Nadia Lalak
Object
Nadia Lalak
Object
Darlinghurst
,
New South Wales
Message
Submission on State Significant Development Application:
164–172 & 174–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo NSW 2011
(SSD-80211463)
Nadia Lalak BSocStud; MA; App Science (Landscape); PhD (Architecture)
3703/184 Forbes St., Darlinghurst, NSW, 2010
[email protected]; 0408445025
_________________________________________________________________________________
As can be seen by my address 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).
However, I wish to point out that I am also very concerned about two other proposed developments nearby, namely 134 William Street, Woolloomooloo and 203–225 Victoria Street, Potts Point.
From both a personal and professional perspective I am deeply concerned about the potential cumulative impact of these proposed developments in their present form on:
a) the physical, psychosocial and emotional wellbeing of residents/retailers/visitors in the Woolloomooloo–Kings Cross–Darlinghurst precinct and
b) significant overcrowding and infrastructure strain on an already stressed precinct with high residential density, transient accommodation, car parking shortage, crime and antisocial behaviour, wind tunnels, heritage listed buildings etc.
The area in question already has unpleasant and disturbing wind tunnels. Few pedestrians venture down William Street even though it is an obvious direct route to the city of Sydney. Erecting more exceedingly high developments (with potential retail as well as residential accommodation) would exacerbate the existing problems. There would be reduced sunlight, increased shadowing and increased wind tunnelling. Many residents in existing buildings would lose their views to Sydney Harbour and cherished landmarks – often a compelling reason for their choice of residence.
Businesses already struggle to survive, many premises are empty and neglected - why would new retail succeed where the old has failed? How would the addition of hundreds, if not thousands, of new residents and more cars ameliorate the already dire situation of the stressed precinct?
Parking, traffic and access are already over stretched eg there are minimal parking bays on William Street offering only a handful of parking spots, many streets are only one-way (creating complicated detours), and access to the major freeway from William Street is often at a standstill with cars caught up across the traffic lights. Adding potentially hundreds more vehicles in an already congested area would create more chaos and gridlocks, particularly in peak hours. Nor has attention been given to the inevitable overflow of traffic into the adjacent streets, or that many existing residents would not be able to park near their homes.
In summary, the Development Applications have glossed over or ignored many of the detrimental and problematic aspects of their proposals
164–172 & 174–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo NSW 2011
(SSD-80211463)
Nadia Lalak BSocStud; MA; App Science (Landscape); PhD (Architecture)
3703/184 Forbes St., Darlinghurst, NSW, 2010
[email protected]; 0408445025
_________________________________________________________________________________
As can be seen by my address 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).
However, I wish to point out that I am also very concerned about two other proposed developments nearby, namely 134 William Street, Woolloomooloo and 203–225 Victoria Street, Potts Point.
From both a personal and professional perspective I am deeply concerned about the potential cumulative impact of these proposed developments in their present form on:
a) the physical, psychosocial and emotional wellbeing of residents/retailers/visitors in the Woolloomooloo–Kings Cross–Darlinghurst precinct and
b) significant overcrowding and infrastructure strain on an already stressed precinct with high residential density, transient accommodation, car parking shortage, crime and antisocial behaviour, wind tunnels, heritage listed buildings etc.
The area in question already has unpleasant and disturbing wind tunnels. Few pedestrians venture down William Street even though it is an obvious direct route to the city of Sydney. Erecting more exceedingly high developments (with potential retail as well as residential accommodation) would exacerbate the existing problems. There would be reduced sunlight, increased shadowing and increased wind tunnelling. Many residents in existing buildings would lose their views to Sydney Harbour and cherished landmarks – often a compelling reason for their choice of residence.
Businesses already struggle to survive, many premises are empty and neglected - why would new retail succeed where the old has failed? How would the addition of hundreds, if not thousands, of new residents and more cars ameliorate the already dire situation of the stressed precinct?
