity will be directly and adversely severely affected during both the construction and operational phases.

During construction of something as awful as this proposal, I can reasonably anticipate:

Persistent construction noise and vibration, amplified by the narrow street network and dense built form.

Heavy vehicle traffic on the routes connecting Campbell Avenue to Glenmore Road and Oxford Street, leading to congestion, reduced on‑street parking and safety concerns.

Post‑construction, the increased vehicle movements, parking competition and general activity associated with 40 dwellings, 83 car spaces and retail uses will:

Increase ambient noise levels and reduce parking availability on surrounding streets.

Erode the quiet, heritage‑based residential character that residents seek to preserve.

These impacts are direct, ongoing and materially detrimental to my day‑to‑day quality of life.

7. Affordable housing and planning merit
There is nothing affordable about the provision proposed by this vulgar development.
The building is already actual affordable housing and this building developemnt would destroy this housing.
The proposed building will not provide actual affordable housing - and any alleged housing will be sold off at the earliest opportunity. This is a cynical developer attempt to get a disgraceful development proposal through against the wishes of local residents and businesses.
There is no justification for a development of this height, bulk and intensity in a sensitive heritage context.

Requested determination
For the reasons outlined above, I request that the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces and the Department refuse SSD‑97528708 in its current form - or quite frankly any form.
There is no reason why any form of building of this bulk should be allowed in a heritage area like Paddington.

Should the application not be refused, I would like to understand the reasoning - including review of potential conflict of interest of anyone or any government department or any politician making the decision.

Yours sincerely
Dr Gary Nicholls
MBBS(Lon) FRACGP FFFLM FRCP(UK) DCH BA(Hons) MA(Cantab) FRSM

I wish to lodge a formal objection to the proposed development at 160 Oxford Street, Paddington.

My objection is based on several planning and urban-design concerns which suggest that the proposal is inconsistent with the established character of the Paddington precinct and may result in significant adverse impacts on the surrounding community.

1. Incompatibility with Local Character and Heritage Context

Paddington is widely recognised as a historic low-rise urban village characterised by Victorian terrace housing, fine-grain streetscapes, and a relatively consistent building scale.

A 14-storey tower would represent a substantial departure from this built form and risks undermining the heritage character that defines the area.

Key concerns include:
• The scale and height are inconsistent with the prevailing built form.
• The development may visually dominate surrounding heritage buildings.
• The proposal risks eroding the distinctive architectural character that contributes to Paddington’s cultural and historical significance.

The cumulative impact of such a development may permanently alter the visual and historic identity of the precinct.

⸻

2. Overshadowing and Privacy Impacts

A development of this height has the potential to create significant overshadowing for neighbouring properties and public spaces.

Potential impacts include:
• Reduced solar access to surrounding residences and outdoor spaces.
• Loss of natural light in neighbouring dwellings.
• Increased overlooking and reduced privacy for nearby residents.

These impacts could materially affect the amenity and liveability of existing homes.

⸻

3. Traffic and Local Infrastructure Impacts

The proposal includes basement parking for approximately 83 vehicles.

Given the already constrained road network in Paddington, this raises concerns regarding:
• Increased traffic congestion on surrounding streets.
• Pressure on already limited local parking.
• Greater safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists.

The existing street network was not designed to accommodate significant increases in traffic volumes associated with high-density developments.

⸻

4. Construction Disruption

A project of this scale would likely require several years of construction activity, including excavation for a multi-level basement.

Potential impacts include:
• Extended construction noise and vibration.
• Heavy vehicle movements through residential streets.
• Dust and general disruption to local residents and businesses.

Such impacts may significantly affect the amenity of the area for an extended period.

⸻

5. Precedent for Future Development

Approving a building of this height in Paddington may establish a planning precedent that encourages further high-rise developments within the precinct.

This could:
• Gradually erode the established low-rise character of the area.
• Lead to cumulative impacts that fundamentally alter the scale and density of the neighbourhood.

Planning decisions should consider not only the immediate development but also the broader long-term implications for the character of the precinct.

⸻

Conclusion

For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that the planning authority refuse this development application or require significant amendments to ensure the proposal aligns with:
• The established character of Paddington
• The amenity of existing residents
• Appropriate urban scale and design outcomes

Thank you for considering this submission.

I write to formally object to the above State Significant Development Application. I have been a resident of Paddington for over 30 years and have a longstanding connection to the local community and built environment of the area. In addition, I am a construction professional who has been involved in numerous State Significant Development projects and large-scale urban developments. Through both my professional experience and long-term residency, I have a strong appreciation for the importance of appropriate urban scale, heritage conservation, and the careful integration of new development into historically sensitive environments. For these reasons, I am particularly concerned that the current proposal represents an over-scaled and poorly contextualised development within one of Sydney’s most significant and intact heritage precincts.

The subject site forms part of the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area and sits within a highly sensitive urban context defined by Victorian terrace housing, fine-grain subdivision patterns, consistent street wall heights and a strong rhythm of narrow frontages along Oxford Street and surrounding residential streets. Paddington’s heritage significance arises not only from individual buildings but from the collective consistency of scale, alignment, materials and architectural character across entire streetscapes. The proposed development introduces a building envelope and overall bulk that are materially greater than the prevailing built form. As a consequence, the development would appear visually dominant and inconsistent with the human-scale qualities that define the character of Paddington.

