Sydney Metro Pitt Street (South) Over Station Dev.

To whom it may concern,



I wish to object to the Sydney Metro Pitt St (South) Over Station
Development Concept DA - SSD 8876.



As a Princeton owner/investor since 2008, I strongly object to the
development.



I believe the Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEAR)
Environmental Planning Instruments (EPI) called on the development to
comply with:



SEPP 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

Apartment Design Guide, Sydney LEP 2012 which is informed by the City
of Sydney DCP 2012



However the development fails both and it appears the developer hasn't
truly attempted to comply.



In particular I object for the following reasons:



ADG 3B - Overshadowing of neighbouring properties is minimised during
mid-winter

As the owner of Apartment 35 on Level 17 of the Princeton, it's clear
in the Development Application that my apartment will lose solar
access to the living areas. This is unacceptable to my tenants and I
wouldn't have bought the apartment if I had have known there could be
a building approved that would eliminate my apartment's solar access.



What is disheartening is that it doesn't appear that Sydney Metro have
modelled different design envelopes so as to minimise the impact to
Princeton residents.



ADG 2F - Building Separation

As the owner of Apartment 35 on Level 17 of the Princeton, it appears
the proposed development will be 3 metres from my apartment. Even if I
was the owner of a higher floor and subject to 9 metres from the
development I would object because I believe that approval should only
be given if they are 24 metres from the Princeton, however 3 metres is
absolutely unacceptable. It would result in a severely impacted
amenity to the residents of my apartment.



Again, there's no way I would have bought the apartment if had have
known there could be a building 3 metres from my apartment's living
areas and bedrooms.



Other

Residents of the Princeton strata committee have been having initial
discussions about solar panels on the north wall. The proposed
development would eliminate this option, preventing the residents from
accessing cheap power and reduced carbon impact.



I urge this go to an Independent development authority for review.



Regards,

Audrey Tam

To whom it may concern,

I wish to object to the Sydney Metro Pitt St (South) Over Station
Development Concept DA - SSD 8876.

As a Princeton owner, I strongly object to the development because it
will significantly affect my and my family's living amenity for the
below three reasons:


1. ADG-2F Building Separation

According to the proposed plans, the proposed development will be
between 3-3.5m and 12m from the Princeton.

It appears that residents of the Princeton's low/mid-rise floors that
have north facing living areas and are below RL71.0 will have a
significantly impacted living amenity, both from a visual perspective
and also potentially from an aural perspective. This if proceeds will
impact my family significantly.

My wife and I attended the information session at the Primus Hotel on
30 August between 4pm and 7pm, and specifically asked how the Transfer
Slab at RL58.25 relates to our Princeton apartment (on level 17), and
advised our concerns. I gave my name and email address and was told
that Sydney Metro planners would get back to me.

We repeated this question at the Information session with Sydney Metro
officials on Tuesday 4 September at 5:30pm. Again, the Sydney Metro
staff could not answer my question and we asked for a commitment as to
when we'd get an answer. Sydney Metro staff advised they'd have an
answer by Thursday 6 September. Again, this date passed with no
answer.

I cannot help but think that my family will be left with a development
that is built 3-3.5 metres from our living areas, which is a
significant impact to our privacy, our enjoyment of the cityscape, a
reduction in cooling summer breezes etc.

Furthermore, I also believe 9 metres is still too close for the higher
floors. I would have expected a development to be 18-24 metres from an
existing building with impacted living areas, as per development
guidelines.


2. ADG 3B - Solar Access

According to "Appendix M - Solar Access Impact On Adjacent Properties"
of the development's lodged documents, around 50% of Princeton
Apartments stand to be impacted by reduced solar access.

Specifically, my family's apartment (Apartment 35 Level 17) stands to
to be significantly impacted by reduced solar access. According to the
document's Comparison table, our living room and both bedrooms will
lose solar access. This significantly affects my family's emotional
disposition, our power bills and our standard of living. I feel we'll
feel depressed having such little sunlight greet us each day.

Financially, it will also result in increased heating and lighting
costs in Winter, and increased carbon emissions.

Disappointingly, I see very little modelling from Sydney Metro on
various set-backs, building shapes and building heights that would
offer alternatives to minimise the solar impact. I note that at
Central Park in Broadway there are some intuitive plan to reflect
light between buildings - none of which are considered here.


