The updated DA has significantly increase the height of the building. This is no longer in keeping with the suburb, and also will cause several environment and social impacts.
The wind tunnels it will create will be significant.
The shadow it casts over my apartment and building will be significant. Essentially blocking the sun for a large part of the day.
The traffic that will come into Doing Street will be unmanageable. Along with the parking.
I support the redevelopment in its original form but this has gone too far. This will be an eyesore and lead to significant disruption

Joe Cutugno
907/227 Victoria Street
Darlinghurst NSW 2010
12/6/26

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing formally object to the proposed mixed - use development 164-194 William Street Woolloomooloo (SSD-80211463).
I am a long- term resident and owner of an apartment in the Top of the Town building at 227 Victoria Street Darlinghurst. I support appropriate development and the inclusion of affordable housing, but this revised proposal is excessive and inconsistent with planning controls. It prioritises developer profit over community wellbeing and would case significant harm to the amenity ,character, and value of the surrounding area.

1.Excessive Height and FSR - Non Compliance
The proposal seeks a height of approximately 61 meters (18 storeys), far exceeding the LEP controls of 22-35 meters . Even with a 30% bonus under the Housing SEPP, the maximum permissible height would be around 45.5 metres. The proposed Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 5.16:1 also exceeds the bonus - adjusted limit of 4.7:1 This is a clear breach of planning controls and constitutes overdevelopment . The affordable housing component (60dwellings )is concentrated on lower levels, while upper levels are used for luxury penthouses and market -rate units. This undermines the intent of SEPP bonus and results in a disproportionate impact on the community. A compliant envelope of 8-10 storeys would be appropriate and still allow for affordable housing.

2.The view and loss Visual impact
The development would block iconic views of Sydney Harour, Opera House and Harbour views from many existing apartments, including mine. These views are a part of our residential amenity and property value. The Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) by Urbaine Design Group is misleading and understates the impact.
For example, it claims no iconic elements are affected from Viewpoint 59, which is demonstrably false.
The proposal falls the view-sharing the principles established in Tenacity v Warringah. An independent view analysis should be required, including photomontages from Top of The Town and other affected buildings. The only affected mitigation is substantial reduction in height.

3. Noise, Overshadowing, and Traffic Rooftop communal areas raise concerns about noise transmission, especially at night. These spaces should be subject to strict controls or removed. The scale of the development will increase traffic and parking pressure on already congested streets. Overshadowing of nearby properties and public spaces is also likely, particularly in winter months. These impacts would be significantly reduced with a lower building height.

4. Heritage and Character
The site adjoins the Woolloomooloo Heritage Conservation Area and is near several listed buildings. The proposed bulk and scale would visually dominate these heritage assets and disrupt the established character of the area. The design should step down near heritage interfaces and respect the surrounding built form.

Request for Action
I urge the Department to require a substantial reduction in height and rebalance of the building mass. The developer should remain within the previously approved envelope and respect the planning controls. Alternative incentives should be considered to support affordable housing without excessive height and bulk.

Pease ensure the following issues are addressed in the assessment:
View loss and visual impact from Top of the Town and surrounding buildings
Non - compliance with LEP height and FSR controls
Noise concerns from rooftop communal areas
Traffic and parking pressure on local streets
Overshadowing and sunlight loss
Heritage context and proximity to conversation areas
Cumulative impact of recent developments in the area
Reliability and accuracy of the VIA

Thank you for considering this submission. I am available to provide further information or participate in consultation if required.
Yours sincerely,

Joe Cutugno
Owner 907
Top of the Town Apartments
227 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst NSW 2010

I am lodging a further objection to SSD‑80211463 at 164–194 William Street, Woolloomoolooloo.

Last year, many residents — including myself — raised clear and consistent concerns about excessive height, loss of views, overshadowing, and the misuse of “affordable housing” incentives to justify an oversized development. It is extremely disappointing that instead of addressing these concerns, the amended proposal has increased in height yet again, now reaching up to 19 storeys. This is even higher than the version the community objected to. It is evident that the proponent has not meaningfully listened to or engaged with the affected community.