Parking, traffic and access are already over stretched eg there are minimal parking bays on William Street offering only a handful of parking spots, many streets are only one-way (creating complicated detours), and access to the major freeway from William Street is often at a standstill with cars caught up across the traffic lights. Adding potentially hundreds more vehicles in an already congested area would create more chaos and gridlocks, particularly in peak hours. Nor has attention been given to the inevitable overflow of traffic into the adjacent streets, or that many existing residents would not be able to park near their homes.
In summary, the Development Applications have glossed over or ignored many of the detrimental and problematic aspects of their proposals
Michael Walshe
Object
Michael Walshe
Object
BELLEVUE HILL
,
New South Wales
Message
227 apartments over 18 storeys would be a significant impact to the already strained infrastructure and traffic congestion within this location. At present throughout the day (7days a week) traffic can extend from Riley street right back through the Kings cross tunnel to Rushcutters bay with commuters trying to access both the Eastern Distributer and the Harbour bridge approaches. 18 Storeys will create a overwhelming shadowing gloomy vision for William street on what should be a tree lined Boulevard style link between the CBD and Kings Cross/Eastern Suburbs.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Darlinghurst
,
New South Wales
Message
Position
• Object to consent in its current form; alternatively, support approval only if strict conditions are imposed to keep all built elements within the approved concept RL envelope, remove hazardous pedestrian wind hotspots at corners, entries and through site links, implement precinct wide construction traffic controls, and secure a feasible and durable affordable housing outcome tied to the uplift claimed.
Height and envelope control
• The concept determination fixes operative height limits as reduced levels (RLs) to balance uplift with neighbourhood amenity, and detailed design should not exceed those RLs unless independent verification proves no additional external impacts on sensitive receivers, which the SSDA does not demonstrate.
• Conditions sought: cap all building crowns and roof plant strictly within the RLs on the approved concept drawings, prohibit rooftop overruns and ancillary accretions, and require independent pre CC and pre OC certification that as built RLs match the concept envelope, with refusal if exceedances are necessary to achieve the proposed yield.
Street level wind: pedestrian safety and comfort
• The Pedestrian Wind Assessment records exposed edges and corners with Lawson comfort classifications of Pedestrian Walking/Business Walking and at least one location with an Able Bodied exceedance, while recommending no mitigation and cautioning that trees are not a reliable primary control in high winds.
• With taller massing introduced on William/Forbes/Dowling and new through site links and plaza entries, the risk of acceleration, cornering gusts and downwash increases for people waiting, crossing and lingering, which warrants hard controls and verification rather than reliance on landscaping.
• Conditions sought: wind tunnel addendum targeting the William/Forbes and William/Dowling corners, plaza thresholds and through site links; a pre CC mitigation plan specifying canopies, wind screens and baffles sized to tested performance; a 12 month post occupation audit against Lawson safety/comfort criteria; and rectification triggers backed by a performance bond.
Cumulative construction traffic and neighbourhood amenity
• The Transport Impact Assessment anticipates sustained heavy vehicle activity across demolition, excavation and superstructure with off site worker parking, creating likely queuing/idling, diesel emission and vibration impacts on narrow local streets immediately adjoining The Horizon.
• The EIS flags multiple major developments in the catchment but defers coordinated staging, haulage windows and traffic control arrangements to later plans, which is inadequate for overlapping construction programs on the William/Victoria Street corridors.
• Conditions sought: a precinct wide cumulative Construction Traffic and Pedestrian Management Plan prepared with Council and TfNSW; capped heavy vehicle rates by stage; haulage windows avoiding commuter and school peaks; prohibition on layover/queuing on Forbes, Judge and Dowling; updated baseline counts and intersection analysis including Saturdays; a contractor travel/parking plan; and Horizon specific dilapidation plus vibration monitoring with stop work thresholds and make good obligations.
Affordable housing uplift: feasibility, durability and public benefit
• The SSDA relies on the in fill affordable housing pathway to justify a materially larger envelope and density but provides limited transparency on delivery risk under current cost/funding conditions, the distribution and mix of affordable dwellings across buildings and floors, and mechanisms to ensure genuine affordability and robust management for the nominated period.