3. General Impact to city amenity

At such a large height, the proposed development will overshadow Hyde
Park (particularly the Memorial), and neighbouring streets and
buildings. It will cause lost views to Princeton, Century Towers,
Telstra Plaza, Greenland residents, yet as city residents in high
density environments it's often our view that calms our soul and
provides us a quality of living.

I foresee Pitt St becoming even busier than it currently is, with
residents of the proposed development having all of their mail,
rubbish, deliveries and themselves transported along Pitt St. Already
I see the Fire Brigade struggle up Pitt St in peak hours. I fear if we
add thousands of more people the situation will only get worse.

There is already a hive of activity in the immediate vicinity with the
Greenland development, Castle Residences and many others on Bathurst
St, with Lumiere, Princeton and Century Towers creating a significant
density of residential blocks already.

I urge this go to an Independent development authority for review.

Regards,

Peter Jaques

As an owner of an apartment in the neighbouring residential apartment
block, the Princeton and as a Sydney citizen walking daily through
Hyde Park, I object to the application due to:
1) undue huge overshadowing of neighbouring residential buildings
2) undue huge overshadowing of neighbouring area in Hyde Park
3) objectionable/illegal closeness to Princeton
4) prevents the possibility to create a Solar Panel Power Wall, which
could act as a model

I strongly OBJECT to the planned over station development at Pitt Street
South Metro Station.

The proposal cannot proceed because it is not compliant with planning
standards and instruments.

Accepting the proposal in its current form would result in a gross
overdevelopment of the site with unacceptable impacts to the
neighbouring building known as Princeton Tower at 308 Pitt Street.

The proposal has to be rejected because it allows further shadowing of
Hyde Park and is not compliant with the Hyde Park West Sun Access Plan
and setback requirements contained in the Sydney LEP 2012. If we allow
precedents like this to continue (especially if they are in the
vicinity of the Hyde Park) this may open up the floodgates for more
developers to use this project as consent to build high buildings
despite increasing the shadow creep at Hyde Park during the winter sun
months. This is completely unacceptable as it ruins the amenity of the
many residents that live in the area.

The proposal has to be rejected because is not compliant with the Over
Station Development Design Guidelines. The proposal fails to minimise
privacy and solar access impacts on surrounding residential uses. The
Environmental Impact Statement does not discuss in detail the loss of
privacy caused to residents in the neighbouring tower. The
Environmental Impact Statement advises residents in the neighbouring
tower to use screens to protect privacy. Why should we be made to use
screens to cover up our windows in our own homes for the sake of
privacy? Why should our quality of life be sacrificed by having to use
screens to block out prying eyes? The proposal is already taking away
a large proportion of our sunlight as mentioned in Sydney Metro's
Solar Access Studies, do they also expect us to shield our entire home
so that we live the majority of our lives in darkness? Humans need
sunlight for good health, mood and well being.

The proposal needs to be rejected because it is not compliant with the
Apartment Design Guidelines. Sydney Metro proposes to leave 12 metres
between Princeton and its development. This is not enough space
because according to the building separation requirements under the
Apartment Design Guidelines, at least 18 - 24 metres is required.

Princeton Tower was built to the very edge of the boundary because our
tower was constructed in the mid 90s before the Apartment Design
Guidelines were in force. The new development must be built at least
18 - 24 metres away from the exterior wall of our building so that it
is compliant with sound planning principles, guidelines and
legislation.

I do not agree and object to the Pitt Street Over Station Development.

Any idiot can see that it is an over development of a very small site.

Instead of looking out my bedroom and living room window and seeing a
beautiful city view, Sydney Metro proposes to build a wall 12 metres
away from my window. How ridiculous and uncaring of this government
body to do this?

Sydney Metro's application needs to be sent back to the drawing board
so that they can come up with a plan that complies with the planning
standards and laws that it has admitted that it is in breach of.

Due to the unacceptable significant adverse impacts it will have on me
as an owner living at Princeton Tower and the other 120 or so other
apartments in this apartment block, Sydney Metro MUST be made to
revise its plans so that it complies with acceptable planning
guidelines.

Sydney Metro must be made to:

- Comply with the Hyde Park West Sun Access Plane under the Sydney LEP
2012. This government body should be doing its utmost to protect Hyde
Park from further overshadowing. Sydney Metro must reduce the bulk of
the proposed building so that it complies with the solar access
requirements in Sydney LEP 2012.

