I would like to write in support , in general, of the proposal

In particular the scale and proposed use is appropriate

The existing building is of poor quality and condition
The location is a main road near transport and amenities , eminently suitable for intensified residential use

The proposal will replace existing poor quality housing with better and more housing - an increase in number of total dwellings and bedrooms

The increase in number of bedrooms is a key point -having a family or having flat mates is not only beneficial to society generally, but is a more efficient use of housing in general
The collapse in the number of people per household across the entire country has been the primary cause of the “housing crisis” - we actually have more homes per capita than previously

The feigned outrage about “affordable housing” should be appreciated for what it is - a NIMBY fig leaf

Of course the new dwellings will be more expensive as that is the inevitable result of redevelopment and improvement - if this was a cause for refusal then all housing would eventually become slums

Countless studies demonstrate that new supply of any price has flow on effects that reduce housing prices downstream

The irony of course is that the many existing “affordable” apartments would never be allowed to be built today as they don’t meet government / ADG requirements- if the government wants more of this kind of “affordable” housing , it could of course legislate to allow similar low quality apartments to be constructed again

I also do not support the inclusion of “affordable” housing within developments as these only increase the cost and complexity of development overall , while creating perverse incentives that are exploited by both administrators and beneficiaries of the schemes (see Millers Point corruption of the late 20th and early 21st century)

Please withhold my details

Please find attached a submission from the National Trust of Australia (NSW).

I am a Paddington resident living in the vicinity and have a number of concerns of about the proposed development.

BCA and Resident Safety.

The design of the residential portion of the building does not follow the BCA guidelines in regard to the number of exits and distance to exits.
• Vertical access and egress in the building is divided into two halves each half with one lift and one egress stair. The BCA generally requires access to, two exits for this class of building and the number of storeys.
• For Class 2 Buildings the entrance door of any sole occupancy unit must not be more than 6m from an exit or a point where travel in two directions to an exit is possible.

New buildings should be designed strictly in accordance with the BCA, especially when the developer is seeking a bonus in height and number of stories for affordable housing.

Reducing safety should not be negotiable. To address non-compliance with the BCA deemed to satisfy requirements, it may require the configuration of units. This should be addressed before allowing a bonus for affordable housing and an increase in height.

Air Space Considerations

Victoria barracks has a Helipad located on the oval near the proposed development and is utilised at times by defence and rescue helicopters. This is not referred to in the EIS.
A submission addressing the proposal to the Department Of Defence and Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) should be obtained to see if there and requirements regarding the proposed development.

Heritage

The Statement of Heritage Impact does not address the Social, Cultural and Spiritual Significance of Victoria Barracks.

Many hundreds of solders entered and left Victoria Barracks to go war, notably World War One and Two, many came back hundreds did not.

ANZAC day is only once a year. The perimeter wall of Victoria Barracks from Greens Street to Paddington Town Hall is a permanent 24/7 reminder of Australian military history and sacrifice and its significance should not be minimised by overdevelopment nearby.

In light of the above concerns I urge the Department to Refuse SSD – 97528708 in its current form.

This proposed development overlooks an area of small workers' cottages dating from the building of Victoria Barracks, hence it is of great heritage value to the nation, not just to Sydney. There is already affordable housing in the existing building. The streets in this area are very narrow and the plans for trucks to access the site for building works will impact greatly the amenity of the area, with trucks forced to navigate Glenmore Road and Liverpool Street, already heavily used routes, to say nothing of the intrusion of a 14 storey development that will overlook the backyards of Gibbs Street residents ,in particular, and make for unwarranted intrusions into their privacy. No amount of parking in the development will take away from the increased amount of traffic in neighbouring streets as residents seek to access the building and visitors seek to find existing street parking, a nightmare currently.

Paddington is already very densely populated and historically has had a broad mix of age groups within its area. As house prices have increased ,the demographics are changing as older residents are generally more able to afford to buy into the suburb. This development will not address this issue : despite some provision for affordable apartments, it remains heavily skewed to cater for those who can afford luxury apartments.

I lived in Paddington in a terrace house for 18 years, so I know this area well . I always valued both the mix of people who found a home in Paddington, both rich and poor, and from all walks of life, and also appreciated enormously its aesthetic quality- its attractive and harmonious streetscapes due in major part to the existence of the Paddington Heritage Conservation area, and the great efforts of the Paddington Society and others to make sure Paddington’s historic and beautiful architecture was preserved.
My objections are as follows:

1. This development is doing the opposite of what the new housing legislation is designed to achieve.
It is destroying affordable housing , already in short supply , and does not replace it. It will destroy 27 affordable studios and 5 terraces provided for those in need, and provide 32 luxury apartments, and only 12 so called affordable units.
This will result in the displacement of many households who will be very unlikely to find affordable housing anywhere in Paddington or even close.

2. The proposed block of apartments and shops is much too high , too bulky, and totally out of character with the Paddington neighbourhood, and what the Paddiington Heritage Conservation area was established to preserve.

The proposed 9 plus floor development will tower over many nearby streets of historic workers’ cottages , blocking a huge swathe of the sky , and light, and will be an oppressive presence in this area of small houses.

The approval of this development is also very dangerous to the ongoing existence of the Paddington that has been preserved for such good reasons.

3. If this proposed development is approved , and is built , it will mean the loss of and irreparable damage to an irreplaceable historic area , which embraces the State and Commonwealth Heritage listed Victoria Barracks over Oxford Street , as well as the surrounding area called Little Paddington Village which dates back to the 1840’s and has seen very little change .
The over shadowing of these many streets of harmonious and historic terrace houses , as well as of the precious historic Victoria Barracks by a very high bulky building that is completely out of harmony with the surrounding area in everyway , will take away something that can never be replaced.

The proposal would cause a permanent loss of the area’s heritage character and village atmosphere, replacing the established human-scale streetscape with a building that is entirely out of keeping with the surrounding low-rise neighbourhood. This area is valued for its cohesive heritage setting, walkable streets, and small-scale buildings that create a distinct village feel. A development of this height and bulk would overwhelm that character and set an unwelcome precedent that threatens the long-term preservation of the low-rise heritage streetscape.
The development would also result in significant overshadowing, reducing sunlight to neighbouring homes and gardens, and would create a loss of privacy for residents in an area where homes are already closely spaced.
In addition, the scale of construction required for a building of this size would likely cause major traffic disruption, congestion, noise, and safety issues on already narrow local streets.

I object to this project - to the economic displacement of current residents living at the site, to the impact on surrounding homes, to years of heavy construction impact that will reverberate through Paddington, ongoing traffic chaos and parking issues on our 19th century street network, and a building that is completely out of scale with the local area.