• The SIA acknowledges community concern about multiple large developments and public domain challenges, reinforcing the need for clear, enforceable commitments rather than high level intentions.
• Conditions sought: a binding Affordable Housing Delivery and Management Plan fixing minimum yield, mix, dispersion and rent setting against moderate income bands under a registered community housing provider; independent feasibility certification prior to CC; and a registered restriction/VPA ensuring delivery and affordability for at least the nominated term with clear default remedies, plus a public benefit statement quantifying net additional affordable dwellings versus a compliant non uplift scheme.
Public domain safety and operations
• Given recognised safety risks in the locality and the introduction of 24/7 links, lifts and a new park, CPTED and operational measures should be embedded now rather than deferred to later plans to assure day to day safety.
• Conditions sought: a Social Impact Management Plan and detailed Plan of Management before CC that fixes lighting to Australian Standards, CCTV coverage, transparent lift walls to public areas, security staffing and incident reporting, prepared with input from NSW Police and monitored for at least three years post occupation.
Determination request
• Refuse the application, or approve only with the above condition suite to ensure heights remain within the approved concept envelope, pedestrians are protected from hazardous street level winds, construction traffic is coordinated across the precinct, and the affordable housing uplift delivers a feasible, durable public benefit commensurate with the intensity sought.
• Object to consent in its current form; alternatively, support approval only if strict conditions are imposed to keep all built elements within the approved concept RL envelope, remove hazardous pedestrian wind hotspots at corners, entries and through site links, implement precinct wide construction traffic controls, and secure a feasible and durable affordable housing outcome tied to the uplift claimed.
Height and envelope control
• The concept determination fixes operative height limits as reduced levels (RLs) to balance uplift with neighbourhood amenity, and detailed design should not exceed those RLs unless independent verification proves no additional external impacts on sensitive receivers, which the SSDA does not demonstrate.
• Conditions sought: cap all building crowns and roof plant strictly within the RLs on the approved concept drawings, prohibit rooftop overruns and ancillary accretions, and require independent pre CC and pre OC certification that as built RLs match the concept envelope, with refusal if exceedances are necessary to achieve the proposed yield.
Street level wind: pedestrian safety and comfort
• The Pedestrian Wind Assessment records exposed edges and corners with Lawson comfort classifications of Pedestrian Walking/Business Walking and at least one location with an Able Bodied exceedance, while recommending no mitigation and cautioning that trees are not a reliable primary control in high winds.
• With taller massing introduced on William/Forbes/Dowling and new through site links and plaza entries, the risk of acceleration, cornering gusts and downwash increases for people waiting, crossing and lingering, which warrants hard controls and verification rather than reliance on landscaping.
• Conditions sought: wind tunnel addendum targeting the William/Forbes and William/Dowling corners, plaza thresholds and through site links; a pre CC mitigation plan specifying canopies, wind screens and baffles sized to tested performance; a 12 month post occupation audit against Lawson safety/comfort criteria; and rectification triggers backed by a performance bond.
Cumulative construction traffic and neighbourhood amenity
• The Transport Impact Assessment anticipates sustained heavy vehicle activity across demolition, excavation and superstructure with off site worker parking, creating likely queuing/idling, diesel emission and vibration impacts on narrow local streets immediately adjoining The Horizon.
• The EIS flags multiple major developments in the catchment but defers coordinated staging, haulage windows and traffic control arrangements to later plans, which is inadequate for overlapping construction programs on the William/Victoria Street corridors.
• Conditions sought: a precinct wide cumulative Construction Traffic and Pedestrian Management Plan prepared with Council and TfNSW; capped heavy vehicle rates by stage; haulage windows avoiding commuter and school peaks; prohibition on layover/queuing on Forbes, Judge and Dowling; updated baseline counts and intersection analysis including Saturdays; a contractor travel/parking plan; and Horizon specific dilapidation plus vibration monitoring with stop work thresholds and make good obligations.