The Applicant’s own Appendix A (“Response to Submissions Table”) reinforces this. Despite extensive objections from residents whose homes and views will be directly impacted, the revised scheme has grown taller, bulkier, and more intrusive. The Response to Submissions process appears to have been treated as a procedural requirement rather than a genuine attempt to address the issues raised by the community.

The justification for this height increase on the basis of “affordable housing” remains deeply unconvincing. The Bridge Housing letter included in the RtS confirms that the affordable housing component consists of only 58 units, all time‑limited to 15 years, after which they revert to the private market. There is no mechanism ensuring that the significant uplift in value created by the additional height will continue to benefit the community. Instead, after 15 years these dwellings can be sold at full market value in one of Sydney’s most desirable locations, generating a substantial private windfall for the developer or future owners. Meanwhile, surrounding residents are left with the permanent impacts of increased height, bulk, overshadowing and total view loss. It is unreasonable to impose irreversible harm on existing residents for a public benefit that expires after only 15 years.

My own dwelling — Level 4 of 5–15 Farrell Avenue (Southern Tower) — is explicitly identified in the RtS Visual Impact Assessment as losing its views of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Sydney Opera House, and the water/land‑water interface (Camera 65 / VP05). The proponent’s own modelling accurately reflects my current outlook and confirms that these views are completely blocked under the amended proposal. This is not a marginal or partial impact — it is a total and permanent loss of the views that formed a material part of the value, amenity and enjoyment of my home. Despite this, the amended proposal has increased in height and bulk, and no meaningful design changes have been made to avoid or mitigate this outcome.

The proposed built form is also entirely inappropriate from an architectural and urban design perspective. The amended scheme presents as a visually intrusive, bulky and poorly resolved tower that bears no relationship to the established character of Woolloomooloo or the surrounding heritage context. The architecture is heavy, inelegant and dominated by mass rather than design quality. The excessive height and slab‑like form create a harsh and overbearing presence that will sit prominently above the ridgeline and surrounding streets, resulting in a building that is not only out of scale but also aesthetically discordant.

In addition to the complete loss of my Harbour Bridge, Opera House and water views, the increased height and bulk of the amended scheme will also reduce natural sunlight to my home. The combined loss of outlook and daylight has caused significant stress and uncertainty, as these elements were central to the amenity and enjoyment of my property. Residents purchased their homes based on the approved eight‑storey envelope and the reasonable expectation that their views and sunlight access would be protected.

The cumulative effect of these issues is clear: the proponent has not meaningfully responded to the Department’s concerns or the community’s submissions. The amended proposal continues to impose a scale and bulk that will permanently block views, overshadow surrounding buildings, devalue existing properties, and erode residential amenity — all for a short‑term affordable housing benefit that expires in 15 years while delivering a long‑term financial windfall to the developer.

For these reasons, I request that the Panel refuse the amended proposal in its current form and retain the previously approved eight‑storey height limit.

Yours Faithfully
Melissa Fenech
5-15Farrell Ave Darlinghurst

Submission on State Significant Development Application:
164–172 & 174–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo NSW 2011
(SSD-80211463)
Andre Lalak MB BS FRACS FRCS Ed
3703/184 Forbes St., Darlinghurst, NSW, 2010
[email protected] 0408445027
_________________________________________________________________________________
I am a resident of the area directly impacted by the proposed Submission on State Significant Development Application 164–172 & 174–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo NSW 2011 (SSD-80211463)
Also, I am very concerned about two other proposed developments nearby, namely 134 William Street, Woolloomooloo and 203–225 Victoria Street, Potts Point.
A major issue is lack of adequate parking in our area and this will be exacerbated by the proposed developments, especially if there is a significant increase in the proposed developments.
The Kings Cross and Darlinghurst area is known to be a windy precinct and having high rise development in the area, especially along William St will exacerbate the problem, making walking in these streets very unpleasant and may impact on safety.
I request that these concerns be considered and that reducing the size of these developments will assist in mitigating potential problems.
Yours faithfully
Andre Lalak

