Sydney Metro Pitt Street (South) Over Station Dev.

i support the eraction of a new building just next to us. Is there any
access to the Metro station from the Pitt street side?

I am a owner from the building next door. My comments are as follow,

1. Create an entry to the station on the Pitt street side of the site.

2. Provide more room for retail on the street and also within the
podium.

I believe the maximum height of this building is too low, it should be
closer to 70 storeys.

Dear Sirs,

I strongly OBJECT to the proposed Sydney Metro City & Southwest -
Pitts Street (South) Concept DA - SSD 8876.

I own a 3 bedroom unit in the Princeton building located next door at
308 Pitt Street, Sydney.

This development will impact my living amenity through the loss of
privacy and solar light with substantial overshadowing of my living
area. The large majority of other owners in this building will also
suffer the same fate.

Despite the SEARs requiting the applicant to address all EPIs
including SEPP 65, the ADG and Sydney LEP 2012, the applicant has
simply concluded in many of their responses that the applicant will
not comply.

SEARs point 6 "Amenity" states that the EIS shall "demonstrate the
impacts of the proposal on the amenity of surrounding residential
development including measures to minimise potential overshadowing,
privacy and view impacts." The applicant has not minimised the impact
of overshadowing or loss of privacy through reductions in the bulk of
building mass, or by increasing the separation between the proposed
development and the building I live in. There needs to be an 18-24
metres separation between the proposed development and the building I
live in as prescribed by the ADG for building heights over 9 storeys.
The applicant has failed to ensure this.

The applicant has not complied with the ADG as follows:

1. ADG 3B - Overshadowing of neighbouring properties is minimised
during mid-winter. The Solar access studies undertaken by the
applicant show that currently Princeton apartments has 62 out of 116
apartments achieving 2 hours of solar access between 9am and 3pm on
the 21st June. If the applicant's development proceeds, an additional
57 apartments lose their 2 hours of solar access. This means that only
5 apartments out of 116 apartments of the building I live in will
receive the required solar access as required by the ADG. This will
cause a substantial impact to the amenity of the vast majority of the
residents living in my building.


2. ADG 2F - Building Separation. Minimum building separation for the
proposed concept plan should be 18-24 metres for all levels above
level 9. The applicant has not ensured 18-24 metres of building
separation The proposed separation of 12 metres is insufficient to
provide adequate privacy and amenity. This impacts by unit because my
bedroom window and living room window will be affected (as will the
majority of other north facing residents at Princeton).

Even more of a concern is that this development will cause further
overshadowing to Hyde Park as outlined in the applicant's own Shadow
study. This is a direct non-compliance with the Sydney LEP 2012 and
the sun access plane limits (clause 6.17). This undoubtedly has a
significant detrimental impact on public amenity.

For the above reasons I strongly OBJECT. The applicant should consider
the following issues:

1. Reducing development in size to address the above concerns

2. Increase the building separation to reduce the significant impact
on the amenity of Princeton apartments (including loss of sunlight and
privacy) along with any required measures to avoid overshadowing of
Hyde Park.

Good afternoon,

As this matter is an SSD related matter outside SCA lands or declared
catchment areas, and not near WaterNSW's infrastructure or land, I am
referring it to DoI/NRAR.

This matter relates to an SSD project for the Sydney Metro Pitt Street
(South) Over Station Development (SSD 8876).

With thanks

Regards

Richard Meares


Richard Meares
Water Regulation Officer
Customer Assessments and Approvals
Customer and Community (Parramatta)


Please note my new address and phone number.

Level 14, 169 Macquarie St
PO Box 398
Parramatta NSW 2124
T: 02 9865 2324
[email protected]
www.waternsw.com.au

Fire & Rescue NSW acknowledge receipt of your application.

For any future correspondence regarding this matter, we request that
you quote your job / reference number:
Project Reference: NFB/12510-10
Job Number: BFS18/2286 (8000004472)

Should you have any further queries regarding this matter, please
contact the Fire Safety Branch on 02 9742 7434.

Regards

The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) has reviewed the EIS and
relevant documents in the relation to the exhibition for the Sydney
Metro Pitt Street (South) Over Station Development (SSD 8876). OEH has
no comments in relation to this matter and no further need to be
involved in the assessment of this project.

Please note that the Heritage Division may provide a separate response
if required.

My name is Yan Ping Chen. I own a unit next door at 308 Pitt Street with
my partner Qu Yuan Liu.

The over development next door by Sydney Metro has made us both very
angry.