Affordable housing uplift: feasibility, durability and public benefit
• The SSDA relies on the in fill affordable housing pathway to justify a materially larger envelope and density but provides limited transparency on delivery risk under current cost/funding conditions, the distribution and mix of affordable dwellings across buildings and floors, and mechanisms to ensure genuine affordability and robust management for the nominated period.
• The SIA acknowledges community concern about multiple large developments and public domain challenges, reinforcing the need for clear, enforceable commitments rather than high level intentions.
• Conditions sought: a binding Affordable Housing Delivery and Management Plan fixing minimum yield, mix, dispersion and rent setting against moderate income bands under a registered community housing provider; independent feasibility certification prior to CC; and a registered restriction/VPA ensuring delivery and affordability for at least the nominated term with clear default remedies, plus a public benefit statement quantifying net additional affordable dwellings versus a compliant non uplift scheme.
Public domain safety and operations
• Given recognised safety risks in the locality and the introduction of 24/7 links, lifts and a new park, CPTED and operational measures should be embedded now rather than deferred to later plans to assure day to day safety.
• Conditions sought: a Social Impact Management Plan and detailed Plan of Management before CC that fixes lighting to Australian Standards, CCTV coverage, transparent lift walls to public areas, security staffing and incident reporting, prepared with input from NSW Police and monitored for at least three years post occupation.
Determination request
• Refuse the application, or approve only with the above condition suite to ensure heights remain within the approved concept envelope, pedestrians are protected from hazardous street level winds, construction traffic is coordinated across the precinct, and the affordable housing uplift delivers a feasible, durable public benefit commensurate with the intensity sought.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
DARLINGHURST
,
New South Wales
Message
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally submit my objection for the mixed-use development proposed at 164–172 and 174–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo. (Development Application Reference: SSD-80211463).
I confirm that I have not made any reportable political donations in the past two years, and I accept the department’s disclaimer and declaration as part of this submission.
I am in full support all quality development within responsible limits and the delivery of affordable housing for our Community.
My grounds for Objection to this scheme:
1. EXCEEDING HIGHT CONTROLS.
This proposal, prompted by the recent affordable housing provisions now significantly breaches permissible height controls, doubling the previously tested building envelope and aborting the extensive design work already carried out in the approved DA that provided an equitable and suitable scheme that fitted into its context.
The additional height being sought creates an exceedingly large structure, out of scale with its neighbors and positioned at the high point of William St. This will result in the loss of long-standing views and sun for many residents and adversely impacting the amenity of an entire neighborhood south of this site, by its environmental impacts.
URBIS EIS Oct 2025 – Height Controls
SLEP Control 35.0m
30% Uplift Control 45.5m
Proposed 66.3m
Breech +20.8m
This is an over 20m height variation with the only tangible benefit being capitalizing on the sites location to generate high value floorspace, none of which serves the bonuses given to deliver affordable housing. Affordable units that have been provided are located in undesirable areas, poorly ventilated with limited or no solar access.
2. BEING EXCLUDED FROM COMMUNITY CONSULTATION / VIEW ASSESSMENTS
URBIS EIS Oct 2025 – 5. Community Engagement
I reside at No 1 Tewkesbury Ave which is a 80 unit residential building that has been excluded from the community engagement and as a 'key neighbour', yet our building is one of the most impacted. I am a long-time resident of the building but have received no notices or information, seeking my feedback or engagement toward what is being proposed.
3. INNAPROPRIATE FAÇADE DESIGN
The proposed building façade treatment has been changed from the approved warm earth-toned brick to stark white. It is inconsistent and at odds with the area's heritage buildings predominant terracotta face brick palette and no detail can readily be seen in the reports as to why this colour change has been made.
This site is located on a major arterial road, adjacent to an open railway line, major road distributor and rail tunnel exhaust stacks where large amounts of soot and dust are prevalent. The choice of white as a colour in this context is highly inappropriate, likely to weather poorly and stain due to these local environmental factors. The relentless of this colour from the ground plane, where it will not perform well, to the tops of the buildings offers no relief or opportunity to reduce the bulk and scale. It only magnifies this.