Dear Assessment Officer,
I write from my small Art Deco studio in Darlinghurst, a brick relic from the 1930s built for longevity rather than leverage. From my window, if I lean just so, I can glimpse the shimmer of Sydney Harbour above the jumble of late-Victorian terraces that still line Woolloomooloo. That narrow wedge of sky and water has long been my daily reminder that this is a city of layers, where the old and new are meant to remain in conversation.
The proposed 17-storey tower at 164-194 William Street would end that conversation abruptly.
I wish to formally object to SSD-80211463, the proposed mixed-use development with in-fill affordable housing, on the following grounds.
1. Heritage and Local Character
Woolloomooloo and Darlinghurst form one of Sydney’s last cohesive inner-urban precincts, defined by late-nineteenth-century terraces, narrow lanes, and a distinctive low-rise rhythm. The Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Sydney Development Control Plan 2012 both require new development to be compatible with the heritage significance and scale of nearby buildings (see Schedule 5 of the LEP).
This proposal, at 17 storeys, would visually dominate and decontextualise that heritage fabric. Its bulk and height are inconsistent with the area’s human scale. In planning terms, it is an architectural overstatement in a place that speaks best in smaller sentences.
2. Visual, View and Amenity Impacts
The Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140 planning principle requires decision-makers to ensure reasonable view sharing. The Court stated that “taking it all away cannot be called view sharing.”
Here, the proposed tower would eliminate long-established view corridors toward the Harbour for residents in adjoining Darlinghurst. My own view is modest, a sliver of light and water, but it provides amenity, orientation and a daily connection to the city beyond the brick. Replacing that with a reflective façade is not view sharing; it is visual confiscation.
3. Overdevelopment and Urban Design
The jump from a prevailing four-storey streetscape to a 17-storey tower represents overdevelopment by any measure. The Apartment Design Guide and Better Placed policy both emphasise context, transition and pedestrian scale. This proposal achieves none of these outcomes.
The result would be the familiar one: wind tunnels, overshadowed footpaths, and a canyon of glass where there was once daylight. It may satisfy floor-space ratios, but it fails the street test, which is how it feels to live beside it.
4. Questionable Affordable Housing Benefit
The development’s claim to “in-fill affordable housing” is, on close reading, time-limited to around ten years. Under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, dwellings delivered under the in-fill affordable housing provisions are expected to remain affordable for at least fifteen years.
A temporary concession of this kind does not fulfil the policy’s purpose of providing long-term affordability. It appears instead to function as a procedural lever to gain the height and floor-space bonuses offered under the Housing SEPP, a trade that benefits the developer more than the community.
5. Inadequate Community Consultation
Residents of adjoining Darlinghurst were not afforded genuine consultation prior to lodgement. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 enshrines principles of community participation, not post-facto notification. Consultation, to be meaningful, must occur when change is still possible, not once drawings are finalised and the machinery of approval is already turning.
6. Traffic and Infrastructure Strain
William Street is already a corridor under pressure, carrying a constant flow of arterial traffic, loading bays and deliveries. The accompanying Traffic Impact Study appears overly optimistic about this reality.
Without proportional investment in transport, parking and local services, a development of this scale will exacerbate congestion and reduce safety and amenity. Planning theory refers to this as “capacity exceedance”, but residents know it simply as chaos.
7. Cumulative Impact
Under section 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, consent authorities must consider the likely impacts of a development on the built environment, including cumulative effects.
Each tower approved along William Street may be assessed in isolation, yet together they are rewriting the scale and skyline of the entire corridor. The cumulative impact is the slow dismantling of a neighbourhood’s character through a series of incremental approvals.
8. SSD Classification and Planning Pathway
Finally, the use of the State Significant Development pathway under sections 4.12 and 4.36 of the EPA Act appears questionable. This proposal is primarily a local residential and retail project, not a work of state or regional significance. The City of Sydney Council possesses the expertise and local knowledge to assess it appropriately.
To escalate the proposal to SSD status risks substituting convenience for proper contextual assessment.

