I would like to express my support for the proposed redevelopment of the properties located at 142–160 Oxford Street, Paddington.

I have attached a Letter expressing my thoughts and support

I strongly support this project

No high rise in Paddington, it wrecks the landscape

To: Victor Casasanta – Planning Officer
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure

To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to provide my support for the redevelopment proposed at 142–160 Oxford Street in Paddington.
The project appears to provide a thoughtful redevelopment of a site that is currently occupied by buildings that detract from the surrounding heritage conservation area. Introducing a well-designed residential building will significantly improve the appearance and functionality of the site.
Oxford Street is already an established urban corridor with excellent access to public transport, retail areas and community services. Locating additional housing in such well-serviced areas is a sensible planning outcome.
I am particularly supportive of the affordable housing component of the development. Ensuring that a portion of the apartments remain accessible to lower and moderate income earners helps maintain a diverse and inclusive community.
The architectural design also appears to reflect the character of the Paddington area while providing modern housing suited to contemporary needs.
Overall, I believe the redevelopment will represent a positive improvement to the site and the surrounding neighbourhood.
Kind Regards,
TL

It will detract from the historic significant of the area.

I am a person living in low-cost housing, and so I care very greatly about existing affordable housing being demolished for luxury high-rise. Often well-maintained studios such as these are hard to come by, and are accessible to people on low-incomes; students, young people, essential workers, and pensioners. This represents a perversion of the "In-fill" affordable housing policy, as the current apartments are genuinely affordable, and I believe the new "affordable" apartments will not be accessible to the same residents and likely put people who do apply into rental stress. New affordable housing must be tied to 30% income, not the market rate.

I strongly believe the development should be rejected on the basis that this is not in the public interest, as it reduces diversity of existing housing stock, and therefore the community that is able to live in the area. This is gentrification, and should not be government sanctioned. If the DA is approved, the developers should be made to pay a full contribution for each of the affordable units that are loss (as the existing units are affordable in perpetuity), and the new ones likely won't be. There should be a full consultation conducted with existing residents to understand their housing situation and what this development will mean for them. The developers should also have pay a financial contribution to existing tenants to help with moving costs, and defer commencement until each person is found equivalent (affordable) housing in the area, as I believe evicting people in a housing crisis is in-humane. If no equivalent affordable housing is available, the DA should be rejected outright.

Ultimately, I would like to see the government stand with the community and the residents, and that this DA should be rejected outright, as it will perpetuate housing inequality in this country, and make Sydney only affordable to the rich.

New Public & affordable housing doesn’t need to be built when there is a well maintained building at the address containing several studio apartments . This could provide a community for elderly single women unable to afford commercial rents , or people unable to continue work because of diagnosed illness who attend St Vincent’s hospital .
Instead you , the Awfulisers , have chosen to demolish this perfectly serviceable building and several others to provide luxury pied a terre 2nd homes , for millionaires, and further investment or capital gains opportunities for overseas interests & landlords of multiple properties .
And contribute to another overwhelming inhuman high rise street scape inappropriately sited .
As for “affordable “ component that's a joke ( if it wasn’t such a sad & corrupt scam )
The Housing Minister should intervene , but then again providing housing for those who need it is not her priority is it ?