White is also highly reflective making it appear more dominant and further amplify the 30% larger building envelope.
CONCLUSION
This new DA is now a significant departure from the approved and the extensive design work that went into creating an equitable and suitable scheme that would fit comfortably into its context.
I submit that, while affordable housing is essential, developments must respect existing planning controls, equitable view sharing, and the visual and social impact on the community.
Distributing the increased height evenly across the site achieves a fair balance between introducing affordable housing, maintaining a viable development for the developers, and equitably distributing the impact of view loss for residents in the surrounding areas.
Request for Consideration:
I respectfully request that Planning NSW:
• Reject the variation to the height controls to allow stacking of GFA to part of the site
• Limit building heights to what is permissible under the controls.
• GFA is equitably shared over the site to provide buildings that are consistent with the surrounding urban fabric.
• Reinstate the DA approved façade colour and material palette to limit further adverse impacts to the area.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback and trust that the concerns of all residents including those with disabilities will be given due consideration in the planning process.
Yours sincerely,
Resident & lot owner
Darlinghurst NSW 2010
I am writing to formally submit my objection for the mixed-use development proposed at 164–172 and 174–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo. (Development Application Reference: SSD-80211463).
I confirm that I have not made any reportable political donations in the past two years, and I accept the department’s disclaimer and declaration as part of this submission.
I am in full support all quality development within responsible limits and the delivery of affordable housing for our Community.
My grounds for Objection to this scheme:
1. EXCEEDING HIGHT CONTROLS.
This proposal, prompted by the recent affordable housing provisions now significantly breaches permissible height controls, doubling the previously tested building envelope and aborting the extensive design work already carried out in the approved DA that provided an equitable and suitable scheme that fitted into its context.
The additional height being sought creates an exceedingly large structure, out of scale with its neighbors and positioned at the high point of William St. This will result in the loss of long-standing views and sun for many residents and adversely impacting the amenity of an entire neighborhood south of this site, by its environmental impacts.
URBIS EIS Oct 2025 – Height Controls
SLEP Control 35.0m
30% Uplift Control 45.5m
Proposed 66.3m
Breech +20.8m
This is an over 20m height variation with the only tangible benefit being capitalizing on the sites location to generate high value floorspace, none of which serves the bonuses given to deliver affordable housing. Affordable units that have been provided are located in undesirable areas, poorly ventilated with limited or no solar access.
2. BEING EXCLUDED FROM COMMUNITY CONSULTATION / VIEW ASSESSMENTS
URBIS EIS Oct 2025 – 5. Community Engagement
I reside at No 1 Tewkesbury Ave which is a 80 unit residential building that has been excluded from the community engagement and as a 'key neighbour', yet our building is one of the most impacted. I am a long-time resident of the building but have received no notices or information, seeking my feedback or engagement toward what is being proposed.
3. INNAPROPRIATE FAÇADE DESIGN
The proposed building façade treatment has been changed from the approved warm earth-toned brick to stark white. It is inconsistent and at odds with the area's heritage buildings predominant terracotta face brick palette and no detail can readily be seen in the reports as to why this colour change has been made.
This site is located on a major arterial road, adjacent to an open railway line, major road distributor and rail tunnel exhaust stacks where large amounts of soot and dust are prevalent. The choice of white as a colour in this context is highly inappropriate, likely to weather poorly and stain due to these local environmental factors. The relentless of this colour from the ground plane, where it will not perform well, to the tops of the buildings offers no relief or opportunity to reduce the bulk and scale. It only magnifies this.
White is also highly reflective making it appear more dominant and further amplify the 30% larger building envelope.
CONCLUSION
This new DA is now a significant departure from the approved and the extensive design work that went into creating an equitable and suitable scheme that would fit comfortably into its context.
I submit that, while affordable housing is essential, developments must respect existing planning controls, equitable view sharing, and the visual and social impact on the community.