We BOTH STRONGLY OBJECT because:

- the ANZAC War Memorial will be overshadowed which is disrespectful
to our military who fought and died for this country

- less sunlight for Hyde Park which means that the trees and plants
won't get the energy they need to grow and thrive. This is
disrespectful because Hyde park is the oldest public parkland in
Australia

- we wish to protect our building from losing the warmth of the
sunshine. our heating bills will be more expensive

- all units on the north side of our building will lose the majority
of their sunlight and all units on the south side will lose scattered
light

- my partner and I are older and feel that sunlight is important to
boost our immune system

- we wish to protect our privacy

- the building next door will be far too close to our building

- the government should not get away with over development because
that makes them no better than greedy developers

I own unit 5201 at Century Tower at 343 Pitt Street.

I do not agree to the over station development by the government
across the road. It has to be stopped.

I can let you have photos of the views from my unit to show how close
the Sydney Metro building will be to the building next door. There
will be a loss of amenity and sunlight if this building goes ahead.

There is too much over development already in this area with the
Greenlands development 233 Castlereagh St to my left and the Castle
Residences development at the corner of Bathurst and Castlereagh
Street. There are too many ultra high towers in Sydney and this is not
acceptable.

This pocket of the city will turn into a concrete jungle with the way
ultra high towers are shooting up. All pedestrians walking on the
streets will be walking in shadows.

Sydney Metro have not answered questions we have asked them about the
over development.

More skyscrapers mean more wind tunnels.

The government should not act like a developer. The government should
ensure that the development over the station is reasonable and not
over developed for the sake of profit.

Overshadowing Hyde Park with the Sydney Metro building is disgusting
because this is where a lot of CBD residents and tourists in Sydney go
to enjoy the outside environment.

It is not necessary to have even more residential units in the city.
Australia is not short on land so why are we overdeveloping in the
city?

Stop this over development now. Over development causes loss of
amenity and sunlight for so many residents.

I live at Princeton, 308 Pitt Street which is immediately adjacent to the
Applicant's proposed development.

1. The proposals from Sydney Metro represent an over-development of
this small city-centre site. The proposals are designed to maximise
revenue, and hence to offset the development costs of the Metro. The
size of the tower is the largest which the developers can cram onto
the site.

2. A key issue is the proposed 12metre separation between the
buildings. This is much narrower than the 18-24 metre standard which
is set out in the Apartment Design Guidelines 2F. The Princeton Tower
at 308 Pitt Street is wholly a residential development (not offices,
etc), and so privacy is a very important factor. You would not wish to
re-create the mistakes made in neighbourhoods of Hong Kong where
residential buildings are so close together in places they are
regarded as high rise "slums." Would a public body want to risk this
mistake in Central Sydney?

3. As a public body accountable to the people, Sydney Metro should
have a special regard for the quality of life of Sydney residents, and
should therefore take full account of local concerns. The Sydney Metro
executive directors should have a public interest remit, and should
not seek to maximise profit at the expense of local residents. A key
question is "would any commercial developer dare to submit such a
damaging proposal?"

4. In the view of our professional advisers, the Princeton Tower has
considerable architectural merit, in many ways comparable to
outstanding high-rise buildings such as the Chrysler Building or the
"Flat Iron" Building in New York. A large building mass in such close
to proximity would substantially detract from its quality and impact.

5. The development should be rejected in its current form also because
of Sydney Metro's own shadow study which shows that its proposal would
cause additional overshadowing to Hyde Park. This is in contravention
to the Sydney LEP 2012 (clause 6.17) and the sun access plane limits.

6. An important planning fundamental is "The Precautionary Principle."
Allowing this development in its present form would be reckless and
damaging, and would be heavily criticised by future generations.

We say NO to the Proposed Concept Over Station development at Pitt Street
(South).

The proposed development needs to be reduced and the building
separation must be increased to reduce the significant impact on the
amenity of the Princeton apartments next door.

We own a 3 bedroom unit at Princeton facing the northerly direction.

The large majority of the residents facing the building will
permanently suffer significant loss of sunlight and visual privacy.

Sun light and privacy are essential components which contribute to the
overall well being and mental health of human beings.

It is unfair that this development go ahead because it's not compliant
with the guidelines below:

1. Apartment Design Guideline 3B - Amenity should be preserved by
avoiding overshadowing of neighbouring properties in mid winter. A
minimum of 4 hours of solar access should be retained to solar
collectors on neighbouring buildings. The Solar Access Studies taken
by the Applicant show that if their proposal goes ahead, only 5
apartments out of the 116 apartments will get the required access to
sunlight as required under the ADG. Why would anyone allow the
residents of 111 apartments to be deprived of the requisite sunlight
under the ADG 3B? Why has no one questioned the applicant about this?