- Comply with its very own Over Station Development Design Guidelines
by minimising privacy and solar access impacts on surrounding
residential uses. This can be achieved if Sydney Metro were to
increase building separation to 18m to 24m in accordance with 2F of
the Apartment Design Guidelines. The current proposal of 12m building
separation is wholly unacceptable.

Until Sydney Metro offers up an alternative solution to address the
above, this application must not proceed. It would be unfair and
unjust to allow a government body to blatantly throw away the rule
book for the sake of profit at the expense of hard working tax payers
money living in the building next door.

I say NO to this proposal because a government body like Sydney Metro
should not be seen to to undermine planning controls or environmental
protections and guidelines. This is exactly what the current proposal
intends to do and therefore must be STOPPED.

As a resident of Princeton apartments the building immediately adjacent
to the Pitt St south over station development I have significant
concerns over the development application in its current form.
I feel that this is a gross overdevelopment and will cause a negative
impact not only on my living conditions but also on other properties
in the area.
I will be losing solar light in some of my living area and
particularly in the winter months will mean I have to use artificial
lighting and heating which will not only increase my electricity costs
but will also impact the environment by increasing my carbon
footprint.
I also feel that the development does not comply with the requirement
for a minimum separation between the Princeton and the new development
which will impact on my privacy.
A 3 metre seperation is definitely non compliant with Sydney local
environmental plan of 2012.
I think others have brought to your attention the overshadowing of
Hyde Park not to mention the effects on heritage buildings of the
Edinburgh Castle Hotel, Castlereagh St fire station and the Sydney
Water board Building.
I hope you will take all this into consideration when approving this
development as it stands at the moment.
I do not object to the actual development but only request that
changes are made to make it compliant and also consider how the
development as it stands now will effect residents in other properties
and public amenities

I am an owner of an apartment at 308 Pitt Street and have huge concerns
about the overstation development at Pitt Street South.

It is unfair that Sydney Metro is trying to override planning
legislation and not follow planning guidelines in an attempt to
railroad (no pun intended) their application to overdevelop this small
site.

This is a reckless development which puts business first and people
second. This is a NO to Sydney Metro profiting whilst sacrificing the
amenity of its neighbours.

Another high rise structure in this pocket of the CBD will cause more
crowded streets, which will already be crowded from people getting on
and off this station.

Hyde Park is the only green space I and other CBD residents have in
the vicinity. Sydney Metro's application admits that it will increase
shadows for 6 months of the year. This is objectionable because it is
non-compliant with Sydney LEP 2012 and the sun access plane limits in
clause 6.17. An independent body should verify that their shadow study
is accurate.

I jog through this park 3 times a week for health reasons and would
hate to see additional overshadowing of Hyde Park. This sets a
dangerous precedent for other developers to overshadow our park.

Sydney Metro should make their building smaller to reduce
overshadowing to Hyde Park and protect any sunlight being removed from
the ANZAC war memorial.

I see many workers, visitors and local residents use this park and it
would be a terrible shame to ruin the amenity of the use of Hyde Park
just because Sydney Metro has chosen to build as many units as
possible on the site without moral regard to the impact of their
development.

I also object to the building being so close to Princeton because
Sydney Metro has not complied with Part 2F of the Apartment Design
Guidelines.

The current proposal means that Sydney Metro's building will be a mere
stone's throw away. The minimum separation under the ADG is between 18
metres and 24 metres. Sydney Metro has failed to adhere to this
separation requirement. Having another building so close to my home
will mean more noise, less privacy and less enjoyment of my home.

I also object to the overdevelopment because it does not follow
section 3B of the Apartment Design Guidelines.

According to the Solar Access Impact from Sydney Metro, if the
development is approved 5 out of 116 apartments (4.3%) will receive
the required access to direct sun as per the Apartment Design
Guidelines.

This is a horrible outcome and highly unacceptable. Sydney Metro could
easily minimise the overshadowing effect on my home by amending its
application so that it complies with chapter 3B of the Apartment
Design Guidelines.

Like the majority of people, I love living in an apartment which
receives beautiful natural light. It makes me happy and upbeat and
gives me a sense of belonging in this beautiful. If Sydney Metro's
application proceeds in its current form, 57 homes at Princeton will
be horribly affected according to its Solar Access Impact report.

Sydney Metro admits that there will be a 49% reduction of apartments
with sun exposure (per 1m2 of living room area between 9am to 3pm on
21 June).

