I wish to object to the proposed development at 160 Oxford Street – State Significant Development SSD-97528708 (Proposal) – for the following reasons:
The scale and design of the Proposal are considered fundamentally out of character with the surrounding Paddington neighbourhood and its Heritage Conservation Area. The area is defined by small lots, narrow streets, and predominantly two-storey nineteenth-century terraces and cottages. In contrast, the Proposal introduces an eight-storey, nearly 50-metre-wide building with minimal façade modulation and limited setbacks, creating a bulk and scale more typical of commercial or institutional structures. Positioned on a prominent ridgeline along Oxford Street, the building would visually dominate adjacent two-storey homes and disrupt the historic streetscape. Such a large structure would permanently “stick out” within the conservation area, eroding the cohesive low-rise character that has defined Paddington’s urban form for more than a century.
The Proposal would also lead to a net loss of affordable housing in the area. The existing site currently contains 27 studio and one-bedroom units that provide relatively affordable accommodation, yet these would be replaced with only 10 units classified as “affordable” under the proposal. Because these units need only be rented at a 20% discount to market rates, they would remain out of reach for many lower-income renters. In addition, the Proposal eliminates all smaller dwellings and replaces them primarily with larger two- and three-bedroom apartments, including luxury units with rooftop terraces and harbour views. As a result, the Proposal would reduce the diversity of housing types in the neighbourhood and displace existing tenants, undermining rather than strengthening the supply of affordable housing.
Finally, the Proposal raises significant concerns regarding its impact on the nationally significant Victoria Barracks, which sits directly opposite the site. The Proposal’s height of around eight storeys would visually dominate the Barracks’ historic sandstone entrance and low boundary walls, which are only about three metres high. Because the building would sit on the same visual line as the main Barracks structure, it would intrude prominently into key heritage views and appear above the existing tree canopy when seen from within the Barracks grounds.

Economic Impact of Proposed TOWER Development at 142 to 160 Oxford Street,
Paddington.
‘Thriving High Streets give communities pride and identity’ – Gabriel Metcalf, Chief Executive of
the Committee for Sydney.
‘The growth of shopping centres has led to High Streets being undervalued’ – Phillip Thallis,
Leading Architect and Urbanist.
Oxford Street Paddington, between Boundary Street and Centennial Park, is Australia’s first and
original suburban shop top retail street.
Its historic significance as the first retail shop top street in Australia is obvious.
Oxford Street, thanks to a protective Council, is in a relatively unblemished original heritage
state.
Whatever development that has occurred in the last century has been consistent with a 2-3
storey height limit on the whole street.
The street is a perfect illustration of historic shop top and consists of many other relevant
heritage significant buildings including,
1. The Victoria Barracks
2. Paddington Town Hall
3. The collection of single built terraces at 2-16 Glenmore Road.
4. The Village Inn Hotel
5. 126 Oxford Street, Paddington - presently the Scanlan Theodore building.
6. Juniper Hall.
7. The Waterworks.
8. Nearly every shop top terrace in the street is original
As consequence of the street’s unblemished historic significance, it is an ECONOMIC
SUCCESS storey despite the threats of ONLINE RETAIL AND WORLD CLASS SHOPPING
MALLS BOOKENDING THE STREET.
Despite the threats upon its commercial viability over the last 50 years, including from,
1. Westfield Bondi Junction,
2. Westfield CBD,
3. Online retail,
Oxford Street has survived and is in fact thriving!
OXFORD STREET IS HOWEVER FRAGILE.
Imposing A NINE STOREY TOWER ON THE STREET IS A MAJOR THREAT.
This is because Oxford Street, Paddington represents a unique opportunity to WALK
The proposal to place a 9-storey ‘mountain’ on an otherwise unblemished consistent height high
street, represents a major threat to the historic setting and economic tourism that the presently
street offers, the lifestyle the street offers and the heritage the street offers.
The existing lifestyle tourism and heritage significance of the street is reflected in:
1. Oxford Street is stop No. 18 on Sydney’s Big Red Bus Tours.
2. The Street around Glenmore Road is listed in Destination NSW top 10 tourist attractions
for Sydney.
3. The Street is the home of the Paddington markets - the birthplace of so many success
Australia fashion brands.
4. The Street is the home of so many Victorian, Edwardian and art deco pubs including,
a. The Albury Hotel.
b. The Village Inn Hotel.
c. The Unicorn Hotel.
5. The street is the Home of the Australian Fashion Walk of Style.
Trade Off
The provision by the developer of a number of low-cost units for rent for only 15 years, is simply
in this case, a means to justify the excessive height is simply an inappropriate trade off.
I am sure that the public would prefer that the low-cost accommodation limited to 15 years, not
be provided at all, rather than using that as a way to increase the height of the building in
perpetuity and reap greedy financial rewards by providing views to the upper floors whilst
simultaneously harming the streetscape.
The buildings to be demolished provide much more low-cost accommodation than it is
proposed.
Conclusion
THE SUCCESS OF OXFORD STREET IS NOT AN ACCIDENT. IT IS A PERFECT BLEND OF
CONSISTENT HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE WITH THRIVING SHOP TOP RETAIL.
Bruce McWilliam
Owner
122 – 124 Oxford Street, Paddington
Legal Argument - Policy Argument
The whole objective of the Minns Government statutory changes was to in fact provide an
increase in residential accommodation, and more particularly to increase low cost housing
supply.