2. Apartment Design Guideline 2F - Amenity should be improved through
establishing minimum distances between apartments within the site. In
Chapter 8.4.2 of the Applicant's development application it states
Princeton windows facing the applicant's proposed development are
typically "secondary".

This is WRONG because it is not secondary windows we are talking
about. These large windows are our north facing windows which measure
180m (wide) x 137m (high) and are the ONLY north facing windows we
have (if you do not count the balconies as windows)

This means all 3 bedroom units facing the north side will lose a
minimum 5 sqm each of the amenity of these windows. We have a right to
maintain visual privacy to use our private spaces without being
overlooked. This can be assisted if the Applicant increased the
building separation to 18-24 metres as required by the Apartment
Design Guidelines

For the reasons above we STRONGLY OBJECT the development.

I OBJECT to the Applicant's development.

Rome, Paris, Amsterdam and Barcelona have one thing in common. They do
not allow the construction of high-rise buildings in their cities'
historic heart. No one can argue their tourism or name has suffered in
consequence.

As they have a history, we have a history; as they have a culture, we
have a culture. It is for us to honour these things, to act as
guardians of our world, and to create a new world that draws and
builds on them.

The Applicant has admitted that their site is located within direct
and close proximity to a number of locally and state listed heritage
items in chapter 3.7 of "Concept State Significant Development
Application". These items must be respected and preserved.

This square mile of Sydney CBD holds the historical and cultural
remains of this outstanding and much-loved city.
The Applicant's proposed project does not show an iconic building, but
stock-standard corporate towers like thousands of others.

Now is the moment we decide what sort of city we want to live in; when
we decide whether we want a city which still retains and respects
history and culture, or whether we want to live in a sad and broken
town where the richness of the tapestry of the history of our city is
destroyed

The following heritage sites are immediately situated next door,
across the road from and behind the Applicant's proposed development.
To increase overshadowing on these significant sites of interest would
be a crime by the government.

1. FORMER "SYDNEY WATER" BUILDING (339-341 PITT ST) INCLUDING
INTERIORS & LIGHTWELL AT 115-119 BATHURST STREET, SYDNEY, NSW 2000
(STATE SIGNFICANCE)

This Former Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board Head Office
Building was built in 1939 and has state significance. The primary
significance of the site/building:
-Lies in its 116-year association with Sydney Water (and its
predecessors). As `Head Office' it has high significance in the
hierarchy of sites associated with Sydney Water.
-As a fine example of a late 1930s Art Deco Style commercial building.
The quality of finishes externally and internally is exceptional.
Examples of these finishes survive throughout the building.
-For its association with the architectural practice of H.E. Budden &
Mackey, who also designed Railway House and Transport House.
-For the former Ratings Chamber, now heavily modified, but still a
significant public chamber of the era.

2. EDINBURGH CASTLE HOTEL INCLUDING INTERIOR AT 294-294B Pitt Street,
Sydney, NSW 2000 (LOCAL SIGNFICANCE)

The Edinburgh Castle Hotel, a three storey hotel of Inter War Georgian
Style, is located on a prominent corner site. The building is socially
significant as it has remained a hotel of the same name on the same
site since the 1885's and prior to that on the diagonally opposite
corner. The building has historic significance for its embodiment of a
lengthy tradition of hotel trading on this site and for the continuity
of the hotel name from the 1860s.

It is an important building in the professional work of the noted
architectural partnership of Rudder and Grout. The building has
aesthetic significance as rare and outstanding example of a highly
intact original hotel exterior and interior of high quality design
with outstanding potential, due to its degree of integrity, to
continue in its original state. The building is significant for its
contribution as a landmark building to the corner of Pitt and Bathurst
Streets.

3. CITY OF SYDNEY FIRE STATION - BRIGADE HEADQUARTERS AT 211-217
CASTLEREAGH STREET, SYDNEY (LOCAL SIGNFICANCE)

This marvellous building was built in 1887 and has historical state
significance. It is a fine working example of a fire station in the
Victorian Free Classical style dating from the late 1880s and displays
an evolutionary process of the fire station design into the early
years of the twentieth century. The building is a rare example of
Victorian Industrial building incorporating innovative international
planning techniques and technology in fire station design from the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

4. ANZAC MEMORIAL, War Memorial Hyde Park, Hyde Park Memorial

The ANZAC Memorial, completed in 1934, is of historical significance
to the State for its embodiment of the collective grief of the people
of NSW at the loss of Australian servicemen and women since World War
I. It is associated with the landing of Australian troops at Gallipoli
on 25 April 1915, since fundraising for the memorial was established
on the first anniversary of the landing. It is also associated with
returned servicemen and their organisations including the RSL, which
lobbied for the erection of the monument and occupied offices within
it. The ANZAC Memorial is of State aesthetic significance as a great
work of public art which is arguably the finest expression of Art Deco
monumentality in Australia.