The solar access effect on our building is a big one because under the
Apartment Design Guidelines, a proposed building should not lessen
solar access to more than 20% of neighbouring properties.

If you take Princeton alone as a building, Sydney Metro's plan is more
than double the maximum allowed reduction of solar access. This should
not be allowed.

Some of the residents at Princeton would like to install solar panels
to generate power but this is not even an option if Sydney Metro
decreases the sunlight from so many of our apartments.

Sydney Metro proposes 34 new car spots. There are currently no car
spaces in structures being demolished therefore this will add to
traffic congestion on Pitt Street which is already heavily congested.

Lastly many Princeton residents met with Sydney Metro's
representatives as part of the applicant's requirement under the
Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirements to engage with the
surrounding residents.

Many of my neighbours reported that Sydney Metro was not helpful in
allaying many of our fears. This makes me feel like Sydney Metro is
not looking to improve the amenity for it's neighbours.

Their sole aim in this overdevelopment of the overstation at Pitt
Street South is to cram as much into this small site in order to sell
it to a developer who will exploit the site even more.

I own a unit on the 39th floor of Princeton with my partner.

We both object to the over station development at Pitt Street South by
Sydney Metro because of the following issues:

- Sydney Metro has not complied with planning controls. The Applicant
should be made to comply with all planning requirements including
separation limits, solar access affects and no overshadowing of Hyde
Park. This should happen as a matter of course and not be something
something residents should have to request.

- This over station development is a gross overdevelopment of the site
which will manifest in terrible negative impacts to the residents in
my building

- The amenity for 500,000 daily visitors and local residents at Hyde
Park will be adversely affected because of overshadowing

- Personally I will suffer loss of light and privacy (and so will my
115 neighbours to a greater extent on lower levels)

- Sydney Metro has not addressed the following instruments or where
they have addressed them, simply state that they are not compliant:

o Environmental Planning Instruments
o State Environmental Planning Policy No 65
o Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012
o Apartment Design Guide,

- This means that Sydney Metro has failed in its planning obligations
to follow the Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirements

I am saddened and angry at the effect of Sydney Metro over developing
the site because it will result in:

OVERSHADOWING & SOLAR ACCESS EFFECT ON PRINCETON

* Sydney Metro does not comply with section 3B of the Apartment Design
Guide

* According to the Sydney Metro's Solar Access Impact if their project
is approved 5 out of 116 apartments (4.3%) will receive the required
access to direct sun as per the Apartment Design Guide. This means 57
apartments will be substantially affected

* The practical effect is that it will reduce sun exposure (per 1m2 of
living room area between 9am to 3pm on 21 June) from 62 apartments to
only 5 apartments

* This means higher heating and lighting costs and increase in our
carbon footprint

* Any reduction in solar access and daylight lux levels in apartments
to the extent that residents are required to rely on artificial
lighting is wholly undesirable

* Sydney Metro must amend its proposal to ensure neighbors do not lose
winter sun

* Sydney Metro has not considered the impact of light scatter. This
means they have grossly underestimated the loss of solar impact on
Princeton

* The applicant has not dealt with clause 4.2.3 and clause 4.2.3.1 of
the City of Sydney DCP 2012 in relation to solar access enhanced and
solar access loss legislation


BUILDING SEPARATION AWAY FROM PRINCETON

* Sydney Metro does not comply with section part 2F Apartment Design
Guide

* The minimum separation is:

o Up to 4 storeys - 12m between habitable rooms, 9m between habitable
and non-habitable rooms. The proposed separation is 3m which is
non-compliant

o 5-8 storeys - 18m between habitable rooms, 12m between habitable and
non-habitable rooms. The proposed separation is 3m which is
non-compliant

o Above 9 storeys - 24 metres required as habitable rooms are on the
north boundary of Princeton and south boundary of proposed development
floor plans. Again the proposal is non-compliant

* Apartment Design Guide states this is a separation requirement, not
a setback provision therefore the full minimum separation distances
must be enforced

* Inadequate separation increases the risk of fires spreading

* Reduced separation will result in increased acoustic impacts

* The reduced separation reduces opportunities for Princeton
Apartments to access cooling north-easterly breezes leading to a
greater reliance on artificial cooling and reduced sustainability.

LOSS OF VIEW

* I will suffer a loss of view from my apartment windows (and so will
many of my neighbours to a greater extent on lower levels.)