It was clearly the objective of Government statutory changes to effectively increase, not
decrease, the amount of low cost of residential accommodation.

This development directly breaches and is contrary to this statutory objective and therefore the
developer cannot use the legislation to increase density and height on his development.

This case is particularly unusual, and therefore not entitled to any increased density and height,
for the following reasons:

1. 160 Oxford Street, Paddington is a block of 27 existing low cost rental apartments close
to hospitals and the CBD - which is not strata titled. That means it is owned by one
person and every person in that building is a low cost rental tenant of a studio
apartment.
2. This development in fact wipes out those 27 low cost rental apartments and offers to
replace it with 10 low cost apartments for a maximum of 15 years only. A net loss of 17
apartments, short term and 27 apartments long term.
3. This development is directly contrary to the objective of the legislation and consequently
illegal. If 160 Oxford Street was strata titled with 27 different owners then the argument
could be made by the developer that those 27 owners can sell to the developer and
buy replacement homes elsewhere.

In this case none of the 27 tenants evicted by this developer are going to be able to find
alternate cheap rental accommodation in this location both during demolition and construction
and afterwards.

In other words , if this building were owned by 27 owners for example, and the building was
acquired from each of those owners, then that is a different scenario where in fact no low cost
rental accommodation is lost and all people are doing is selling their home to replace it with an
alternate home.

This is an important difference in this development application. If a building is a rental building
not a strata building with all different owners , then that DA should be considered differently
under the legislation as opposed to a building that is already strata and the building is occupied
by individual owners.

This case differs enormously from development in for example Rose Bay and Double Bay
where for example, three mansions are demolished and replaced with thirty apartments.

The proposal raises concerns about its impact on the existing streetscape, the established character of Oxford Street, and the day-to-day amenity of nearby residents, including increased noise, congestion, and reduced neighbourhood cohesion. The scale and nature of the development appear out of step with the surrounding area and risk undermining the character that defines this part of Paddington. It would also set a precedent for future developments in the area, effectively establishing a new standard for building scale and form that could lead to further erosion of the suburb’s historic character.

I'm not a local but I visit the area regularly. This development seems simultaneously to big and too small. It's clearly too big for the area and should be reduced substantially in scale. But it's also too small for this process to be appropriate - it should be returned to the local council which is perfectly capable of handling an application of this nature. Lastly, the plan that affordable housing provided will only be temporary (for 15 years) is unacceptable. If the project is approved, there should be genuinely affordable housing on a permanent basis.

An-outdated 20th Century concept that lacks
a) any thought to whole-building solutions for energy conservation or recycling
b) consideration of the diminishing number of residents who do not own a car
c) sensitivity to the aesthetic line of Oxford Street and to Paddington’s heritage status
d) recognition of the excellent public transport available
e) innovative plans for waste, recycling, water saving and reticulation
f) imagination that would distinguish it as a landmark of technological innovation

As President of The Paddington Society, I endorse and support the Society’s objections.
I am acutely aware that the proposal is NOT appropriate for its Oxford Street and Paddington Context.
I have been trying unsuccessfully to upload the Society's submission, objecting to the proposal however hello Esther speaking hello oh thank you thank you for calling back. I'm having a lot of trouble. As our other people I was speaking to a young woman I'm not sure who it was. She didn't say her name. I wasn't able to upload the document. I tried both just a moment. I was trying again and it's it's now recording my conversation with you on the screen, I'll stop. I don't know how to do that.

The subject SSDA seeks development consent for demolition of 7 buildings within the Paddington HCA - including four terrace homes and a well-functioning building of 27 studio apartments, with proposed replacement with 30 build-to-sell dwellings, ground floor shops and a 4- storey basement, with vehicular access from Shadforth Street, and 10 affordable housing dwellings to be managed by a community housing provider (Echo Realty) for a period of at least 15 years, after which they will also be available for sale at market prices.

