I have lived in my apartment, 46/1 Tewkesbury Avenue Darlinghurst, for sixteen years.

The most important feature of my apartment is the expansive view of Sydney Harbour from the Opera House to Garden Island.

The proposed development at 164 to 194 William Street, Sydney, directly north of my apartment, will take away almost all of my view of the harbour. This will have a substantially negative effect on my amenity and the enjoyment of my apartment, on the value of my apartment, and on the amenity and value of all the hundreds of other apartments in our building and neighbouring buildings that will lose their view. I have attached photographs of the views from the living room of my apartment.

I accept the owner’s ability to develop their property but I object in the strongest terms to the height of the proposed buildings that will deprive me and all of the units in my apartment block and in neighbouring blocks of their views of the harbour.

I note that this proposed development has been before Sydney City Council for a number of years in various forms and has not been approved because of the height of the proposed buildings. It would appear that the developers are using the State Significant Development legislation to gain approval for buildings whose height has been clearly shown to be unacceptable to both the Council and the local community. If the development is limited to five storeys in line with the Sydney City Council’s guidelines, my view and the amenity and value of my apartment and those of my neighbours would be preserved.

Please see attached pdf. Thank you.

Apart from many apartments having their views of the harbour blocked, I am also concerned about the amount of traffic that this will create on William Street and Dowling Street. I am also concerned about the wind and how that is going to affect the Horizon Building and other surrounding buildings. I believe 10 stories is an adequate height for the area; however 18 levels will affect the landscape, and be an eyesore.

- I am very supportive of the majority of proposed apartment layouts and floor plans. I love the use of defined entry spaces for the front doors, hallways leading to bedrooms, hallways or small nooks leading to bathroom doors and in general the creation of small break out spaces and thoughtful flow through spaces that balance open floor plan with dedicated zoning and privacy. As a renter who has lived in a number of apartments across Sydney, having the bedroom, toilet and front doors open directly into the living spaces is truly awful to live in! These proposed layouts are rarely seen in many newer apartments in Sydney (something common in older stock up until the late 90s, but sadly lost with modern design!). They create significantly better living experiences for the occupants which is important to attract different types of residents and families to apartment living in Sydney as we look to densify and address housing affordability. If there are any planning requirements that limit or deter from this type of apartment layout we need to amend them ASAP! I will keep an eye on this development and consider buying or renting, I like the layouts that much!

- I am supportive of the density and number of apartments provided by this development in such an accessible inner city location close to the CBD, public transport, open space and essentially every amenity and entertainment one could want.

- I feel the massing of the taller buildings is appropriate for William St, as well as the stepping down in height and bulk through the site towards the heritage terraces and other apartment blocks at the rear.

- I feel the variation in building designs, material and palette and clear distinctions between ground levels/main building levels/roof lines is very successful in creating appealing building profiles as well as enhancing the pedestrian environment (as much as can be done without transforming William St into a pedestrian and multi-model focused boulevard! one can dream).

- Bring over 227 plus more cars to the area
- William Street is already congested
- Small businesses in the area will be affected
- 18 storeys will be way too high for the surrounding apartments in the area loosing natural sunlight and clearly there has been absolutely no thought into the impact on the area.
- Greedy and grubby Councils, NSW Government and Federal Government that I voted in the elections are not helping and supporting the people/voters that elected them in
- the governments are allowing these problems to happen
- the development of this eye sore will create so much noise, pollution, congestion
- will populate the area with both humans and animals (dogs and cats)
- there are already small businesses in the area, and the city is not that far full of shops
- the governments are promoting these builds for these greedy, grubby developers to get away with this so both can profit from this
- they do not care about the residents that already living here.
- a lot of residents are leaving and selling up
- the people in government, council and the developers do not know how this will affect the residence and environment
- these projects need to stop!!!
- the greed and grubbiness are evil and needs to stop!!
- just do the right thing for the people of Darlinghurst and the surrounding areas and just build the same height as the former Avis building!!
- and the City of Sydney council, the NSW government and Federal government if you want to be reelected you will not let this go thru!!
- there will be so many voters out there that you would of p####d off!! And they will tell their friends and family, and the friends and family will tell their friends and family, and word will go on and on!!