Distributing the increased height evenly across the site achieves a fair balance between introducing affordable housing, maintaining a viable development for the developers, and equitably distributing the impact of view loss for residents in the surrounding areas.
Request for Consideration:
I respectfully request that Planning NSW:
• Reject the variation to the height controls to allow stacking of GFA to part of the site
• Limit building heights to what is permissible under the controls.
• GFA is equitably shared over the site to provide buildings that are consistent with the surrounding urban fabric.
• Reinstate the DA approved façade colour and material palette to limit further adverse impacts to the area.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback and trust that the concerns of all residents including those with disabilities will be given due consideration in the planning process.
Yours sincerely,
Resident & lot owner
Darlinghurst NSW 2010
Attachments
City of Sydney
Object
City of Sydney
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
DARLINGHURST
,
New South Wales
Message
To: The Planning Officer
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
New South Wales Government
Subject: Objection to Development Application SSD-80211463 – 164–172 & 174–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo NSW 2011
Dear Planning Officer,
I am writing as a resident of 5–15 Farrell Avenue, Darlinghurst, to formally object to the proposed Development Application SSD-80211463 for 164–172 and 174–194 William Street. While I acknowledge the need for urban development and revitalisation, this particular proposal presents significant concerns for nearby residents, including serious view loss, environmental impacts, and a lack of clear commitment to affordable housing outcomes.
1. Catastrophic View and Overshadowing Impact
The most immediate and severe effect of this proposed development will be its visual and view impact on residents at 5–15 Farrell Avenue. The proposed building height and bulk would dramatically obstruct existing views toward the city skyline including landmarks such as the Sydney Harbour, the Sydney Opera House, the Sydney Bridge and surrounding landscape that are currently enjoyed by residents. These views are an important element of local amenity and contribute to the sense of openness and light that defines this part of the City.
The overshadowing caused by the proposed structures will also significantly reduce natural light access to dwellings along Farrell Avenue, particularly during winter months. This loss of sunlight and visual connection to the sky would have a direct negative effect on residential amenity, property values, and the overall liveability of our homes.
2. Affordable Housing and Community Impact
Woolloomooloo has a long and valued history as a socially diverse and inclusive community. The proposal does not demonstrate an adequate or transparent commitment to affordable housing provisions as required under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 and consistent with the City of Sydney’s Affordable Housing Strategy. Without meaningful affordable housing outcomes or contributions, developments of this scale risk accelerating displacement of lower-income residents and eroding the social character that makes Woolloomooloo unique.
3. Environmental and Sustainability Concerns
The development documentation appears to lack comprehensive detail regarding environmental management and sustainability measures. Given the density and location of the proposal, the environmental assessment should provide clear commitments to green building design, stormwater management, energy efficiency, and minimisation of construction impacts such as dust, noise, and traffic disruption. The absence of these details raises concerns about compliance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the long-term ecological footprint of the project.
In its current form, Development Application SSD-80211463 would have an unacceptably detrimental effect on the residents of 5–15 Farrell Avenue and the wider Darlinghurst and Woolloomooloo community. The catastrophic loss of views, overshadowing impacts, insufficient affordable housing contribution, and lack of robust environmental safeguards make this proposal unsuitable for approval without substantial amendment.
I therefore respectfully urge the Department of Planning to reject this application to address these issues.
Thank you for considering my submission. I request that my objection be recorded and that I be notified of any future consultations, amendments, or determinations regarding this proposal.
Yours sincerely,
[Name Withheld]
Resident, 5–15 Farrell Avenue
Darlinghurst NSW 2011
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
New South Wales Government
Subject: Objection to Development Application SSD-80211463 – 164–172 & 174–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo NSW 2011
Dear Planning Officer,
I am writing as a resident of 5–15 Farrell Avenue, Darlinghurst, to formally object to the proposed Development Application SSD-80211463 for 164–172 and 174–194 William Street. While I acknowledge the need for urban development and revitalisation, this particular proposal presents significant concerns for nearby residents, including serious view loss, environmental impacts, and a lack of clear commitment to affordable housing outcomes.