Of particular concern is the relationship between the proposed building and the adjoining terrace precinct to the north of the site. While overshadowing impacts may be limited due to the orientation of the site, the proximity, height and massing of the development create significant concerns regarding visual dominance and loss of privacy. Upper-level apartments overlooking the rear of neighbouring terraces would introduce opportunities for overlooking into rear yards, private open spaces and habitable rooms. These rear garden areas form an essential component of Paddington’s historic urban morphology and contribute significantly to the amenity and environmental performance of the neighbourhood. The scale of the proposed development risks creating an overbearing built form that diminishes the sense of openness and residential character that currently exists.

The proposal also involves the demolition of an existing small apartment building containing approximately 22 affordable housing units. The removal of this established affordable housing stock within a well-located inner-city suburb raises significant strategic planning concerns. Paddington and the broader inner eastern suburbs are experiencing increasing pressures associated with housing affordability and demographic displacement. The replacement of existing affordable accommodation with a luxury apartment development risks further eroding housing diversity and undermines broader metropolitan planning objectives aimed at maintaining socially sustainable communities.

From an urban design perspective, the proposal does not appear to adequately respond to several key planning principles that underpin development controls within Paddington. These include the protection of the established street wall height, the preservation of the fine-grain subdivision pattern that characterises terrace precincts, and the careful management of building bulk when viewed from the public domain. The scale and architectural expression of the proposal risk disrupting the established rhythm of narrow frontages and articulated façades that define Oxford Street and the surrounding streetscape.

The site’s location opposite Victoria Barracks also introduces an important heritage setting consideration. Victoria Barracks is a major historic landmark with significant cultural and visual importance within the broader Paddington landscape. Development in this location should be particularly sensitive to issues of scale, visual prominence and urban form so as not to detract from the historic setting and long-established character of the area. The proposal’s bulk and height have the potential to compete visually with the surrounding historic fabric and weaken the spatial relationship between Oxford Street and the Barracks precinct.

More broadly, approval of a development of this scale risks establishing a planning precedent that could encourage further consolidation of terrace-scale sites into larger development parcels, gradually eroding the fine-grain urban structure that is fundamental to Paddington’s heritage significance. Incremental changes of this nature can cumulatively undermine the very qualities that planning controls are intended to protect.

Given the cumulative heritage, urban design, residential amenity and social sustainability concerns outlined above, I respectfully submit that the proposal does not represent an appropriate response to its highly sensitive heritage context. I therefore request that the consent authority carefully consider the broader public interest implications of the development and either refuse the application in its current form or require substantial redesign to achieve a scale, form and character that is genuinely sympathetic to the established Paddington streetscape.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission

I am writing to formally record my strong objection to the proposed State Significant Development at 160 Oxford Street, Paddington. While I recognise the need for more housing in Sydney, the scale and nature of this specific proposal are entirely inappropriate for this historic precinct.
My objection is based on the following planning and community grounds:
1. Unacceptable Impact on Heritage Conservation
The site is located within the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) and sits directly opposite the State-heritage-listed Victoria Barracks. The proposed height of 8–9 storeys is a massive departure from the established 2–4 storey character of Oxford Street. This "visual bulk" will permanently overshadow the historic "Little Paddington Village" and undermine the architectural integrity of one of Australia’s most intact Victorian suburbs.
2. Net Loss of Truly Affordable Housing
The project proposes the demolition of 27 existing studio apartments, which currently provide essential low-cost rental accommodation. While the developer has utilised the Housing SEPP to increase floor space, the reality is a net loss of 15 to 17 affordable units. Replacing existing budget-friendly housing with luxury penthouses and rooftop pools does not solve the housing crisis; it displaces the very community members the SEPP was designed to protect.
3. Environmental and Amenity Concerns
The proposed four-level basement excavation for 78 car spaces poses a significant risk to the structural stability of neighbouring 19th-century cottages. Furthermore, the scale of the building will cause significant overshadowing of the public domain and threatens the root systems of the iconic Plane and Jacaranda trees that define the Oxford Street streetscape.
4. Flawed SSD Process and Lack of Consultation
Fast-tracking this project as a State Significant Development has bypassed the rigorous local council scrutiny required for a site of this sensitivity. The 14-day exhibition period is insufficient for residents to review the hundreds of pages of technical documentation provided.
For the reasons stated above, I urge the Department to refuse this application in its current form. Any redevelopment of this site must respect the strict height limits of the Paddington HCA and ensure there is no net loss of affordable housing stock.
I have not made any reportable political donations in the previous two years.

I object to the proposal. The height of the building overshadows the smaller workers cottages in this part of Paddington . The scale of the proposed building looks obscene. We should not be adding an underground car park and should instead be encouraging public transport as much as possible. Approval of a building this size and out of context sets a bad precedent for Paddington and should not be allowed. The affordable housing bonus is being made a mockery of for this development. Don't fall for this type of developer abuse. Put it to proper good use to help nurses etc stay in the inner Sydney. This Development is ultra luxury eith 5 swimming pools. You are kidding yourselves to think this is helping with affordable housing

Firstly I am completely disgusted and disheartened that the heritage character of this beautiful suburb will be destroyed with this hideous project.

I live in Liverpool St and like most residents, we don’t have off street parking. With this development going ahead, the ability to park on our street or access Oxford St via Liverpool St would be severely impacted for years. In such a tight community space, this level of heavy construction is completely unacceptable and will be devastating to locals.