In sum, this proposal is a vertical overreach: too tall, too dense, and too dismissive of its context. It offers fleeting affordability, overstated scale and negligible public benefit.
I respectfully urge the Department to refuse SSD-80211463 or, at the very least, to require a substantial redesign that:
Reduces height and bulk to reflect the surrounding context;
Guarantees affordable housing for longer; and
Protects the heritage, light and amenity that make Woolloomooloo and Darlinghurst livable and distinctive parts of Sydney.
I may occupy a small room, but I still believe the city outside it should have proportion, memory and sky.
Yours sincerely,

Subject: Formal Objection to Development Application
Application Number: SSD-80211463
164-194 William Street, Woolloomooloo
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed Development Application [SSD-80211463] for the construction of several apartment buildings located at 164-194 William Street, Woolloomooloo 2011. While I understand the need for responsible urban development, this particular proposal raises several serious concerns that will negatively affect existing residents, the surrounding environment, and the overall character of our community.
1. Traffic Congestion and Safety
The proposed development will significantly increase local traffic volumes along William Street, Forbes Street, Cathedral Street, Corfu Street (a one-way lane), Bourke Street, McElhone Street and Dowling Street. These roads are already under enormous strain throughout the day, particularly during peak hours. The influx of vehicles associated with multiple apartment buildings will exacerbate congestion and create additional safety hazards for pedestrians, cyclists, and local residents.
2. Environmental and Wind Impacts
The scale and orientation of the proposed buildings will alter local wind patterns, particularly along Forbes Street, Dowling Street, McElhone Street and Cathedral Street. The differing wind speeds from the north and south will be intensified by the proposed tall structures, potentially creating unsafe or uncomfortable conditions for pedestrians, vehicles, as well as damaging the microclimate and garden areas of nearby homes.
3. Public Park and Social Impacts
The inclusion of a public park within the development, while positive in principle, is likely to attract transient use by homeless individuals in the area due to its open accessibility. Without clear provisions for maintenance, safety, and community oversight, this could lead to antisocial behaviour, littering, and a decline in the amenity of the area for local families and residents.
4. Property Value and Residential Amenity
The combined effects of increased traffic, altered wind conditions, and potential social issues are likely to cause a measurable decline in nearby property values. As a homeowner of two properties, I have invested significantly in this area, and I am deeply concerned that this proposal will undermine both the liveability and economic stability of our neighbourhood.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the NSW Government reject this Development Application or, at the least, require substantial amendments to address the concerns outlined above. I also request that these objections be formally recorded and acknowledged as part of the public consultation process.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response and to being kept informed of the progress and outcomes of this application.
Yours sincerely,
Craig Stephen Carew LAFOREST
601/200 William Street and 403/200 William Street, Woolloomooloo 2011

7 November 2025

Department of Planning, Housing and infrastructure.
NSW Government

Your Ref: SSD-80875966

Subject: Objection to Mixed-use development application with in-fill affordable housing
68-80 O’Connell Street Caddens

I am making a submission opposing the development application for the above.
I note this is the second such application on this site, with the previous application rejected by Penrith Council. The developers appealed this decision and as one of the opponents on record, the proposal was once again rejected by the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure on grounds that such a high intensity development was not deemed suitable for the area. I am strongly aghast that yet another application has been made which is wrought with serious irreversible implications for our neighbourhood.

I note the following reasons for my objections due to the size of the almost 500 apartments:
1. Traffic
The proposed development is within an existing estate of Caddens with neighbouring Claremont Meadows and Kingswood. There are limited roads to thoroughfare for local traffic with narrow, winding roads, parked vehicles and high pedestrian activities. To get in and out of the estate one must use just a couple of access roads; O’Connell Street, Gipps Street and Caddens Road.
We currently have 2 more housing developments on either side of the shopping district and another at the top of Caddens Road near Silkwood Avenue. These, plus additional vehicles for people living in 15 buildings would overly congest the local streets, the nearby M4 ramp and Great Western Highway.
(I am also concerned if the new homeowners of these current developments have received the required Notice of exhibition by the developers for this application through their current builders).