* Around 33 units on the northern side of Princeton would loss all
views from their bedrooms and/or living room windows

OVERSHADOWING OF HYDE PARK

* It is appalling and shocking that a public body would choose to add
additional overshadowing to Hyde Park for 6 months of the year. The
overshadowing to Hyde Park can easily be reduced if Sydney Metro were
to reduce the bulk of building mass in their proposal instead of
overdeveloping the site

* In no circumstances should this be allowed and an independent study
should be conducted to verify the extent of overshadowing

* Sydney Metro has not complied with the Hyde Park sun access plane
limitations nor have they complied with Sydney Local Environmental
Plan 2012

* Causing additional overshadowing Hyde Park for half of a calendar
year is clearly a detrimental impact on public amenity
Privacy

* Clause 4.2.3 of the City of Sydney Development Control Plan 2012
requires Sydney Metro to protect privacy. This has not been done.

* Princeton is a wholly residential development and has no offices or
other commercial use. Privacy is therefore privacy even more an
important consideration than if Princeton were an office building.

* Sydney Metro's EIS states that privacy issues can be addressed
later. This is not acceptable and must be considered now.

For the reasons above, I OBJECT the proposal until a new proposal is
submitted by Sydney Metro which is compliant with the Apartment Design
Guide and all applicable planning controls. Sydney Metro need to be
more sensible in their approach to inner city planning.

At the very least the application should be determined by an
independent body to ensure it is considered on its merits and in
accordance with applicable planning controls.

As an owner of a unit in the immediately adjacent building at 308 Pitt
Street, I am looking forward to the site next door being utilised and
developed into something which will enhance our beautiful city.

I do however disagree with the current impractical proposal submitted
by the Applicant because it represents an overdevelopment of the site
without due regard to surrounding residents.

SURROUNDING HERITAGE ITEMS

The site of the Applicant's project is unique because it is surrounded
on all sides by historical buildings. The beautiful QVB is a mere 2
minute walk away. This historical look and feel of this area of the
CBD must be protected so that it does not turn into a cluster of high
rise atrocities with no regard for the respect towrds culture and
history.

The Applicant has not considered the long term protection,
conservation and significance of nearby environmental heritage and
cultural objects and places. Although it identifies and lists some
heritage items in chapter 3.7 of "Concept State Significant
Development Application", the current design does not do enough to
protect the following local and state listed heritage items.

1. Former Sydney Water Building (c.1930) at 339 Pitt Street has state
significance. This beautiful building is just across the road from the
Applicant's project. The pool on top of the roof will be overshadowed
by the Applicant's design.

2. Edinburgh Castle Hotel (c.1880) at 294 Pitt Street has local and
social significance. This considerably shorter landmark adjacent
building will be overshadowed considerably by the Applicant's design.
There will also be minimal separation between the Applicant's Building
and the Edinburgh Castle Hotel.

3. Anzac War Memorial (c.1930s) at Hyde Park is behind the Applicant's
development. This was erected to honour the troops that fell in war
and must be protected from overshadowing.

4. Former Speedwell House (c.1907) is a 30 second walk from the
Applicant's development at 284 Pitt Street.

5. Castlereagh Street Fire Station (c.1930) is located immediately
behind the Applicant's proposed development

If the Applicant's plans to overdevelop their site proceeds, this will
degrade and erode the various heritage items immediately surrounding
the site. This could conceivably open up the floodgates for future
developers to view the above heritage items as not worthy of keeping
or easily disregarded as unimportant. We should preserve these old
buildings and heritage items in the CBD because there are not many of
them left.

RESTRICTING SOLAR ACCESS TO HYDE PARK

An aim of cl. 6.17 of the Sydney LEP 2012 is to ensure that buildings
maximise sunlight access to public places. The Applicant has not
complied with this because their Environmental Impact Statement states
in Appendix H that there will be additional overshadowing to Hyde Park
after 2.30pm during the months of April, May, June, July and August.
This is concerning for amenity and safety reasons for so much of the
community and tourists which rely on this precious public place.

With so many months being affected by the Applicant's design, it is
misleading for the Applicant to say that this overshadowing of Hyde
Park is minor and negligible (see s8.3 of their Environmental Impact
Statement.

The Applicant should reduce its building envelope to avoid the
unnecessary overshadowing across Hyde Park so that they can achieve
the aim of cl. 6.17 of the Sydney LEP 2012 to maximise sunlight access
to public places.