I object on the grounds that
1. The proponent has lodged a Clause 4.6 variation request for additional 30% height bonus to the non-discretionary development standard of 22m under section 180 of the Housing SEPP. The southern elevation of the proposed building, fronting Oxford Street, shows a 5-storey street wall with three upper stories. As I understand it, the proponent argues that the additional height 'enables the proposal to deliver the top most storey in full and hence provide the required proportion of new in-fill affordable housing'. Reducing the 'build to sell' (non-affordable) component and keeping the height in line with the development standard for the area doesn’t seem to have occurred to them.

2. The new building would have more than double the height and floor space yet only deliver 40 apartments, with only 10 offered at a discount on market rent for only 15 years. If approved in its current form, the development results in a net loss of at least 17 affordable apartments displacing people in the 'target market' outlined by Echo Realty, ie essential workers and people with chronic health conditions. While this may currently be permissible under the Housing SEPP rules, it is antithetical to the aim of growing genuine affordable housing stock and responding to community needs.

3. In addition to concerns about construction impacts such as noise, dust, vibration and traffic and the longer term potential impact of traffic congestion and increased pressure on public transport, community feedback asks that the design considers surrounding heritage for consistency with Paddington's look and feel. While the Statement of Heritage Impact (Attachment K) (GBA heritage, p7) assesses the majority of the buildings on the proposed site itself as not 'contributory' to the heritage conservation area centred around the Barracks (across the road) and to the north, it also states that it is 'likely to be at odds' with future low-scale and sympathetically designed development within the Victoria Barracks precinct (given the multiple heritage listings over the Barracks site itself). The local community have also expressed a desire (which I share) to see a more proportionate and long-term contribution to affordable housing (rather than the net loss this represents), and concerns about proposed height and scale and potential impacts on local character, privacy, view loss, and overshadowing.
The proponent, through their 'engagement process', appears to be well aware of these concerns, but fails to make clear what, if any, of the various 'mitigations' documented in response to environmental, heritage risk etc actually respond to these community concerns.

Overall, the Housing SEPP aims to address housing shortages, improve housing affordability, and support the needs of different community groups, including essential workers, seniors, and people with disabilities, by making it easier to build a variety of housing close to jobs and services. If approved, once again, rather than increasing housing supply, variety and affordability in areas close to work, transport and other amenities, the combination of height and floor space incentives facilitates only gentrification with a smaller number of prestigious larger high-end homes that will never be affordable to first home buyers, essential workers or anyone on a low to medium income, with a temporary 'affordable housing' component and a higher and wider footprint than zoning rules currently permit. Rather than improving the affordability, diversity and density of housing stock in areas close to the city such as Paddington, where I have lived in the past, and Potts Point where I currently live, it is reduced by developments of this nature. It should not go ahead in its current form.

Your sincerely
[Name withheld]

This project is not a very convincing effort to provide affordable housing when it displaces people living at this site who have few options and who have been part of the Paddington neighbourhood for many years and fo4 many most of their adult life
PAddington is one of the oldest suburbs in Australia and our government should be protecting it from overdevelopment and excessive cars and density of population - it was not designed to cater for this.
The price of these appartments now or in 15 years will not be for accessible those being evicted or to anyone except the well off and ironically the reason people are prepared to pay to live in the appartments you are proposing to be built is that the suburb is indeed a beautiful place that’s protected its historical fabric - fast forward another 10-20 years of this sort of development and the place will no longer be attractive and Oxford st will be a corridor of towers
Yes there are some ugly and / or larger scale developments already in existence but they are largely for utilities ( Telstra/ education/ health)… not for large scale developer profit - they are not residential towers
The comments made that some parts of the land are more heritage sensitive than others is just ridiculous- the whole area is heritage sensitive and once you start development of this scale it will be impossible to control
Furthermore, the overshadowing by the sheer bulk of this development cannot be compensated by any degree of landscaping - there is no precedence for this sort of development in this heritage environment and the proposal is so mismatched to the surrounding sandstone buildings and largely 1-2 storey dwellings that is it just unbelievable
PLease spend time in the area and imagine the access issues in and out of this block, the loss of light and amenity to the neighbours and finally the incongruity of the actual building in the streetscape
The repeated comments in the attached proposals that the existing building is of « poor quality » do not justify replacing it with a building one that is so out of context with the urban environment that is Paddington - regardless of how expensive the materials used, the number of pools etc
All great cities of the world fiercely protect their historical areas - Paddington is one of the few left in Australia and one of the very earliest examples of our history
We have so little history but what we do have is important to our nation - please don’t allow it to be threatened by greedy and inappropriate overdevelopment that is short sighted - we all see what is happening here and it’s not about social housing nor about protecting the future of our community for the generations who follow

The proposed mixed use development at 160 Oxford Street, Paddington should not go ahead because it delivers only a limited and fragile affordable housing outcome, while causing permanent damage to the area’s heritage character, amenity, and social fabric. Any short‑term benefits are outweighed by long‑term losses to both existing residents and the broader community.

