NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure

Re: SSD-80211463 – 164–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo

I am the owner and resident of Unit 17, 1–5 Rosebank Street, Darlinghurst and object to the amended proposal for SSD-80211463.

While I support the provision of affordable housing and increased housing supply in appropriate locations, I do not support the amended proposal in its current form due to its excessive height, bulk and visual impacts on surrounding residential properties, including my own apartment.

My concerns relate specifically to the amended scheme currently on exhibition.

My apartment enjoys established views towards Sydney Harbour, including views of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, harbour waters, Fort Denison and the wider city skyline. These views form a significant component of the residential amenity and enjoyment of my home.

The amended proposal introduces additional height and bulk that will materially obstruct these views. The Sydney Harbour Bridge is one of Australia's most significant landmarks and contributes substantially to the visual amenity enjoyed by residents throughout Darlinghurst and Woolloomooloo. The loss of these views should not be dismissed simply because a portion of the view remains visible.

Of particular concern is the applicant's Visual Impact Assessment. The report repeatedly identifies "Severe" visual impacts from nearby residential properties with harbour views, including apartments within the Palisades development at Farrell Avenue. Despite these findings, the report concludes that the impacts are reasonable.

I submit that there is a clear inconsistency between the findings of severe visual impact and the conclusion that the resulting loss of amenity is acceptable. The Department should give significant weight to the applicant's own assessment that the proposal causes severe impacts to neighbouring residential receivers.

I am also concerned that the Visual Impact Assessment does not adequately assess impacts on apartments within 1–5 Rosebank Street.

The assessment includes only a single viewpoint from a low-level apartment within the building. This viewpoint is not representative of the views available from higher-level apartments such as Unit 17, which enjoy materially broader harbour and city views.

As an architect familiar with the preparation and assessment of visual impact studies, I do not consider the selected Rosebank Street viewpoint to be representative of the visual amenity experienced from upper-level apartments within the building. The assessment therefore fails to provide a complete understanding of the impacts experienced by many residents who are likely to be most affected by the proposal.

I would welcome Department officers, the applicant, or the applicant's visual impact consultants to inspect the views available from Unit 17, 1–5 Rosebank Street. Such an inspection would provide a clear understanding of the existing visual amenity enjoyed from my apartment and the extent to which the amended proposal would obstruct views of Sydney Harbour, the Harbour Bridge and the city skyline.

The proposal also appears to rely heavily on comparisons with previously approved development envelopes rather than properly assessing the loss of visual amenity currently experienced by existing residents. The relevant consideration should be the impact of the amended proposal on the views presently available from neighbouring properties, not simply whether it performs marginally better than an alternative future scheme.

Given the significance of the affected views and the limitations of the current assessment, I respectfully request that the Department require supplementary visual assessment from representative upper-level apartments within 1–5 Rosebank Street before determining the application.

For these reasons, I object to the amended proposal and respectfully request that the Department either refuse the application in its current form or require further reductions in height and bulk to minimise impacts on neighbouring residential properties and protect the visual amenity currently enjoyed by surrounding residents.

Yours faithfully,

Joanna Bridle
Unit 17, 1–5 Rosebank Street
Darlinghurst NSW 2010

The developer has made disingenuous claims about the affordable housing it is providing in this application. At the same time it unashamedly seeks to exploit the full allowance for such a provision. I believe to qualify for the affordable housing allowance there must be a complete equitable distribution between market priced units and affordable housing. Furthermore the provision of affordable housing for only 15 years is inadequate. It should be made indefinite.

As a local resident and apartment owner directly impacted by this proposal, I wish to register my strong objection to the revised development put forward as an SSD. While I am generally supportive of appropriate development, the revised proposal represents a substantial departure from the original submission and raises serious concerns.
1. Loss of Iconic Views and Financial Impact
The increased height and bulk will obstruct my views of significant iconic landmarks such as the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Sydney Opera House, Sydney Harbour and The Domain resulting in a considerable negative financial impact on property value. The Visual Impact Assessment is inadequate, as it only considers a limited number of affected buildings. Many surrounding properties, including mine, have not been properly assessed.
The lack of transparency in view studies, combined with the last minute increase in height and footprint, is unacceptable. The proposal disregards the expectations of residents who relied on the original submission, which at least respected the scale of neighbouring buildings.
Therefore, I wish to formally request that a Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) be undertaken for my property, or that the existing assessment be expanded, to evaluate the extent of iconic view loss, overshadowing and visual dominance the proposed development will cause to my property and on the surrounding properties.
2. Significant Increase in Height and Bulk
The revised proposal increases the building height to 18 storeys — a massive change from the original DA, which was to be no higher than the neighbouring “No Birds” branded building. This escalation is out of character with the street and surrounding properties and will:
* Cause significant shadowing of neighbouring buildings
* Exacerbate the existing Williams Street wind tunnel effect and traffic noise
* Dominate the streetscape in a way that undermines local character
3. Adverse Impact on Local Infrastructure and Environment
The development will place additional strain on local infrastructure and the environment, including:
* Increased traffic congestion on an already busy road
* Altered wind flows affecting pedestrian safety and comfort
* Greater demand on public transport and community facilities
These impacts are compounded by other large developments proposed nearby.
Conclusion
The revised proposal represents a dramatic and unjustified departure from the original submission. It will negatively affect residents through loss of iconic views, overshadowing, financial impacts, traffic congestion and noise, and cumulative overdevelopment in the precinct.