THE BUILDING SEPARATION BETWEEN THE PROPOSAL AND PRINCETON APARTMENTS

The Applicant's design is inconsistent with Part 2F of the Apartment
Design Guidelines. Their report states that there will be a 3 metre
building separation on the lower levels and a 12 metre separation for
the higher levels. This is a direct noncompliance with the Apartment
Design Guidelines. The proposed building and Princeton Apartments will
be over nine storeys and so the following minimum building separations
must apply:

1. 24m between habitable rooms/balconies
2. 18m between habitable and non-habitable rooms
3. 12m between non habitable rooms

Princeton Apartments was constructed (in accordance with approval from
the City of Sydney) right up to the northern boundary of their lot.
This was at a time where setback legislation permitted this. Princeton
Apartments cannot move their building back to comply with current
setback legislations and so the Applicant should take the layout of
Princeton "as is" and build their property 18-24 metres away from
Princeton Apartments.

I understand all homes on the north side of Princeton have habitable
rooms because the windows will be looking into their bedrooms or
living rooms. As Princeton is an existing approved building on an
adjoining site, the Applicant has an obligation to ensure that their
design meets current building separation requirements. It is appalling
to hear that the Applicant's proposal contains only a 3 - 12 metre
building separation between it and Princeton. Proceeding with the
current design with the current proposed building separation would
obviously cause significant adverse impacts on the amenity of all
apartments living at Princeton.

LOSS OF SUNLIGHT FOR OWNERS AND OCCUPIERS AT PRINCETON APARTMENTS

The Solar Impact Assessment on Adjoining Properties as shown in
Appendix M of the Environmental Impact Statement confirms:

- CURRENT SITUATION - 62 of the 116 units (i.e. 53.4% of units) at
Princeton Apartments currently receive the minimum 2 hours of solar
access between 9am-3pm on June 21.

- IF THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL GOES AHEAD - ONLY 5 out of 116 units
(i.e. 4.3% of units) at Princeton Apartments will receive the minimum
2 hours of solar access between 9am-3pm on June 21 if the Applicant's
proposal goes ahead.

The Applicant's Solar Impact Assessment states that this result
"clearly cannot be said to... conform with the ADG Design guidance".

The above solar restrictive admissions by the Applicant should be
reason enough to STOP the proposed applicant and demand that the
Applicant reduce the size and increase the building separation to meet
reasonable solar access criteria for adjoining properties.

LOSS OF PRIVACY AND VIEWS FOR OWNERS AND OCCUPIERS AT PRINCETON
APARTMENTS

The majority of windows at Princeton directly facing the Applicant's
proposed development will be bedroom or living room windows. These are
not secondary windows and are the ONLY windows for these rooms (if we
exclude any balconies).

The current building separation proposed by the Applicant between its
building and Princeton Apartments is not enough to give the residents
of Princeton visual and acoustic privacy. The Applicant's
Environmental Impact Statement tries to postpone this privacy issue by
"dealing with it later" or suggesting that all residents in Princeton
erect screens/louvres to block their windows to create privacy. This
is not a good solution because it will block out the little remaining
sunlight left if the Applicant's proposal was to proceed.

The Applicant's Environmental Impact Statement states in section 8.7
that the over station development is a "slender building form". This
is incorrect.

The Applicant should do the following to have a better impact on
Princeton Towers as an adjoining building:

1. Reduce the triangular portion in the south east corner of their
proposed development

2. Shorten their proposed building

3. Increase the distance between the proposed building and Princeton

4. Reduce the footprint of their proposed building

As the Applicant has not adequately responded to the Secretary's
Environmental Assessment Requirements in relation to minimising
overshadowing and privacy for surrounding residents and for the
several reasons outlined above, this application in its current form
should be REJECTED.