1. Catastrophic View and Overshadowing Impact
The most immediate and severe effect of this proposed development will be its visual and view impact on residents at 5–15 Farrell Avenue. The proposed building height and bulk would dramatically obstruct existing views toward the city skyline including landmarks such as the Sydney Harbour, the Sydney Opera House, the Sydney Bridge and surrounding landscape that are currently enjoyed by residents. These views are an important element of local amenity and contribute to the sense of openness and light that defines this part of the City.
The overshadowing caused by the proposed structures will also significantly reduce natural light access to dwellings along Farrell Avenue, particularly during winter months. This loss of sunlight and visual connection to the sky would have a direct negative effect on residential amenity, property values, and the overall liveability of our homes.
2. Affordable Housing and Community Impact
Woolloomooloo has a long and valued history as a socially diverse and inclusive community. The proposal does not demonstrate an adequate or transparent commitment to affordable housing provisions as required under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 and consistent with the City of Sydney’s Affordable Housing Strategy. Without meaningful affordable housing outcomes or contributions, developments of this scale risk accelerating displacement of lower-income residents and eroding the social character that makes Woolloomooloo unique.
3. Environmental and Sustainability Concerns
The development documentation appears to lack comprehensive detail regarding environmental management and sustainability measures. Given the density and location of the proposal, the environmental assessment should provide clear commitments to green building design, stormwater management, energy efficiency, and minimisation of construction impacts such as dust, noise, and traffic disruption. The absence of these details raises concerns about compliance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the long-term ecological footprint of the project.
In its current form, Development Application SSD-80211463 would have an unacceptably detrimental effect on the residents of 5–15 Farrell Avenue and the wider Darlinghurst and Woolloomooloo community. The catastrophic loss of views, overshadowing impacts, insufficient affordable housing contribution, and lack of robust environmental safeguards make this proposal unsuitable for approval without substantial amendment.
I therefore respectfully urge the Department of Planning to reject this application to address these issues.
Thank you for considering my submission. I request that my objection be recorded and that I be notified of any future consultations, amendments, or determinations regarding this proposal.
Yours sincerely,
[Name Withheld]
Resident, 5–15 Farrell Avenue
Darlinghurst NSW 2011
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
DARLINGHURST
,
New South Wales
Message
Objection to Development Application SSD-80211463 – 164–172 and 174–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo
11 Nov. 25
Most likely the panel has been informed by others of objections from the perspective of building codes, building envelopes, the design of the building itself, etc. However, I would like to take this opportunity to bring forth the perspective of lifestyle and previous promises made (via existing zoning codes)
Many of us in the community purchased our homes on the basis of these zoning codes which was that nothing would be built taller than that on the AVIS building on William Street. We made financial commitments and investments to secure and maintain our properties. We purchased our property for the neighbourhood, proximity to public transport, the city, entertainment, restaurants, shops and schools as most people do in selecting a property. But the key feature that no other place had was our harbour views. Had I known that the State would allow for construction of a building that would block my view, I may as well had purchased a property elsewhere for a lot less money. So, in your consideration, please bear in mind that, and make no mistake about it, we in the community do not want our views blocked by any building and the existing envelope must be maintained.
Secondly, I object to having this building built as the area simply cannot handle facilitating a massive growth of population to the area. Traffic is already congested on William Street with a queue of vehicles extending from Bourke Street to turn onto the Eastern Distributor to under the overpass at Darlinghurst Road. Plus, there will be overflow traffic in a small community streets, which simply cannot absorb any more vehicles.
In addition, the apartment building will undoubtedly bring 50 plus dogs to the area where our parks are already overwhelmed and disgusting. The Rosebank Park has to be returfed every 6 months at a great cost to the City and believe me, the park is ruined within 6 weeks because of the volume of dogs in the area.