5. FORMER `SPEEDWELL HOUSE' INCLUDING INTERIORS AT 284-292 Pitt
Street, Sydney,

The former 'Speedwell House' was built in 1907 and has historical
significance as the home for over 50 years of Bennett and Wood, a
well-known Sydney supplier of motor cycles and parts which is still in
business today. It has aesthetic significance as a good and restrained
example of the Federation warehouse style, largely intact externally,
which achieves prominence because of its corner location, and exhibits
the typical curved corner with timber windows curved in plan.

6. Former `YMCA' building including interiors AT 323-331 Pitt Street,
Sydney,

The building at 323-327 Pitt Street was constructed in 1907 . It has
historic significance as the home of the YMCA movement in Sydney for
nearly 100 years, and for associations with a number of prominent
people, including founder Sir James Fairfax and architect Charles
Slatyer. It is aesthetically significant as a fine and elaborately
ornamented example of the Federation Free Style, and retains many fine
decorative elements of this period including moulded plaster, carved
stonework and coloured leadlight glass. The building has social
significance as a physical reminder of the activities and important
influence of the Young Men's Christian Association in Sydney, and an
exemplar of the typical development pattern of the time with retail
uses at street level.

7. Hyde Park, Sydney

Hyde Park has State significance as public land (the Australian
colony's first common) that has influenced the development of Sydney's
layout from as early as 1789, occupying approximately the same site
since that time. Proclaimed by Governor Macquarie, it is Australia's
oldest designated public parkland (1810), and has been continuously
used from 1788 for public open space, recreation, remembrance,
celebration and leisure. Hyde Park has contributed to the cultural
development of the city as a recreational space encapsulating the
principles of a Victorian parkland through the use of a hierarchy of
pathways and the strategic siting of monuments, statues and built
items. It is of State significance as a demonstration of the
international spread of the English public parks movement originating
in the mid-19th century.

For the above cultural and historical factors, I opposed this
development

I wish to make this submission to object to the scale, height, and bulk
of the concept proposal.

I am a purchaser in the Greenland Centre on Bathurst St, under
construction, due for completion 2020.

My apartment is mid-level (there are no "4" in the building, so there
are no 4th, 14th, 24th, 34th, or any 40-49th floors, etc in the
building.

I am shocked by the Private View analysis (App U, para 1.11) showing
the almost complete blocking of views to the east of Greenland Centre
adversely affecting the lower and mid-levels of the Greenland Centre.
It is like looking at a solid brick wall. Any open views that the
lower levels had are now completely gone. This will affect the health
and sanity of residents in the lower and mid levels of Greenland
Centre.

There will be loss of sunlight for Greenland mid level apartments and
there is no analysis of this in the Solar Analysis (App M) so the
application is defective in this regard.

Setbacks are insufficient along Bathurst St and increased setbacks
could go some way to reducing the impacts of loss of solar and
increased shadowing.

A lower building height could also reduce the impact of the loss of
solar and increased shadowing, helping with the health of residents.

It should be noted that the 4 previous buildings on the site, now
being demolished, were much smaller in height and scale. The concept
proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.

There is also a failure to take into account the increased traffic
congestion that is going to happen. The 4 current buildings, now to be
demolished, had no parking. The concept development is adding to
parking in an already congested area of Sydney. The right turn from
Pitt St to Bathurst St, both streets being one way, funnels all
traffic from surrounding buildings and traffic coming up Pitt St and
the concept development adds to this traffic jam. There are also
immense traffic problems in the next block turning left from Pitt st
into Park St. The proposed parking and use of the building for concept
development will add to this traffic problem.

Not only this, there are going to be streams of passengers and
pedestrians in and out of the new Metro station. More traffic and more
pedestrians means a greater likelihood of vehicular/pedestrian
accidents. Safety must be paramount. The whole idea of the Metro is to
reduce the need to use vehicles. The need to provide additional
parking on the site is bad planning.

My submission is that the concept plan has to reduce the size, height
and bulk of the development, reduce the parking, and make it more in
kind with the scale and use of the existing buildings. Sydney will be
a better city.

Thank you.

I object to concept development on the grounds that it is a complete
overdevelopment the site.

The site currently has 4 smaller buildings, all of which have no
parking. The new development should be in keeping with the scale,
size, bulk and height of the existing buildings. It should not be an
excuse for the NSW Government to become a property developer and
massively build to the max. destroying the city for residents,
commuters, and workers.