2. Environmental & Wildlife concerns
As in my previous objection to a development at 68-80 O’Connell Street Caddens our residents have a strong connection to the local wildlife, particularly the mob of kangaroos that have inhabited the area including Orchard Hills for 100’s of years. They survive in this precious pocket of greenery with plentiful food sources and should be given the protection and respect they deserve. We are also so fortunate to have an abundance of birdlife that nests in the surrounding trees marked for development.
A large-scale development would destroy their remaining habitat. This area is a green space for both the wildlife and the residents. We do not take it for granted how blessed we are for this. There has been talk of relocation of the mob; this would call them serious destress and possible separation of joeys or in their terror jump onto main roads and being killed.

3. Size of Authenticity of Development
The proposed scale of the development is not consistent with the Master planned residential landscape of Caddens. The area will not sustain another large influx of residents. Schools, doctors and other infrastructure are already under enormous pressure to accommodate our community.
Whilst I understand the NSW & Federal governments are pushing for more affordable housing it would be a monumental travesty to allow a large-scale mixed-use development on this site. This would impact on all residents’ enjoyment for the remainder of the time we reside in Caddens.
Large scale developments need to be built near areas close to public transport, main roads and cities that are allowing for such a population increase. Not in the heart of a quiet, family suburb where children ride bikes, scooters, play outside, enjoy open spaces and the natural beauty of our environment.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my submission. I respectfully request that this development is refused. Please confirm receipt of this objection and keep me informed of any further developments or public hearings regarding this matter.
I may be contacted if you have any questions regarding this statement.

Best Regards,

Karen Mobbs JP
80 Archives Way Caddens NSW 2747
Ph: 0425 327 624

1. Traffic: “Under Site Access and network - Vehicular access to the site is
currently obtained from Forbes Street and Dowling Street, with multiple
vehicular cross overs along Forbes Street.“ This is not true. There are not
multiple vehicular cross overs along Forbes Street.
Access to Dowling street, which is difficult now, will become even worse
because there will be extra vehicles; cars, and trucks servicing the new build.
If travelling from the east to reach Dowling Street, it will be very difficult
because of extra traffic traveling to the new build via McElhone and Cathedral
streets.
2. The effect of Social Wellbeing – homelessness in the area will be a major
concern in surrounding streets where people use the public park, which is
extremely small, yet part of the new build.
3. Wind assessment – if there is excessive height, which there is with the new
DA, Dowling street, McElhone street and Forbes street will have an unlimited
amount of extra wind which will be directed down these streets, from the north
and the south.

To: NSW Department of Planning, Major Projects
Re: SUB-98669720

I object to the proposed development at 164–194 William Street, To: NSW Department of Planning, Major Projects
Re: SUB-98669720

Project: Mixed use development with in-fill affordable housing, 164–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo

I object to the proposed development at 164–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo.

I own property at 1107/227 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst.
My building was originally constructed in 1966 and was converted into luxury residential apartments in 2003, forming part of the long-established, legitimate residential character of this precinct.

Grounds of Objection

1) Diminishment of neighbourhood amenity outlook + visual openness
Although the development may not fully obstruct my internal view, it will significantly diminish the established visual openness and amenity outlook of this precinct.
This is relevant under Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140 view-sharing principles.

2) Quantified economic harm across 91 existing dwellings
My property is lawfully used for short-term accommodation (Airbnb) and provides income for my household.

Amenity outlook is one of the primary drivers of property value and revenue performance in this building.

This impact is not confined to a single residence - it affects the entire building, comprising 91 apartments:
• 9 Studio apartments
• 53 One-bedroom apartments
• 10 One-bedroom lofts
• 16 Two-bedroom apartments
• 2 Sub-penthouses
• 1 Penthouse

The loss of perceived amenity and visual openness will diminish the overall valuation profile of all 91 apartments - not merely individual units - and therefore represents a significant economic impact at building scale.

