I am fortunate enough to live in the inner city with my family. My husband and I have lived in the inner city area for over 20 years. In that time, the population has grown but the availability and diversity of housing stock in the city has not.

If it were not for the government sell off of Millers Point, where we were able to purchase and move 9 years ago, it is highly unlikely that my family of 5 would have had the opportunity to stay living in the city.

Out of 22 parents of my new parents support group in 2016 (after the birth of our first child) we are the only family still living in the city. This is not for lack of desire for city living. Each family has been forced out due to the unavailability of family sized dwellings in the inner Sydney area. These are families that could arguably afford “luxury” dwellings if they were available for sale as they have spent the equivalent sum on dwellings further out of the city in places like Chatswood, where supply is greater.

Policies that seek to restrict the availability of larger homes in the city feel discriminatory to me. The claim that these homes are only being purchased by “downsizing boomers” is simply untrue and if it were, who cares? Presumably those Downsizers are freeing up homes elsewhere to the open market.

Furthermore, arguing for the retention of a smaller number of “affordable” dwellings (affordable because they offer sub standard living conditions) loses sight of the bigger picture. Developments used to be judged on how many bedrooms they created or removed. We should go back to this measure. There are plenty of share houses throughout Paddington that are in high demand because they offer greater affordability (often renting a bedroom in a house is cheaper than a whole studio) but they also offer us a solution to the loneliness epidemic which is prevalent in our younger generations. In addition, they are far less likely to be converted to STRA.

As for the development itself, it appears to be of high architectural merit and the height is appropriate for a main corridor like Oxford Street.

I understand that people do not like change but in this case, change that generates housing supply is surely in the public interest.

Paddington is a unique heritage listed neighbourhood. In the area proposed for this development the houses consist of 2 level terraces and small workers cottages. These houses and the character of the neighbourhood will be forever changed in a negative way if this proposal is allowed. The number of floors this building is seeking to put in is grossly out of proportion to the area. The overlooking and noise issues from the proposed balconies will impact the privacy of the residents of the houses below it. The traffic congestion this proposal will create is also of concern. Shadforth Street already has traffic flow issues with local residents as the street is not wide enough to take more than one car at a time so there is often a build up of cars waiting to turn onto and off Oxford Street - this will worsen if this proposal is allowed to put in many floors of underground parking. Added to this is the huge changes to Oxford street that the extention of the Oxford St cycle path will bring. There is not sufficent infestructure to cope with a development as big as this. We do not want to go the way of Alexandria and Zetland with huge traffic congestion and pollution. This proposal should be limited to no more than 4 or 5 levels. The council needs to set a limit to how big developments like this can be in a neigbourhoods like Paddington and to not be fooled by supposed affordable living clauses that large developers are using to their advantage.

PLEASE CONSIDER the affect such a large modern development will have on this little pocket of original Sydney.
This area, has been nurtured by many generations of Australians to retain its original character and its importance in the history of our “first community”. Here, right in the shadow (literally) of this proposal, is the original gaol (in original sandstone), the original post office, and I suspect the original corner store all there servicing the personnel of Australia’s first defence force, stationed across the road in Victoria Barracks.
It is SO SPECIAL, and if developments are to be allowed so close to such precious history, the whole uniqueness of the area will be lost.
To be sure, if this one is passed, others will follow.
By including “affordable housing”, which enabled the developers to bypass the Council, in no way addresses the historical damage that this modern building will impose on this precious little area of Paddington.
It is already known that investors will find a way to purchase these designated units, and impose standard rents, thus in no way housing those intended.
I own and have been a resident in Paddington since 1991, and enjoyed its charm and “specialness” for years before that. Often, one sees a sketcher in the street, peacefully drawing the terraces that line that street. The thought of those dear little attached houses – some in original sandstone too – totally overlooked by this giant building is a desperate thought.
I should add that we that own terrace houses cannot do anything to them externally without applying to Council, who are very strict on how it will affect the character of the house itself, and how it will affect the streetscape.
Like long term Paddington residents, and the many Australians who value our history and the importance of this little pocket of it, I plead with you to consider this development application in the light of whether it is really worth it for the permanent damage it will do to this unique part of Australia’s history.

My starting position is that I am pro-development and supportive of more density in inner-city suburbs. We have a housing crisis and must act urgently to increase supply. However it was hard to maintain this position towards this project, given the following:
* 4 basement levels of carparking - we should not be further entrenching car dependency in a location that has very good access to public transport. 4 levels of carpark will induce more vehicle ownership, creating more congestion, carbon emissions, and detracting from the amenity of the area.
* 9 storeys high is too high and is substantially higher than any other building in the vicinity. Looking at the architect's drawing of the project, the people look like ants compared to the building. The building is not human scale.
* Private pools for the penthouse apartments is too much. No wonder there is only 40 apartments in this monster building - because the space is being wasted on toys for the ultra rich rather than creating homes for ordinary people. It is particularly insulting to the residents of the affordable studio apartments who will be displaced by this development. This development is giving Dubai - and we are not, and do not want to become, a society of gross inequality.
* Too few affordable apartments. The affordable apartments are two-bedroom apartments. What is even more affordable than two-bedroom apartments is one-bedroom and studio apartments, and this development offers none of these options to the community. The proponent should correct this.
For the reasons above, I do not support this project.

To Victor Casasanta

Planning Officer

Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure



To the Planning Assessment Team,

I would like to register my support for the redevelopment of the site at 142–160 Oxford Street in Paddington.

Inner-city suburbs like Paddington offer some of the best access to employment, public transport, restaurants, shops and community facilities in Sydney. It makes sense that additional housing should be located in areas where residents can take advantage of these existing amenities.

The proposal appears to replace a number of older buildings that currently detract from the heritage conservation area with a cohesive and well-designed residential development. Improvements like this can significantly enhance the overall character of a street.

I am also pleased to see the inclusion of affordable housing as part of the project. Sydney has become increasingly expensive, and developments that provide housing opportunities for people on a range of incomes are incredibly valuable.

From what I understand, the building design has been developed with care and sensitivity to the surrounding architecture. This kind of thoughtful approach ensures that new developments contribute positively to established neighbourhoods.

For these reasons, I believe the redevelopment will be a strong addition to Oxford Street and the broader Paddington community.

Sincerely,
Chris Tang