I am very concerned at the loss of amenity and how badly this
development will affect the living conditions for residents now living
and soon to be living in the area.

I am a low to mid-level purchaser in the Greenland Centre on Bathurst
St, under construction, due for completion 2020.

I am so sad and angry when I look at the way the concept development
destroys views from the Greenland Centre looking east and north east.
See Private View analysis (App U, para 1.11). There is a complete
blocking of views to the east of Greenland Centre. What are residents
going to look into? More apartments? Surely this will affect the
amenity of living in Greenland Centre and affect the mental health of
residents in the lower and mid levels of Greenland Centre.

Is there any Solar Analysis (App M) on Greenland Centre? Does the
height of the building affect Hyde Park or the ANZAC Memorial? Is
there any shadow analysis for the residents of the Greenland Centre?
It seems that these adverse effects have been completely overlooked or
forgotten.

Additionally, if you build to this scale and bulk, there are going to
be so many residents/workers/ pedestrians in this area, in and out of
the building, adding to the passengers in and out of the Metro
Station. There are going to be big problems crossing the street at the
intersection of Pitt St and Bathurst St. A greater likelihood of
vehicular/pedestrian accidents. Pedestrian safety is important. How
can the concept proposal deal with this issue if it increases so much
the scale and size from what is currently on the site? Again, this is
overdevelopment of the site and inconsistent with the character of the
site and area.

My submission is that the concept plan has to reduce the size, height
and bulk of the development, and make it more in kind with the scale
and use of the existing buildings in the area. Sydney needs better
planning. The interests of residents, workers, passengers need to be
taken into account and given proper consideration. This should not be
a property play for the NSW Government. The area and site is not
suitable for such a large development. Make Sydney a liveable Sydney.
Do not destroy Sydney!

Thank you.

To whom it may concern
My name is Loretta Ford and i am an owner in the Princeton apartment
building at 308 pitt st Sydney next door to where a proposed building
over the metro is planned to be built.
Although i am not opposed to a development on this site, i am opposed
to this one for the following reasons.,

1 Sunlight
in the proposed development there seems to be a dogleg or extension at
the south east part of the proposed building envelope that will
significantly reduce the sunlight i presently enjoy.
I would ask the consent authority to consider this and direct the
applicant to scrap this part of the building as it would have a
significant reduction of sunlight to my apartment and others in the
building

2 Proposed building to close to ours.
i have been told that the distance between my apartment and the
proposed building does not comply with current regs.
As there is no clear plan of what the proposed building will end up
i.e. residential or commercial,
i would like to request the consent authority make sure the maximum
distance part of the regulation between the buildings is directed so
that it covers any development that may occur in the future. I am told
that this distance is 24 meters.

3 Views
My views will be significantly reduced out of my 2 north facing
windows and to a lessor extent from my north east balcony.
i would ask you to consider this and implement my request in section 2
above to minimise this impact.The proposed dogleg as mentioned above
would also have a huge negative impact on my views and again request
this part of the proposed building be scrapped


All in all the proposed building will take away a lot of benefits that
i enjoy now.I believe that without the dogleg on the south east part
of the proposed building scapped, and a minimum distance of 24 meters
between our buildings be directed, would greatly minimise the impact
on my apartment and would not make much difference to any development
next door
Yours faithfully
Loretta Ford unit 112/ 308 Pitt st at the Princeton

I live at Princeton Apartments at 308 Pitt Street and thoroughly object
to another high-rise horror in this corner of the city.

The Applicant's proposal is unremarkable, unfriendly and ugly and
shows no respect for the historical and cultural nature of this part
of our city.

The old Sydney Water Board Building is just across the road from the
Applicant's development, Edinburgh Castle hotel is immediately next
door and the Castlereagh Fire Station is immediately behind. The
Applicant's project is flanked on all sides with important historical
and significant cultural sites of interest.

I and the majority of the neighbours at Princeton will stand up to
protect this beautiful part of the city against the greed for money
and power of the government. The government should be setting an
example instead of acting like a greedy developer.

If these high-rises continue to be built, an unstoppable precedent is
set, and more high-rises will inevitably follow in this pocket of
Sydney CBD.

Each generation should make its mark. Our challenge is to make it
well, and not as an act of vandalism or sacrificing the community and
amenity of a neighbourhood.