First, the project does not provide genuine, long‑term affordability that matches what is already on the site. At present, the buildings at 160 Oxford Street contain modest, older dwellings that function as “naturally occurring” affordable housing. These units, while not necessarily part of a formal program, have historically been accessible to lower‑income residents, students, and key workers who rely on proximity to central Sydney and nearby employment, such as St Vincent’s Hospital and local schools. By demolishing this stock and replacing it with a smaller number of “affordable” units tied to a discount off market rent and usually limited to a fixed term, the development risks reducing the total pool of truly accessible housing. When affordability is defined relative to already high Paddington rents, the new dwellings may still be out of reach for many of the people who currently live in and support the local area. To add to this the environmental impact will be significant knocking down a perfecting functioning building, all options to retro fit the current building should be explored first.

Over time, the concern is that any time‑limited affordable housing commitments will expire and the units will revert to full market rates. Once that happens, the development becomes essentially a standard, higher‑end apartment building, while the loss of the old, lower‑cost stock is irreversible. In effect, the community gives up permanent low‑cost housing and the human networks it supports in exchange for a temporary, contractual version of “affordability” that may last only a couple of decades. This is an especially poor trade‑off in a city facing deep and ongoing housing stress, where irreplaceable inner‑city affordable options are already vanishing.

Second, the scale, bulk and design of the proposed building are inappropriate for the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area. The character of Paddington is defined by fine‑grained, two‑ to three‑storey terraces, shopfronts, and narrow lots that create a human‑scale streetscape. Introducing an eight‑plus storey structure at 160 Oxford Street would dominate the ridgeline, overshadow neighbouring homes, and break established view lines along the street and towards surrounding heritage buildings. Rather than reading as a sympathetic evolution of the urban fabric, the new building would appear as a dominant object imposed on a much smaller‑scaled context.

Heritage controls in Paddington exist precisely to prevent this kind of discontinuity. Once an oversized building is allowed in a conservation area on the basis that it includes some affordable housing, it becomes much harder to resist similar proposals nearby. Other landowners may seek comparable height and floor space uplifts, arguing they too should receive “flexibility” in return for a small affordable component. This incremental escalation undermines the integrity of the conservation area and erodes the historic identity that makes Oxford Street attractive and valuable in the first place.

Third, the development risks accelerating gentrification and displacing the very communities affordable housing is meant to protect. Large, high‑end mixed‑use projects tend to attract higher‑income residents and more expensive retail and hospitality operators. As property values and commercial rents around the site rise, smaller local businesses, creative spaces and long‑term residents can be pushed out. The result is a more homogenised, less diverse neighbourhood, with fewer independent shops and fewer lower‑income residents, even if a handful of subsidised units remain in the building.

This dynamic is particularly concerning in Paddington, which has historically balanced heritage housing, small businesses, and a mix of incomes. The proposed development risks tipping that balance, transforming a site that currently contributes to social diversity into one that primarily serves higher‑income households. Once the character of the street shifts in this way, it is extremely difficult to reverse.

Finally, the planning approach behind the proposal raises serious questions of transparency and public interest. The project appears to rely on planning pathways and incentives that permit significant variations to height and floor‑space controls in exchange for delivering a relatively small proportion of “affordable” units. This model effectively treats affordable housing as a bargaining chip to justify overdevelopment in a sensitive heritage context. It undermines public confidence in planning rules, because it suggests that well‑established controls can be traded away on a site‑by‑site basis rather than upheld consistently.

A development in such a prominent and sensitive location should start from the needs and values of the community: long‑term affordable homes, respect for heritage, and protection of amenity and human scale. The current proposal does the opposite. It offers only a limited and time‑bound affordable housing benefit while locking in permanent impacts on townscape, sunlight, views, and local character. For these reasons, 160 Oxford Street should not be redeveloped in this form, and any future proposal should be required to deliver genuinely enduring affordability at a scale and design that respects Paddington’s historic environment and community.

If this proposal sadly was to go ahead, all trucks over 2 tonne should be banned from using any of the small residential streets surrounding the project and only limited to Oxford Street. This is to protect the many children that use the streets who walk to many of the local schools in the area.

I strongly object to the proposed development at 160 Oxford St Paddington. I am all for more affordable housing and development however this project will demolish 27 affordable properties and replace it with less. The size and more importantly the height and scale of the development is way out of character with the area and will overshadow many properties. It will create a precedent which will threaten the heritage conservation area. I am happy for this site to be developed but to use the “ affordable housing bonus” to go for increased size and height when it results in less affordable housing is insulting to the community.