Sydney is facing a housing affordability crisis. The NSW Productivity Commission has warned that without substantially increasing housing supply, Sydney risks becoming a city without grandchildren. As a young person myself, I already see many friends and colleagues being priced out of the city. The best way to address our housing shortage is to approve developments like this one.

There has been significant discussion about the height of the proposed building. In reality, the development is quite modest. It is located less than two kilometres from the CBD. It is unreasonable to expect that residents living so close to the centre of Sydney should be permanently shielded from mid-rise or taller buildings. Cities naturally grow and evolve, and density near the centre is both normal and appropriate.

The site is also well served by public transport, including several nearby high-frequency bus routes. This means residents will have viable alternatives to driving, reducing the potential impact on local traffic while supporting a more sustainable and walkable suburb.

Across the road from the site are the historic Victoria Barracks. The recently announced ADF divestment from the Barracks represents a great opportunity for our city. I hope that a large part of Barracks will be preserved as a museum, while other portions are transformed into parks and new housing. When this opportunity arises in the future, the surrounding suburb should already be transitioning toward a more urban, medium-density character. Approving developments like this one would represent a sensible step in that direction.

Some concerns have also been raised about the development being described as “luxury apartments.” However, research from the NSW Productivity Commission shows that increasing housing supply in high-demand locations improves affordability across the housing market, even for households who cannot afford to live in the new buildings themselves. This process is known as “filtering.” Much like the second-hand car market, adding a new rung to the ladder allows others to move up.

The design of the proposed building is very attractive. One day, I would love to either live in this building or live close to it.

Finally, I grew up in the Eastern Suburbs. I would love the opportunity to live closer to my parents as they grow older, both so I can support them and so that my future children could regularly spend time with their grandparents.
Unless developments such as this one are approved this will be impossible.

For all of these reasons, I strongly support approval of this development.

My concerns regarding the proposal include;

1. the loss of affordable housing;
2. impacts to the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area (HCA), especially to the beautifully preserved and much loved original cottages that housed the workers who built Victoria Barracks;
3. traffic, excavation and amenity implications;
4. scale and bulk of the proposed development;
5. privacy and amenity of neighbouring residents;
6. sympathy with the conservation values of the street and precinct;
7. overshadowing of the public open space on Oxford Street;
8. impacts on Oxford Street’s Plane and Jacaranda trees;
9. lack of community consultation; and
10. difficulties for council and individuals navigating the complexities of a State Significant Development.

The project is totally out of keeping with both the character and requirements of the Paddington area, replacing a viable apartment complex, providing one bedroom and studio apartments ,with an unsightly eight story development that will overhang both the area and Victoria Barracks. There is already a lack of parking and facilities for existing residence. In addition the limited number of affordable apartments suggested make mockery of the state government program to encourage affordable housing - this proposed development would deliver only 40 homes, seven more than existing and none will be studio or one bedroom apartments, which Paddington urgently needs to function and keep its diversity in the face of Housing unaffordability

My concerns are:
1. Impacts the Paddington conservation area
2. loss of the historic dwellings
3. Inappropriate design in an historically designated area , scale does not relate to surrounding buildings, overshadowing and privacy issues, removal and impaction of existing vegetation, lack of consideration of traffic issues ( both vehicular and pedestrian ).
4. Lack of thorough community consultation, in an area where strong opinions with regard to history and unique living style are widely held.
5. General statement. Why do we find charm and interest in visiting sites in Europe and elsewhere? Because, historic buildings and districts are generally preserved. In Sydney we have already destroyed much of our heritage and this must be deplored.

I personally believe these types of developments need to be encouraged in the Eastern suburbs and greater Sydney area. The design of the development and mix of use suits the area and it is encouraging to see more affordable housing although I only wish there was more allocation to the affordable housing component of the development. For younger purchasers a better mix of 1-2 bedroom apartments for affordable housing would be the only improvement to be made. Over 8 stories there is adequate floor space to accommodate more affordable housing without sacrificing the accommodation for the more luxury apartments.

As a lifelong resident of Paddington I strongly and vehemently object to this project. This project will destroy one of the few remaining areas of Sydney with any enduring historical significance. I strongly object to the height and scale of the project which is not remotely in keeping with this historic area. If it proceeds it will set a precedent that will truly destroy this area. It is also farcical for the developer to claim that this development will provide affordable housing. This tower will destroy the local area for the sole benefit of the developers and the super rich. Disgusting.

Dr Claire Armstrong
Former resident – 8 Shadforth Street
Paddington NSW

Objection to Development Application – SSD-97528708 160 Oxford Street, Paddington

To Whom It May Concern,

I write to formally object to Development Application SSD-97528708 for the proposed redevelopment at the corner of Oxford Street and Shadforth Street, Paddington.