This approval in its current state must not be granted because:

- it will result in increased traffic and pedestrian congestion

- loss of views for all owners and tenants living on the northern side
of our 42 level building

- gross insufficient setbacks proposed by Sydney Metro

- unfair and reckless insufficient separations between the Sydney
Metro proposed high rise tower and our 42 level building

- extreme increased shadowing caused to our 42 level building

- increased overshadowing to Hyde Park and the Anzac War Memorial

- Loss of sunlight and daylight into all of the apartments on the
north side of our 42 level building. Sydney Metro's DA states that
"some" of the apartments in our building will be affected.
This makes me angry because it downplays the reality of the situation
which is why I need to make a stand now to OBJECT to this development.

The Solar Access Studies taken by Sydney Metro show that currently
Princeton apartments has 62 out of 116 apartments achieving 2 hours of
solar access between 9am and 3pm on the 21st June.

If the applicant's development proceeds, an additional 57 apartments
lose their 2 hours of solar access. This means that only 5 apartments
out of 116 apartments of the building I live in will receive the
required solar access as required by Apartment Design Guidelines 3B
(overshadowing requirements during mid winter). THIS IS COMPLETELY
UNACCEPTABLE.

This proposal in its current form really angers and upsets me.

As an owner of a 3 bedroom unit on level 37 at the northern side of
Princeton Apartments, I strongly OBJECT to this proposal and believe
that all residents at Princeton Apartments (308 Pitt Street) have a
legitimate and very strong case to object to the concept scheme as
presented in the DA.

The following reasons are valid grounds for objection:

1. SHADOW IMPACTS ON HYDE PARK

Given the substantial overshadowing impacts on Hyde Park, an
independent assessment MUST be undertaken to ensure compliance with
all current legislation to ensure amenity of the oldest park in Sydney
is protected.

2. BUILDING SEPARATION DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE DESIGN CRITERIA AS
NOTED IN PART 2F OF THE APARTMENT DESIGN GUIDELINE (ADG).

The Applicant has proposed a separation distance between its project
and Princeton to be 12metres. This is not acceptable and not compliant
with 2F ADG.

The minimum separation distance for a building of nine storeys and
above is 18m between habitable and non-habitable and 24m between
habitable rooms and balconies.

Given that all windows on the northern side of Princeton consist of
bedrooms and living rooms, the minimum separation distance between
Princeton and the new project needs to be at least 18m to 24m to
comply with the Apartment Design Guidelines.

The Applicant has argued that this should be disregarded because
Princeton has been built to the edge of the building but this argument
is invalid because Princeton was constructed at a time where the
Apartment Design Guidelines were not in force.

The plans submitted in relation to the concept scheme application
propose a setback of 3m from the northern boundary of the Princeton
Apartments site up to RL71. This is disgusting. How can a resident be
expected to look out their bedroom or living room window and be a mere
3 metres away from its neighbouring building? There is also the
possibility of the lower levels facing a wall with noisy aircon, plant
and machinery.

Above RL71 the Applicant's concept plans show a setback of 12m to the
northern boundary of the Princeton Apartments site. The residential
floor plans indicate that there will be habitable rooms (bedrooms and
living rooms) with windows facing Princeton Apartments. The
architectural plans prepared for the application (Appendices D and E)
do not include RLs.

In a `greenfield' situation, the building separation controls in Part
2F of the ADG are shared between developments (i.e. - in the case
where a 12m building separation is required, each building would be
setback 6m from the common boundary for the first 4 storeys, with the
separation increasing as the buildings increased in height). The
Applicant's proposal states that the Applicant will only provide its
`share' of the building separation notwithstanding that the approved
Princeton Apartments building cannot provide a setback from its
northern boundary.

The ADG notes that the Separation between buildings contributes to the
urban form of an area and the amenity within apartments and open space
areas. It is also important to note that the ADG states that this a
separation requirement, not a setback provision. Therefore whether
there is an existing building any new development should comply with
the separation requirements. And regardless of whether the building is
used for commercial or residential purposes, the impacts on the
amenity of residents in the Princeton Apartments will be similar and
therefore the separation should be at the upper level (i.e. - assume
habitable to habitable) in all cases.

Several amenity issues arise (including loss of solar access) due to
the unacceptable proposed building separation.

3. HERITAGE

It does not look like the curtilages provided to the Fire Station and
Edinburgh Castle Hotel are adequate. I believe that the Applicant's
project will impacts the heritage significance of these two heritage
items as well as the former Speedwell House and the old Sydney
Waterboard Board building.

This is a terribly adverse income.

4. PRIVACY

I will suffer a loss of privacy due to reduction in building
separation. Provision of louvres or screens will not address loss of
privacy as these can be changed and/or removed. A minimum separation
is required and/or no windows on should be permitted on the southern
elevation of the Applicant's proposed building.

5. ACOUSTIC IMPACTS

The reduced separation will result in increased acoustic impacts.

