Dear Planning Officer,
I would like to take the opportunity to express my support for the redevelopment proposed at 142–160 Oxford Street in Paddington.
Cities inevitably evolve over time, and thoughtful redevelopment projects play an important role in ensuring that neighbourhoods continue to meet the needs of current and future residents. In this case, replacing outdated buildings with a carefully designed residential development appears to be a positive step forward.
The proposed architecture seems to respond respectfully to the heritage character of Paddington while also introducing modern housing that reflects contemporary standards of amenity and design.
The project will also deliver additional housing in a location with strong access to transport, employment, retail and community services. Concentrating housing in such areas supports a more efficient and sustainable urban environment.
Finally, the inclusion of affordable housing within the development ensures that the benefits of the project extend beyond the immediate site and contribute to broader housing accessibility.
For these reasons, I believe the redevelopment represents a thoughtful and positive proposal.
Yours sincerely,

I OBJECT to the proposed development at 160 Oxford St Paddington.

It is a gross abuse of the affordable housing infill provision and completely inappropriate in height, scale and bulk for a precious heritage and one of the oldest areas of Paddington.

Approval of proposals such as this will destroy the urban character, charm and appeal of Paddington forever and destroy the amenity, privacy and peace of surrounding neighbours.

It is outrageous that this be labelled State Significant - it is not - it need not be so audacious in its scale and abuse of planning provisions where only developers stand to gain.

For decades residents in the Paddington HCA have abided by heritage conservation restrictions which have kept Paddington the precious suburb it is. Paddington is a rare, largely intact, early Victorian residential suburb of national significance. Why destroy this now? For whose gain?

This development IS NOT SYMPATHETIC TO THE HCA and suggestion by the Planner GBA Heritage is completely false.

At least approve development that is similar in height and scale to the existing building and DO NOT remove GENUINELY AFFORDABLE housing.

Please listen to the community as Sydney grows for the future.

As an 18 year old, I would like to live in Paddington and providing affordable housing for first home buyers is a must for future planning. I would never be able to afford luxury apartments such as this with rooftop pools. What a joke and insult to future generations.

With thanks, MAXINE SPENCER

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

Dear Department of Planning,
As someone who regularly travels through the inner eastern suburbs, I would like to express my support for the redevelopment proposed at 142–160 Oxford Street in Paddington.
Oxford Street is already a key transport and activity corridor with strong connections to surrounding suburbs and the CBD. Providing additional housing in locations like this makes sense because residents have easy access to public transport and local services.
The redevelopment also appears to significantly improve the existing site. The buildings currently occupying the property look outdated and do not contribute positively to the surrounding heritage area. A carefully designed development that references the architectural character of Paddington will enhance the street environment.
The inclusion of affordable housing is another very positive feature of the project. Allowing people who work in nearby hospitals, schools and businesses to live closer to their workplaces benefits both the local economy and the broader community.
For these reasons, I support the proposal and believe it will be a positive addition to the Paddington precinct.
Kind regards,
Samuel Ekaputra

I OBJECT to the proposed development at 160 Oxford St Paddington.

It is a gross abuse of the affordable housing infill provision and completely inappropriate in height, scale and bulk for a precious heritage and one of the oldest areas of Paddington.

I agree with previous Mayor Richard Shields " The NSW government’s plans risk destroying the beautiful character of our area. The plans also place an unrealistic and unjustified burden on Woollahra.” (- and in this instance Paddington.)

The NSW Gov is contradicting its previous stance where Paddington was valued as a heritage conservation area and residents could live happily in their homes in a suburb of their choice, often for decades because they worked hard and chose to live there.

Now their amenity, privacy and peace could be destroyed by the approval of overdevelopment such as 160 Oxford St.

Approval of proposals such as this will destroy the urban character, charm and appeal of Paddington forever and destroy the amenity, privacy and peace of surrounding neighbours.

It is outrageous that this be labelled State Significant - it need not be so audacious in its scale and abuse of planning provisions where only developers stand to gain.

Paddington is a rare, largely intact, early Victorian residential suburb of national significance.
This development IS NOT SYMPATHETIC TO THE HCA and suggestion by the Planner GBA Heritage is completely false.

At least approve development that is similar in height and scale to the existing building and DO NOT remove GENUINELY AFFORDABLE housing. Nurses, teachers, essential service providers and first responders can not afford high end luxury apartments with roof top pools.

Please listen to the community and current residents and help create housing for the future for the people that need it most.

With thanks, Kate SPENCER

Over development with no benefit to anyone except the Developer

I would like to write in support , in general, of the proposal

In particular the scale and proposed use is appropriate

The existing building is of poor quality and condition
The location is a main road near transport and amenities , eminently suitable for intensified residential use

The proposal will replace existing poor quality housing with better and more housing - an increase in number of total dwellings and bedrooms

The increase in number of bedrooms is a key point -having a family or having flat mates is not only beneficial to society generally, but is a more efficient use of housing in general
The collapse in the number of people per household across the entire country has been the primary cause of the “housing crisis” - we actually have more homes per capita than previously

The feigned outrage about “affordable housing” should be appreciated for what it is - a NIMBY fig leaf

Of course the new dwellings will be more expensive as that is the inevitable result of redevelopment and improvement - if this was a cause for refusal then all housing would eventually become slums

Countless studies demonstrate that new supply of any price has flow on effects that reduce housing prices downstream

The irony of course is that the many existing “affordable” apartments would never be allowed to be built today as they don’t meet government / ADG requirements- if the government wants more of this kind of “affordable” housing , it could of course legislate to allow similar low quality apartments to be constructed again

I also do not support the inclusion of “affordable” housing within developments as these only increase the cost and complexity of development overall , while creating perverse incentives that are exploited by both administrators and beneficiaries of the schemes (see Millers Point corruption of the late 20th and early 21st century)

Please withhold my details

Please find attached a submission from the National Trust of Australia (NSW).

I am a Paddington resident living in the vicinity and have a number of concerns of about the proposed development.

BCA and Resident Safety.

The design of the residential portion of the building does not follow the BCA guidelines in regard to the number of exits and distance to exits.
• Vertical access and egress in the building is divided into two halves each half with one lift and one egress stair. The BCA generally requires access to, two exits for this class of building and the number of storeys.
• For Class 2 Buildings the entrance door of any sole occupancy unit must not be more than 6m from an exit or a point where travel in two directions to an exit is possible.

New buildings should be designed strictly in accordance with the BCA, especially when the developer is seeking a bonus in height and number of stories for affordable housing.

Reducing safety should not be negotiable. To address non-compliance with the BCA deemed to satisfy requirements, it may require the configuration of units. This should be addressed before allowing a bonus for affordable housing and an increase in height.

Air Space Considerations

Victoria barracks has a Helipad located on the oval near the proposed development and is utilised at times by defence and rescue helicopters. This is not referred to in the EIS.
A submission addressing the proposal to the Department Of Defence and Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) should be obtained to see if there and requirements regarding the proposed development.

Heritage

The Statement of Heritage Impact does not address the Social, Cultural and Spiritual Significance of Victoria Barracks.

Many hundreds of solders entered and left Victoria Barracks to go war, notably World War One and Two, many came back hundreds did not.

ANZAC day is only once a year. The perimeter wall of Victoria Barracks from Greens Street to Paddington Town Hall is a permanent 24/7 reminder of Australian military history and sacrifice and its significance should not be minimised by overdevelopment nearby.

In light of the above concerns I urge the Department to Refuse SSD – 97528708 in its current form.