29 April 2026
The Hon. Paul Scully, MP
Minister for Planning and Public Spaces
Sent via:
www.nsw.gov.au/nsw-government/ministers/minister-for-planning-and-public-spaces
Dear Minister,
Detailed Design for shop-top housing with in-fill affordable housing
45–53 Macleay Street Potts Point
The proposed detailed design would worsen the housing affordability crisis, reducing the supply of much needed low-cost housing and density in the inner city. I ask that you refuse the development application.
Housing Affordability
New South Wales is experiencing a housing affordability crisis which the proposed development would exacerbate.
The existing building slated for demolition – the Chimes – supports 80 studio and one-bedroom apartments. These homes provide rare and diminishing options for low-income earners. Any development that would remove 80 low-cost homes from the housing mix should only be approved if an equivalent or better permanent housing affordability outcome is achieved.
But the proposed detailed design would only provide 23 “affordable” homes, shrinking the number of low-cost homes onsite to almost a quarter and causing a severe net loss in affordable homes.
The environmental impact statement claims that the net loss is offset because unlike the existing studios, the 23 “affordable” studios would have income eligibility requirements. But the apartments would only be “affordable” for 15 years, after which homes would end up on the private market.
Even while they would be offered through an “affordable” housing scheme, the rent would not be income based but instead be offered with a small 20–25% discount on market rent, which is significantly more than when rent is income based.
The proposal ignores the importance of low-cost market housing options. Not all people who can’t afford a home in the inner city are eligible for social housing. If the development proceeds, Sydney and the inner city will have 57 fewer low-cost market options.
The reduction in low-cost homes is unacceptable and must be rejected.
Housing Supply
The National Housing Accord aims to build 377,000 new well-located dwellings in New South Wales by 2029. The proposed development would reduce housing supply onsite by almost half, taking targets backwards.
The development is inconsistent with policies to boost housing density and supply.
Housing Mix
The current mix of 80 studio/one-bedroom apartments is proposed to be replaced with:
- 23 studio apartments
- 19 three-bedroom apartments
- 2 four-bedroom apartments
There is a severe shortage of studio apartments in New South Wales, representing less than 1% of housing stock. Losing them would displace residents and reduce housing diversity.
The proposed larger apartments are likely to be luxury homes, not accessible to working families.
The proposal reduces housing diversity and affordability.
Affordable Housing Bonus
The applicant seeks to exceed height and floor space limits using bonuses. However, these bonuses should be merit-based and aligned with increasing affordable housing.
The proposal instead reduces affordable housing and prioritizes luxury units, meaning the bonus cannot be justified.
Height and Floor Space Ratio
Proposed height: 50.05 metres (limit: 35m)
Proposed FSR: 4.29:1 (limit: 3:1)
These exceedances would negatively impact surrounding properties, sunlight access, and urban character.
The scale is excessive and unjustified.
Social Impact
The development would displace low-income residents and reduce social cohesion.
Segregation of “affordable” and market residents (e.g., separate lifts and amenities) would introduce class division.
The social impact is unacceptable.
Car Parking
The proposal includes 60 car spaces, encouraging unnecessary car use and increasing congestion.
Given proximity to public transport, this level of parking is excessive.
Excavation for parking poses risks and should be minimized. Car share options should be considered instead.
Any parking provided should include electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
Conclusion
Replacing 80 low-cost homes with only 23 “affordable” homes and 21 luxury apartments would worsen housing affordability and reduce access for essential workers.
Could you please protect inner city low-cost housing by refusing the development proposal?
Please ensure this letter is taken as an objection for the purposes of the department’s environmental impact assessment.
Yours sincerely,
Alex Greenwich
Member for Sydney