As a property owner in Darlinghurst since 2009 I strongly appose this development. When we purchased the property we were at the understanding that there was a limit to how high new buildings could go ie no higher than the Avis building. Previously we submitted a submission through the council and now its through the state as i believe new builds are being encouraged by the government. This new proposal has increased the height with a tower on one end. I have seen the proposed pictures of the build and think this is going to affect negatively on the area and be an eye saw. The height of the build will block light to many residents and views of the iconic bridge and opera house will be lost. The area on William Street already gets congested and and the build is going to have an impact on peoples lives in the surrounding area due to the additional traffic and noise. There is no need what so ever to go to size that is being proposed when it can be built at a lower density level and not have such an impact on others and the area. Additional shops and affordable housing is not a requirement in the area when the city is close by. BY building this development it will mean that there will be additional foot traffic, vehicles and possibly pets to the area. I personally know since allowing pets into our building and toileting the dogs in the small grass area on the side of the building it is costing the council money to maintain this as it not an appropriate space however living in the city means this is what people have to do.

Objection to SSD80211463 — Mixed use development with in-fill affordable housing at 164–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to object to the proposed modification and expansion of the development at 164–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo (SSD80211463) based on the following:

Personal Impact
I purchased my apartment in 2024 with full knowledge of the previously approved development (DA D/2022/139 – PAN198092) for this site, which was approved on 8 April 2024. The approved scheme proposed a mixed-use building of approximately six storeys with 229 dwellings, which I reviewed carefully prior to purchase. Based on those plans, my outlook and views would not be affected.
The proponent is now seeking an additional eight floors, more than doubling the height of the approved building, while reducing the total number of dwellings to 227. This will completely block my view and those of many other residents in my building and neighbouring properties, while providing fewer homes than previously approved. This loss of amenity directly equates to a loss of value for my property and those of surrounding residents.

Government Planning and Public Funds
I am disappointed by the repeated poor planning decisions and apparent misallocation of public funds in this and other projects. For example, I previously sold my residence on Doncaster Avenue, Kensington because Council installed a bike track over my driveway- part of a broader $240 million investment in walking and cycling infrastructure from Kingsford to Centennial Park, which is barely used. This represents a significant expenditure of taxpayer money that could have been directed toward more urgent community needs. Such decisions directly impact residents’ amenity, property values, and confidence in planning processes. Approving this overdevelopment would further erode trust in government planning and fiscal responsibility.

Misrepresentation of “Affordable Housing”
The proponent claims that the additional floors are justified as “affordable housing.” However, the proposal reduces the number of dwellings from 229 to 227, while substantially increasing the building’s height and bulk. This clearly does not increase housing supply or meaningfully address the housing shortage. Furthermore, the affordable units are time-limited (15 years) before reverting to the open market. This proposal is therefore a short-term, superficial measure that primarily serves commercial interests. Labelling this as a response to the housing crisis is misleading and disingenuous.

Existing Housing Supply Pipeline
The City of Sydney already has a substantial pipeline of residential and affordable housing supply across the LGA. Examples include:
• Banksia Apartments (City West Housing, Green Square): ~150 affordable dwellings
• Hyde Metropolitan (133 Liverpool St): 168 units
• Gurner 189 Kent St: 91 residences
• Phoenix Woolloomooloo: ~200 units
• Mirvac Harbourside redevelopment: ~260 units
• City West Housing’s portfolio: ~1,000 affordable apartments across the LGA
• Woolloomooloo already has significant public housing stock (over 500 dwellings in the Dowling Street
precinct alone)
• Another development at 203–225 Victoria Street, Potts Point (former Holiday Inn site, SSD84718460)
proposes a 35–40-storey tower, again an excessive height for the area and another farce under the so-called “affordable housing” strategy.

Request
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that Council / the Panel refuse the proposed modification to increase the height of this development beyond the previously approved six floors. The existing approval (DA D/2022/139) was balanced and appropriate. The proposed increase to 14 floors would cause unacceptable loss of residential amenity, reduce housing supply compared to the previous approval, devalue existing properties, and misrepresent short-term affordable housing as a genuine community benefit.


Yours faithfully,
Melissa