I lived at 8 Shadforth Street from 2006 to 2010. Although I no longer reside there, my sister still lives on the street and I visit regularly with my children. I remain closely connected to the area.

I feel heartbroken at the possibility of such a large-scale redevelopment occurring in this location. This proposal is dramatically out of scale with the surrounding heritage streetscape. The height and bulk of the development would overshadow nearby terrace houses on Shadforth and Gipps Streets, reduce privacy, and fundamentally alter the character of this historic area.

The terraces in these streets currently benefit from sunlight, open sky and green well-maintained gardens. A useful comparison can be seen behind St Vincent’s Hospital, where surrounding large buildings have left nearby terraces heavily overshadowed and diminished. This development risks creating a similar outcome.

There are also serious concerns about construction impacts. Excavation and heavy works may damage nearby heritage buildings, which are vulnerable to vibration and ground movement.

Practical impacts have not been adequately addressed. Shadforth, Gipps and Liverpool Streets are extremely narrow and already congested. Construction vehicles would be difficult to manage safely, parking would be severely disrupted for years, and the completed development would introduce significant additional traffic from a large underground car park.

The claim that this development contributes meaningfully to affordable housing is also questionable. Even apartments classified as “affordable” in a new Paddington development are unlikely to be genuinely affordable to essential workers such as nurses at nearby St Vincent’s Hospital. The development proposal is exploiting the state governments affordable housing policy to get approval for this oversized monstrosity. Four penthouses with rooftop pools seems crazy and excessive for this area! The whole thing reeks of profiteering while delivering minimal real benefit to the community.

Paddington is defined by its heritage terraces, narrow streets and strong residential character. A development of this scale risks permanently damaging the liveability and integrity of the area.

For these reasons—heritage impact, excessive scale, overshadowing, traffic and construction impacts, and doubtful affordable housing outcomes—I strongly urge that Development Application SSD-97528708 be rejected in its current form.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Claire Armstrong
FANZCA, MBBS, B.Sci (Hons)

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

We strongly oppose the proposed development at 160 Oxford St in its current form.

We speak as residents of Paddington for over 40 years. In all that time, having had to face quite a few development proposals that have threatened our unique heritage precinct, we have never encountered a proposal that is so without merit and which will have such a potentially negative impact on our neighbourhood.

Given its location adjacent to Little Paddington Village, a Paddington Heritage Conservation Area, and across from the Victoria Barracks and given its proposed massive bulk and scale, the only public benefit that this proposed development might conceivably offer would be to provide significant additional affordable housing. This is clearly not the case.

The proposed development will in fact result in a significant net loss of genuinely affordable housing from 27 existing dwellings to only 10 proposed. It’s quite outrageous to hear that the developers are claiming the 30% Affordable Housing Bonus while in fact exacerbating the affordable housing crisis.

The developers are probably arguing that the addition of luxury units like these will enhance the neighbourhood. Instead we are facing a heartbreaking attack on a heritage precinct which is unique not only to Australia, but the world. The preservation of Paddington was hard fought, yet we now see it being eroded by sheer greed and a cynical exploitation of the current urgency for affordable housing in Sydney.

More than any other part of Paddington, the proposed development fronts a particularly special precinct: Little Paddington Village is primarily made up of small single storey houses constructed to house the artisans building the Victoria Barracks. It is the oldest part of Paddington and older than most parts of Sydney. As the Paddington Society has pointed out, the site in question is therefore of particular importance and its development should be treated in an appropriately sympathetic way.

The proposed eight story development is oversized and bulky with minimal setback from Oxford street and none from Shadforth St that leads into Little Paddington Village. Its visual impact is incompatible with the surrounding streetscape: totally out of scale and incompatible with the suburb’s heritage values. Approval will inevitably set a precedent for future overscale developments on Oxford Street and surrounding precincts.

We ask that you reject this proposal and require the developers to propose a development that is less bulky, lower in height and suitably setback to fit into the surrounding structures.

Josefa Green & John Millbank
46 Renny St, Paddington

Design does not fit with Paddington heritage - this ugly building will overshadow the beauty and uniqueness of the precinct and houses in the surrounding area
Plan does not offer low cost housing
4 levels of car parking underground suggests people need cars. This is at odds with the current thinking of using public transport. Should not be allowed.
Surrounding streets allow for one car at a time. This will prohibit trucks from coming and going.

I object to this proposal as Paddington is a heritage listed area and the proposed development is not in keeping with the buildings in this beautiful suburb. This would be the thin edge of the wedge and we would end up with a mish-mash of modern buildings as other developers use this as a precedent in the future. The other issue is that this proposal would do away with much needed affordable housing and the apartments in the proposed complex would only be accessible by the wealthy. This development should not be approved.