Finally, I object to this proposal since we all know what it is. The developer smartly is “attaching” the key word to their proposal to get your blessing, “affordability”. Please do not fall for it. In this area, I don’t think +$2 million dollars for a home is affordable to many that you want to help. The developer said in their proposal that the affordable housing would only be locked in for 10 years, then it would go to market rate. The housing prices will skyrocket at the end of that time and then what? Back where you started from. Wise people would just invest and sell and make a handsome profit. I wholeheartedly agree that housing is very expensive, but if you truly want to build affordable housing, you don’t do it on the most expensive real estate in Australia.
I have other concerns too, which many others may have pointed out. I am concerned that the additional noise, traffic, dogs, sunlight, wind pattern changes, overcrowding of restaurants and supply of food. Many times, our local Coles and Woolworths, the shelves are bare as they cannot keep up with existing demand. Even our gyms are overcrowded.
So, I hope that you will feel that your decision will affect many people’s lifestyles. Going forward with this proposal will be a huge detriment to our community which we love so much. This building will bring down the spirit of our community; many people will be unhappy and most likely leave Sydney or New South Wales. I know that will be on the table for me and I never thought I would leave New South Wales for another State. But many us that would want to sell because they don’t want this tower in front of them, will not be able to afford to buy another property will the amenities we have in this area, so they will have to look elsewhere and most likely won’t be in the State.
11 Nov. 25
Most likely the panel has been informed by others of objections from the perspective of building codes, building envelopes, the design of the building itself, etc. However, I would like to take this opportunity to bring forth the perspective of lifestyle and previous promises made (via existing zoning codes)
Many of us in the community purchased our homes on the basis of these zoning codes which was that nothing would be built taller than that on the AVIS building on William Street. We made financial commitments and investments to secure and maintain our properties. We purchased our property for the neighbourhood, proximity to public transport, the city, entertainment, restaurants, shops and schools as most people do in selecting a property. But the key feature that no other place had was our harbour views. Had I known that the State would allow for construction of a building that would block my view, I may as well had purchased a property elsewhere for a lot less money. So, in your consideration, please bear in mind that, and make no mistake about it, we in the community do not want our views blocked by any building and the existing envelope must be maintained.
Secondly, I object to having this building built as the area simply cannot handle facilitating a massive growth of population to the area. Traffic is already congested on William Street with a queue of vehicles extending from Bourke Street to turn onto the Eastern Distributor to under the overpass at Darlinghurst Road. Plus, there will be overflow traffic in a small community streets, which simply cannot absorb any more vehicles.
In addition, the apartment building will undoubtedly bring 50 plus dogs to the area where our parks are already overwhelmed and disgusting. The Rosebank Park has to be returfed every 6 months at a great cost to the City and believe me, the park is ruined within 6 weeks because of the volume of dogs in the area.
Finally, I object to this proposal since we all know what it is. The developer smartly is “attaching” the key word to their proposal to get your blessing, “affordability”. Please do not fall for it. In this area, I don’t think +$2 million dollars for a home is affordable to many that you want to help. The developer said in their proposal that the affordable housing would only be locked in for 10 years, then it would go to market rate. The housing prices will skyrocket at the end of that time and then what? Back where you started from. Wise people would just invest and sell and make a handsome profit. I wholeheartedly agree that housing is very expensive, but if you truly want to build affordable housing, you don’t do it on the most expensive real estate in Australia.
I have other concerns too, which many others may have pointed out. I am concerned that the additional noise, traffic, dogs, sunlight, wind pattern changes, overcrowding of restaurants and supply of food. Many times, our local Coles and Woolworths, the shelves are bare as they cannot keep up with existing demand. Even our gyms are overcrowded.
So, I hope that you will feel that your decision will affect many people’s lifestyles. Going forward with this proposal will be a huge detriment to our community which we love so much. This building will bring down the spirit of our community; many people will be unhappy and most likely leave Sydney or New South Wales. I know that will be on the table for me and I never thought I would leave New South Wales for another State. But many us that would want to sell because they don’t want this tower in front of them, will not be able to afford to buy another property will the amenities we have in this area, so they will have to look elsewhere and most likely won’t be in the State.