‘Walled in’: Bondi seniors sink developer’s six-storey beachfront tower

A Sydney developer’s attempt to use an affordable housing incentive scheme to build luxury apartments overlooking Bondi Beach has been blocked after residents of a neighbouring seniors’ housing complex labelled the proposal a form of “elder abuse” that would rob them of sunlight and ocean views.

Waverley Council’s local planning panel unanimously rejected the $4.9 million proposal to redevelop a seven-metre-wide site at 34 Campbell Parade into a six-storey, mixed-use building containing a ground-floor shop, two luxury dual-level apartments and a single affordable housing unit.

The ruling halts plans by developer STM123 No. 32 Pty Ltd, directed by property investor Vaughan Blank, and brings to a close a planning dispute that exposed growing tensions over the NSW government’s push to increase housing supply through planning schemes allowing developers to exceed local controls in return for affordable housing.

More than 770 objections were lodged against the proposal, with residents arguing it would block windows and ocean views from neighbouring properties, encourage overdevelopment along the beachfront, and that it was a misuse of planning incentives intended to address the housing crisis.

The campaign was led by residents of the heritage-listed Astra building, a former hotel converted into independent seniors’ accommodation sitting directly north of the 34 Campbell Parade site above the Bondi Trattoria restaurant.

Planning documents showed the proposed building would have extended along the Astra’s 35.4-metre southern boundary, significantly reducing natural light and blocking ocean views from dozens of studio apartments occupied by elderly residents.

For 88-year-old Frances Stumbles, who has limited mobility and spends much of her day indoors, the prospect of losing the outlook from her apartment had caused months of anxiety.

“I moved into the Astra 13 years ago and through my windows, my only windows, I look out onto the world,” she said.

“I enjoy the natural light and the sea breeze. With this proposal I was terrified at the prospect of looking onto a blank six-storey wall. Quite simply, I would have been walled in.”

Another resident, 87-year-old Cleo Lynch, described the proposal as “blatant elder abuse with a gender bias”, noting many of those affected residents were older women who relied on the Astra to continue living independently.

“Some residents rarely leave their units because of mobility or health issues, and this development would have condemned them to spend their last years in a bricked-up prison,” she said.

“Elderly we might be but stupid we’re not. The justification for the proposal – affordable housing opposite Bondi Beach – is an oxymoron.”

The dispute reignited debate over the state’s Housing State Environmental Planning Policy – a planning scheme that allows developers to receive 30 per cent bonuses in building height limits and floor space if sections of new developments are dedicated to affordable housing for periods typically up to 15 years.

At 34 Campbell Parade, where local planning controls limit buildings to 15 metres, the incentive boosted the height limit to 19.5 metres. The proposed building reached 19.3 metres – almost 30 per cent above the standard height limit.

Waverley councillor Margaret Merton questioned whether developments containing predominantly luxury apartments were delivering the public benefits intended by the policy.

“None of the residents are opposed to more housing but building one affordable unit and two luxury apartments does nothing to address the housing shortage we’re in,” she said.

The developer’s planning consultant Lee Kosnetter rejected suggestions the affordable housing component was merely tokenistic, saying it would account for about 20 per cent of the building’s residential floor space and be rented to essential workers for between $700 and $750 a week in a suburb where comparable rents exceed $2000.

“We have a comprehensive list of local key workers – nurses, police officers and teachers – who are scrambling for accommodation in the area,” Kosnetter said.

Planning documents submitted to the council argued the building had been carefully designed to minimise impacts on neighbouring properties, complied with accepted view-sharing principles, and would revitalise an underused site dating back to the 1920s.

Waverley Council’s planning staff had initially recommended approving the project. While acknowledging the loss of views for Astra residents would be “devastating”, staff concluded those views “cannot reasonably be expected to be maintained upon redevelopment of surrounding sites”.

The four-member planning panel unanimously disagreed, refusing the application after finding “the substantial amenity and view impacts” on the Astra building outweighed the public benefit of a single affordable housing apartment.

Astra resident Len Horne welcomed the decision.

“The Astra is one of the few affordable housing options in Bondi, and the proposal has caused enormous anxiety, residents asking: ‘If this is built next door to us, what will we do? Where will we go?’” he said.

“We understand Sydney needs more housing but this proposal pushed the boundaries of every planning control. It was simply the wrong development for this site.”

Be the first to know when major news happens. Sign up for breaking news alerts on email or turn on notifications in the app.