I am concerned about population density in the locality and impacts on already difficult traffic access.
I live in 'upper' Forbes St on the other side of William St. Whilst I do use public transport, I also drive further afield eg. I access the Harbour Tunnel. This requires using one block of William St, leaving the locality via Bourke St. Already in peak hour it can take 6 changes of lights to enter William St, and a difficult and not quite legal lane crossing to get into the lane to right turn at the next intersection. The traffic is usually congested. The development will add more traffic to newcomers needing to travel in various directions away from the locality, with impact on William St access and congestion.

I am the owner of Unit 22, Level 5, 5-15 Farrell Avenue,Darlinghurst. My apartment directly opposite the development site and enjoy expansive views across Woolloomooloo Bay and Sydney Harbour, including direct views of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Sydney Opera House. These views form a significant component of the residential amenity and value of my property.
The amended proposal seek additional height and additional apartments while reducing the affordable housing component. The public benefit relied upon to justify the bonushas reduced, while the impacts on neighbouring residents have increased.

My last submission of opposition to the development followed a more practical line, and addressed the disregard & discrepancies of the revised plan for legalities in place to protect the present community. This time I am expressing my personal concerns.

I am very concerned- in fact appalled - to find that the revised plans are for a further height increase, well beyond the presently allowed 8 levels, which will enormously impact all surrounding residences.

There is a very good reason for a height limitation to be put - and kept - in place. To preserve and protect the integrity, and well being of the whole community, which ongoingly contributes to the harmony and unity of the whole community.
A development that goes above the 8 level limit impacts so many in this area and community, affecting not just property land values ( which so many owners rely upon in the long term, myself included) but daily quality of life.
The Darlinghurst area has historically represented and contributed so much to Sydney life; please don’t let financial gain for developers destroy the area’s livelihood and heart. By all means develop the site to provide low rise accommodation for those requiring it,but please do not allow greed to override respect for the existing residents.
I have lived and owned in Darlinghurst since 2008; as a full time teacher I have worked long and hard( & continue to pay substantially) to secure my present and future standard & quality of life. If in the future I require assisted living, I am totally reliant on maintaining the value of my property, and I am certain my story is representative of many, many other long term residents.
It also appears that this revised development plan has sought to “appease” the residents of the Horizon building; please give EQUAL consideration to all other residents and rate payers in the area. The revised plan- which pushes the bulk eastward, increases the height, increases overshadowing and increases view loss for Farrell Avenue, Victoria Street, Tewkesbury Avenue , William Street and beyond - is not equitable design - it is impact displacement.

Surely, any council’s primary objective is to listen to, represent & support the opinions and directives of their constituents .
Accordingly, following numerous discussions with local residents, it is my understanding that there is overwhelming objection to this developmental plan in the surrounding community.
Finally, perhaps our deepest fear is that if this development goes ahead as presented, with total disregard for community opinion and interests, future developments will also take place, completely devouring our views and changing aesthetics forever.

Subject: Support with Conditions – Request for Further Assessment of Amenity Impacts

I am writing in relation to the proposed Mixed-Use Development with In-fill Affordable Housing at 164–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo (SSD-80211463). I wish to express support for the project’s objectives, particularly its contribution to affordable housing, urban renewal, and activation of underutilised land.

However, I do have concerns regarding the amenity impacts on nearby residential buildings, specifically Grenville House (177–185 William Street), which is directly adjacent to the development site.
________________________________________
1. View Impact Assessment – Grenville House
The Visual Impact Assessment lists Grenville House in its scope but is, in my opinion, incomplete.
Grenville House is likely to experience major view loss. The VIA assesses other buildings such as Horizon and Farrell Avenue but does not provide a transparent evaluation of Grenville House under the Tenacity planning principle. The only identified viewpoints from Unit 401 will lose amenity of harbour views and Fort Denison from the main living area and master bedroom. The amendment to the proposal and new plans do allow for a throughway between the buildings (shown in Appendix DDD_CGI Park Public) which may offer some relief, however the image in the amended VIA does not reflect this opening.
Request:
I ask that the Department require a full and transparent view impact assessment for Grenville House, including:
• Photomontages from affected units
• Application of the Tenacity principle
• Consideration of design modifications to preserve view corridors
________________________________________
2. Solar Access and Overshadowing Concerns
The original approved plans made allowances for Grenville House specifically to offset loss of daylight hours. Given the proposed extended building heights, it is reasonable to expect that Grenville House will experience substantial loss of natural light and potential deleterious effect, particularly during winter months.
This raises concerns regarding:
• Compliance with SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Guide, which require minimum solar access for residential dwellings.
• Amenity impacts on existing residents, including reduced daylight, increased reliance on artificial lighting, and potential health and wellbeing implications.
• Equity in assessment, as other buildings have been evaluated while Grenville House appears to have been omitted.
Request:
I respectfully request that the Department require the applicant to conduct a solar access and overshadowing study for Grenville House, including:
• Seasonal shadow diagrams (e.g., June 21, September 21)
• Assessment of compliance with solar access benchmarks
• Identification of mitigation strategies, if required
________________________________________
4. Conclusion
I support the intent of the development and its contribution to housing diversity and needed urban renewal. However, I urge the Department to ensure that the project proceeds in a manner that respects the amenity of existing residents and complies with planning principles.
A comprehensive assessment of solar access and view impacts for Grenville House is essential to uphold transparency, equity, and good planning practice.
________________________________________

The present proposal fails to achieve a reasonable balance between development opportunity and protection of existing residential amenity. It offends established planning principles of view sharing, traffic safety, and public benefit proportionality.
We therefore request that SSD-80211463 be refused or substantially redesigned prior to any determination.
Please see attached document for full details of our objection.