3) Overdevelopment relative to context
The proposal appears inconsistent with:
• SEPP 65 Design Quality Principles 2 + 5
• ADG Clause 2B.3 – Building Separation (visual privacy / massing)
• ADG Clause 4A-1 – Solar / daylight access (overshadowing risk)

4) Cumulative impact / precedent risk
Approval in this form would set a precedent for further over-massing - compounding amenity loss in Darlinghurst, Woolloomooloo and surrounding suburbs.

5) Public Interest – EP&A Act s4.15(1)(e)
It is not in the public interest for an established and functioning residential community to undergo avoidable amenity degradation and economic diminishment.

Request

For these reasons, I request that this application not be approved in its current form.

Should approval be entertained, significant reduction in height and increased upper-level setbacks are required to avoid over-enclosure, protect amenity, and prevent material economic harm to 91 existing lawful dwellings.

Sincerely,
Elena Parker

Name: Helen Elizabeth Cramp
Address: 96/26 Kirketon Road, Darlinghurst NSW 2010
Application No.: SSD-80211463
Project: Mixed-use development with in-fill affordable housing at
164–172 & 174–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo
Position: OBJECT
________________________________________
Submission – Objection to SSD-80211463
I object to the proposed development at 164–172 & 174–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo.
The scale and massing of the proposal will cause unacceptable amenity impacts, particularly view loss, privacy intrusion, visual dominance, and traffic pressure.
I reside on the 6th floor at 96/26 Kirketon Road. My apartment enjoys a valued outlook from primary living areas and the balcony toward the Woolloomooloo basin, Sydney Harbour Bridge, and Sydney Opera House.
This view contributes substantially to amenity and value.
________________________________________
Grounds for Objection
1) View Loss & Visual Bulk
The applicant’s indicative massing plan shows height uplifts of:
• +8 storeys (central)
• +3 storeys
• +1 storey
The +8-storey element produces a dominant built form likely to sit well above my Level-6 sightline, removing or reducing existing landmark views.
These views have high significance, as they are visible from primary living areas and private open space.
I have attached a labelled photograph taken from my balcony showing the Harbour Bridge / Opera House corridor. The proposal is situated within this visual corridor and is therefore likely to obstruct this view either partially or substantially.
The applicant has not provided verified view-impact photomontages from nearby residential properties.
Requested:
• Verified sightline / photomontage analysis from Kirketon Road vantage points
• Height and massing reduction to protect harbour landmark views
________________________________________
2) Privacy Impact
The proposed residential towers will introduce direct elevated sightlines into my balcony and living areas, reducing privacy.
Requested:
• Increased setbacks
• Screening / design measures
________________________________________
3) Overshadowing & Daylight
Although overshadowing risk is lower due to orientation, no modelling is provided to demonstrate that neighbouring dwellings retain adequate daylight.
Requested:
• Updated overshadowing analysis
• Height adjustments if required
________________________________________
4) Bulk, Height & Character
The proposed 18-storey scale is out of character with surrounding built form and creates an excessive central mass.
Requested:
• Height / bulk moderation
• Improved transition to neighbouring buildings
________________________________________
5) Traffic / Congestion
The introduction of 227 dwellings plus retail uses will increase local traffic and parking pressure in an already constrained area.
________________________________________
Requested Outcomes
I request that the Department require:
1. Verified view impact modelling from Kirketon Road
2. Height & massing reduction (particularly the +8-storey portion)
3. Privacy safeguards
4. Updated overshadowing modelling
5. Traffic assessment / mitigation
If these cannot be addressed, the proposal should not be approved in its current form.
________________________________________
Declaration
I have made no reportable political donations in the past two years.
I acknowledge the Department’s Disclaimer and Declaration.
________________________________________
Conclusion
While supportive of appropriately scaled housing, the proposal as submitted results in unacceptable loss of amenity to existing residents, including:
• Loss of iconic views
• Visual bulk intrusion
• Privacy reduction
• Increased traffic
I respectfully request reconsideration of height and massing to protect existing residential amenity.
Yours sincerely

Helen Cramp

96/26 Kirketon Road
Darlinghurst NSW 2010
0413 198 073