The lack of detail regarding plant location and specifications on the
lower levels of the Applicant's proposal make it difficult to verify
whether their proposal complies with relevant Australian Standards and
the NSW Environment Protection Authority noise generation/emission
standards.

6. VIEW LOSS

There is a substantial narrowing of the view corridor to the north
east and a complete loss of view from all north facing apartments in
my building. Personally, this will impact the view from my bedroom
balcony, bedroom window, living room window, living room balcony and
the living room winter garden.

7. SUSTAINABILITY/RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSIDERATIONS

The Applicant's proposed development negate the opportunity for my
building to install solar panels as an alternative source of power
generation. This is in addition to the reduction of solar access and
daylight to all apartments to the northside of Princeton

The Applicant must increase the distance between their building and
ours and reduce their height.

8. VENTILATION

The reduced separation will reduce opportunities for Princeton
Apartments to access cooling north-easterly breezes which will result
in a greater reliance of artificial cooling.

This again reduces sustainability and amenity for my home.

The Applicant's proposed development is clearly inappropriate due to
the significant and adverse impacts outlined above.

This RECKLESS development must be modified to minimise and/or negate
any adverse impacts.

I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION.

I live at 308 Pitt Street which is a 42 level residential tower
immediately next door to Sydney Metro's proposed development.

Whilst I welcome the transportation improvements that Sydney Metro
will bring to NSW, I do not agree with the overstation development in
its current form as proposed by Sydney Metro.

Due to the importance of this project it is imperative that the Sydney
Metro Plans are independently reviewed and assessed because there are
several valid grounds for objection to their application as outlined
below.

1. Insufficient set backs proposed by Sydney Metro

2. Insufficient separation between Princeton and the overstation
development by Sydney Metro as required under the Apartment Design
Guidelines 2F

3. Loss of solar access for the residents at Princeton

4. Increased shadowing for the residents at Princeton and non
compliance with overshadowing requirements under the Apartment Design
Guidelines 3B

5. Loss of views for the residents at Princeton

6. General loss of amenity for the residents at Princeton

7. Increased traffic congestion and pedestrian traffic

The weaselly way in which Sydney Metro have downplayed many of their
responses to non-compliance has truly angered and upset me.

The government should be setting an example on following guidelines
and complying with legislation. Over developing the site and cramming
a large tower into a small space with insufficient setbacks and
insufficient separation between the neighbouring buildings is reckless
and irresponsible.

If Sydney Metro's application proceeds in its current form, it will
make them no better than a money grabbing selfish property developer.

I say NO to the proposed Sydney Metro City & Southwest - Pitts Street
(South) Concept DA - SSD 8876.

This development application must be independently reviewed because of
the numerous significant adverse impacts it will have to hundreds of
neighbouring homes.

I own a unit in the Princeton building located immediately next door
at 308 Pitt Street, Sydney.

The Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirements require Sydney
Metro to address:

- All Environmental Planning Instruments
- State Environmental Planning Policy 65
- The Apartment Design Guidelines; and
- The Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012

In addressing many of the above issues, Sydney Metro has simply said
it will not comply.

This unacceptable response requires further scrutiny so that Sydney
Metro can be held accountable for their lack of compliance.

SEARs point 6 "Amenity" requires Sydney Metro to:

"demonstrate the impacts of the proposal on the amenity of surrounding
residential development including measures to minimise potential
overshadowing, privacy and view impacts."

Sydney Metro has not minimised the impact of overshadowing or loss of
privacy. This could be achieved if Sydney Metro was made to change
their design to reduce their
bulk of building mass and by increasing the separation between the
over station building and the Princeton Building.

Sydney Metro has failed to ensure 18-24 metres separation between the
over station building and the Princeton Building. This means Sydney
Metro has not complied with Apartment Design Guidelines 2F.

Failing to ensure 18-24 metres separation will drastically have a
terrible impact on the amenity and enjoyment of my home. This means
that my family and I will lose privacy as people will be able to look
directly into my apartment.

Many of the families living at Princeton will have their privacy
violated because the overstation development will result in many of
the bedroom windows and living room windows being looked into by
strangers.

My amenity, my view and enjoyment of my home can be improved if Sydney
Metro was made to comply with Apartment Design Guidelines 2F.

Sydney Metro has also failed to comply with Apartment Design Guideline
3B. This means that I will lose a substantial amount of sunlight due
to overshadowing as outlined in Sydney Metro's Solar Access Study.

Sydney Metro has admitted that currently Princeton apartments has 62
out of 116 apartments achieving 2 hours of solar access between 9am
and 3pm on the 21st June.

