Excessive bulk and height
The proposed building is hugely out of proportion with surrounding buildings. I understand that the request for additional height and floor space is ‘justified’ with an offer of temporary provision of some low cost housing for 15 years. This offer strikes me as derisory. It exploits the needs of low income residents to provide a massive benefit to the developers, at severe permanent cost to the streetscape and local environment.
Inadequate consultation with the affected community
The lack of adequate consultation with the local community adds to the sense that proposal is unserious and exploitative. I understand, though it is hard to believe, that only
residents within 75 metres were asked for their views, and then only with very short notice for comments.
75 metres is only 1.5 times the height of the proposed building. It is as though the developers had said, “Let’s ask the folk who will be in the way if the thing falls over”. There would be residents in the shade of this tower at morning and afternoon sun elevations who have not been consulted – and of course many more who live, work, and enjoy the remarkable streetscape of the surrounding area.
I urge that this application be rejected.
Thank you for your attention.

This project has no merit, less housing, changes dynamic of area , shadows important buildings like macleay Regis and it's a furphy provides affordable housing, in fact reducing the number or single dwellings, unattractive plans

This current submission does nothing to alter my previous objections to the totally inappropriate development proposal. The repeated destruction of affordable housing to build luxury apartments is indefensible in a housing crisis. The token inclusion of a few less expensive flats does nothing to make up for 80 being demolished.
I stand by everything in my previous objection which incidentally for some reason is labeled a comment when it is cleared a submission in total opposition to the proposal.

I wish to register my objection to the proposed development of the Chimes building at 45-53 Macleay Street Potts Point.

The existing building has considerable architectural significance as a modernist building and is a perfectly workable indeed satisfactory building for all its many residents.

To replace the building with a handful of luxury apartments (even while sugaring the pill with the requisite 15% short life affordable housing) would tragically change the demographic as well as the architectural mix that distinguishes this remarkable area.

There has been a growing trend in Potts point for existing buildings to be torn down while they still have a lot of life in order to be replaced with luxury apartments which as is often noted are frequently left empty while their owners travel or reside in their country places. Very few lights are seen at night in the Pomeroy building, for example, which might be taken as an indicator of likely long term occupation.

There is also the important consideration of added pressure being applied to the area by the current plan for retail development on the ground floor. Potts point is already very well supplied with retail businesses and surely none of the residents wish to see happening in this heritage suburb, what is happening currently in double Bay.

Potts point is exceptionally important for its diverse population and its mixture of different types of housing.
It was one of the earliest high-rise areas in Sydney and has successfully for a century hosted a remarkable population.

By allowing the Chimes to be torn down a great wound would be made in the body of Potts point.

Please do not permit this development .

As the report notes, this building is within the Potts Point Heritage Conservation Area (C51), in the vicinity of several heritage items. The proposed building envelope is massive and would considerably impact the historical atmosphere of Macleay St. The other buildings either side of the site are around 4 stories high and the buildings opposite are around 7 stories high.

The existing building is a significant modernist building and should remain. I support the City of Sydney preference for adaptive reuse of the existing building and take issue with the developer's disingenuous dismissal of the idea. I'm sure this option wouldn't be as profitable but it would address many community concerns including those around the historical importance of the existing building. There are many successful examples of adaptive reuse in the area, such as International Lodge on Elizabeth Bay Road and the Gazebo.

As many have pointed out, the proposal is unreasonable: 80 solid, functional, reasonably-priced, historically-significant apartments would be knocked down and replaced with around half the amount of very expensive apartments. This is ridiculous in the contexts of the current housing and environmental crises. It's ridiculous that developers would take advantage of affordable housing legislation to significantly reduce the amount of affordable housing in the area.

This project makes a mockery of the concept of State Significant Development.
How does significantly reducing the number of apartments on a site in an environment when the Government is trying to increase housing density make any sense?
The current building on the site has 80 affordable studio apartments.
The proposal is to replace it with 34 apartments, a handful of which will be "low cost" housing for a 15 year period after which they can be sold on the open market.
The developer is taking advantage of poorly drafted policy which is counter to the Governmant's current housing policy.
The development should not be allowed to go ahead.

The manner in which the developer has chosen to proceed against overwhelming community objections to maximise profitability while paying lip service to guidelines and planning standards has been quite frustrating.

There are very obvious issues regarding light, wind, bulk and loss of affordable housing. That there are independent agencies like Urbis that deftly argue around the margins that nearly all proposed elements of the submission will be beneficial, or fall back on the "relax, it's just a concept" argument, is an indictment on the process itself.

It feels nearly pointless to rehash the myriad issues relating to the proposal given the very minor changes in this exhibition and the sense that inevitably there will be many more submissions until the community grows weary.

Very simply put, there are around 80 studio / 1 bed apartments in a high density area with carspaces - which is a rarity in the area - that will be replaced with luxury high end massive gentrification trophies, peddled in the name of diversification. For a limited period, some, will be allocated to an affordable housing agency with no thought for how quickly 15 years passes. Those 80 existing dwellings are irreplaceable and the residents cannot be relocated within the area without another resident leaving. It is absurd that Urbis suggests none will be forced to leave the area.

It is extremely difficult to see how this project benefits the community in any way whatsoever that outweighs the existing usage. The only group that stands to benefit are the developer, investors, and future wealthy - often part-time - residents who march to the drumbeat of gentrification.

It is an ideal location for an actual affordable housing development, yet it seems the difficulty is the lack of profit that style of concept would provide any developer.

The community overwhelmingly says no. Strongly suggest that T & P see the forest for the trees and understand there is a time and place to move on from this profit over community scheme.

Separately it would be beneficial in the process to have truly independent agencies providing overviews instead of gaslighting entities like Urbis that are paid to recommend regardless and stretch the limits of credibility.

I completely support the concept development application for a mixed-use development comprising residential and ground floor retail.

Hello,
Similarly, to previous submissions for development of the same site, I feel that the reduction in units from currently 80 to a proposed 34 is not acceptable especially considering that the proposal would pretty much double the footprint of the building. Why wouldn't it be possible to have 60 or more units instead of that low number? The proposal offers a building with 82% 3-bedroom units which is a staggering number in my eyes.
I understand that the current building needs redevelopment and I am not opposed to the idea of having a building that provides better living conditions for its residents.
The proposed building will mostly offer wonderful trophy homes for residents who might be in Sydney on New Years Eve or on one other special occasion during the year, whereas for the remaining 360 days they will live elsewhere. They will therefore not contribute to the community, or local businesses.
I would like to see a building that offers a more diverse mix of apartment sizes, with a majority 1- and 2-bedroom apartments, if not even studios.

Excessive bulk and height
The proposed building is hugely out of proportion with surrounding buildings. I understand that the request for additional height and fl oor space is ‘justifi ed’ with an offer of temporary provision of some low cost housing for 15 years. This offer strikes me as derisory. It exploits the needs of low income residents to provide a massive benefi t to the developers, at severe permanent cost to the streetscape and local environment.
Inadequate consultation with the affected community
The lack of adequate consultation with the local community adds to the sense that proposal is unserious and exploitative. I understand, though it is hard to believe, that only residents within 75 metres were asked for their views, and then only with very short notice for comments.
75 metres is only 1.5 times the height of the proposed building. It is as though the developers had said, “Let’s ask the folk who will be in the way if the thing falls over”. There would be residents in the shade of this tower at morning and afternoon sun elevations who have not been consulted – and of course many more who live, work, and enjoy the remarkable streetscape of the surrounding area.
I urge that this application be rejected.
Thank you for your attention.