IF SYDNEY METRO'S APPLICATION PROCEEDS, AN ADDITIONAL 57 APARTMENTS
WILL LOSE THEIR TWO HOURS OF SOLAR ACCESS. THIS IS A DISGUSTING AND
AVOIDABLE RESULT.

According to Sydney Metro's Solar Access Study, if Sydney Metro's
application proceeds only 5 apartments out of 116 apartments of
Princeton Tower will receive the required solar access as required by
the Apartment Design Guidelines.

This will cause a substantial DETRIMENTAL impact to the amenity of the
vast majority of the residents living in my building.

AS ADMITTED IN SYDNEY METRO'S SHADOW STUDY, IF THIS APPLICATION
PROCEEDS, IT WILL CAUSE FURTHER OVERSHADOWING TO HYDE PARK. THIS IS A
BREACH OF THE SUN ACCESS PLANE LIMITS CONTAINED IN THE SYDNEY LOCAL
ENVIRONMENT PLAN 2012.

It is disgusting and vile that a government entity could be
responsible for not only reducing amenity for all members of the
public that use Hyde Park but also for casting a shadow over the ANZAC
War Memorial at Hyde Park. Where is Sydney Metro's respect for those
that have fallen in war to protect our country?

I am saddened and upset thinking about the adverse impacts the
overdeveloped overstation structure will have on my family, my
building and the families of the neighbours in my building.

All 116 units will suffer some form of loss of amenity, view or
privacy as a result of Sydney Metro's focus on squeezing as much
profit out as possible from their application. Since when did Sydney
Metro start acting like greedy developers? They should be setting an
example.

Dear Planning Authorities,



Re: Concept DA - SSD 8876.



I strongly object to the Sydney Metro Pitt St (South) Over Station
Development. I have owned my apartment at Princeton since 2006.
Throughout this time I have enjoyed the solar access my living rooms
have, the distance between my living room and my neighbours and it's
the impact to these amenities that I strongly object to, on behalf of
my family and I.



Solar Access -
Being 11 floors from the ground, my family's apartment will be
significantly impacted by reduced solar access should this development
proceed. According to the Development Application, our living room and
both bedrooms will lose solar access. This will result in us being in
darkness throughout the year. It has the opportunity to create health
problems for my family, will increase our power bills and will
generally reduce the liveability of the apartment. When living in an
apartment with no terrace and no backyard, sunshine is one of the few
opportunities we have to connect with nature. This development
proposal takes this away from us.



I am not against development. I feel this could be mitigated somewhat
should there be greater building separation and a small building
enveloped employed. I don't believe Sydney Metro are offering
different models that could minimise the impact especially when the
proposed building envelop is proposing the maximum impact on our
building.



Building Separation -
I attended the information session at the Primus Hotel on 30 August
with my husband, and asked how the proposed building separation maps
to our Princeton apartment.

My husband gave his name and email address and was told that Sydney
Metro planners would get back to us.



We repeated this question at the Information session with Sydney Metro
officials on Tuesday 4 September at the Princeton. Again, the Sydney
Metro staff could not answer our question but to date they haven't
responded despite committing to respond twice with no answers. Given
submissions close September 12 this lack of reply is unacceptable.



However, given the floor my family and I are on (11 floors from the
ground) I believe this corresponds to the Transfer Slab and terrace
area of the proposed development which will be around 3 metres from
our 2 bedrooms. As I value our privacy, this effectively means I'll
never feel comfortable opening my blinds. As a result I'll feel
somewhat trapped/enclosed in the apartment each day. Surely it's not
appropriate that approval be given for any less than 18-24 metres from
our living area.



Similarly for my neighbours on the high rise floors, I also believe 9
metres is still too close. I would have expected a development of this
size be 18-24 metres from an existing residential building.



General thoughts -
When I'm not at home or work, I enjoy walking my dog through Hyde Park
in the sunshine however according to the plans the proposed
development will overshadow Hyde Park (including the War Memorial),
and neighbouring streets and buildings. I find it unacceptable that
not only does the development intend to block the solar access of my
living room and bedrooms but also block the solar access of my local
park.



The development will also block the northern view of the city from my
bedrooms. This is a view that brings me peace and serenity each
morning.



Lastly, I'm also concerned about general overcrowding in the area.
Obviously the metro station will bring increased traffic to the area,
so to add all the deliveries, mail, coming and going of residential or
office workers with a building of the proposed scale will surely
result in this being one of the highest density areas in all of
Sydney. However Pitt St is already very busy and I feel can't
accommodate the influx.



I urge you to please reject the application as is, and enforce
building separation of 18-24 metres so we can retain some peace and
solar access.



Regards,

Jessie Teng Jaques