Hi,
I am an owner of an apartment within the Princeton apartment tower. I
spent 10 fabulous years living in this apartment and enjoying all the
joys of city living. We only recently moved out as we have a growing
family and we were running out of space. We retained the apartment
(currently rented), as our long term plan is to move back to the city
after our little ones grow up.
When I heard about the Sydney Metro development, I was genuinely (and
still am) very enthusiastic. I strongly believe in building the public
transports links across our beautiful city. When I heard that there
would be an Over Station Development on the Sydney Metro Pitt Street
(South) site, again, I was fine with this in concept. Than when I
discovered the effect that this would have on my apartment, I was
quite reasonably concerned.
My apartment has Easterly and Northern windows. It will be severely
impacted with overshadowing if the proposed development goes ahead.
Some of my fondest memories in my apartment is enjoying the morning
sunshine in my apartment during the winter months. Now, it is my
understanding that I may get approximately one hour of sunshine before
a shadow is cast over my entire apartment for the rest of the day.
There was never a clause or covenant when I bought my apartment in
2015 that our northern views / sunshine was a temporary benefit until
developers decided to build up the city around us. I was under the
impression (as was everyone else I believe) that our northern views /
sunshine was protected. And of course, this was factored into the
purchase price.
And how about Hyde Park? Having lived in the city for many years and
enjoyed the utility of Hyde Park, I felt it was already significantly
impacted by overshadowing in the afternoon. Now with this development
it will be even more affected.
Lastly, how about the financial loss I will suffer? My real estate
agent has already confirmed that I will be taking a hit to both my
rental income and overall property price. I work very hard to finance
my mortgage repayments and it doesn't seem neither fair or equitable
to have this financial hit. In addition, it is not so easy for me to
find a comparable apartment in the city given the crazy cost of home
prices in Sydney (and that's if I could even find a suitable buyer in
the first instance).
The Sydney Metro is a much needed, long overdue and important
infrastructure milestone for the city. Development around Sydney
Metro, however, should not be at the expense of high-density, energy
efficient residents who have called the city home for a long time.

Yours sincerely,
Princeton Apartment Owner

I am an owner of a 3 bedroom unit contained within Princeton Tower.

I object to Sydney Metro's application because the tower is too large
for the building envelope and too close to my building.

12 metres is not enough space between Princeton Tower and the new
Sydney Metro building. The Apartment Design Guidelines 2F require the
new Sydney Metro building to be around 18 metres or 24 metres away
from my building.

All living room windows and bedroom windows will be blocked on the
north side if Sydney Metro's application is approved.
The living rooms at Princeton contain kitchenettes which means that 12
metres away, strangers can watch you while you cook dinner, help your
children with homework, watch TV and relax. I wish to keep my privacy.

The situation is worse in the bedrooms facing the north side because
it means strangers can watch you as you change your clothes, make your
bed, leaving the ensuite after a shower and sleep.

Privacy is so important for wellbeing and security reasons. We ask
that the Secretary of NSW Department of Planning and Environment
please protect our visual privacy and at the very least demand that
Sydney Metro comply with the 18m to 24 m building separation rules
contained in the Apartment Design Guidelines.

Sydney Metro has no need to overdevelop this site. They should just
concentrate on the station and the transportation links instead of
trying maximise revenue.

Sydney Metro is a public government body and should be accountable to
the community and residents of the adjoining building. Sydney Metro
should have a higher public interest in residents of adjoining
properties (more so than a regular developer because it is a
government related body). The quality of life of Sydney residents
should not be cast aside and as a public body, Sydney Metro should
take full responsibility for local concerns.

Sydney Metro's proposal is damaging because such a large building
which is too close to Princeton would substantially take away quality
of life for so many residents in my building.

The proposal restricts a lot of sunlight from Princeton. This is a
terrible impact especially with the Greenland tower across the road
from us being constructed and cutting out even more sunlight.

It is diabolical that Sydney Metro's Solar Study discloses that after
their development is constructed, only 5 out of the 116 units at
Princeton will comply with the stipulated solar access between 9am to
3pm on 21 June. Sunshine is such an important part of my quality of
life. Sunlight and daylight keeps bones healthy because our bodies
produce Vitamin D when exposed to the sun. It also helps the body
absorb calcium which is essential for bone health. Many medical
articles say that we need sunshine for overall health because it
protects against inflammation, lowers high blood pressure, helps
muscles, improves brain function and may even protect against cancer.

Our bodies are meant to be exposed to sunlight. Exposure to sunlight
during the day is crucial to everyone's wellbeing and has a huge
impact on depression, seasonal affective disorder and sleep quality.
Due to the blatant breach of planning standards by Sydney Metro, this
application in its current form should be refused.

The proposal should be rejected in its current form also because of
Sydney Metro's own shadow study also shows that its proposal would
cause additional overshadowing to Hyde Park. This is a direct breach
of clause 6.17 of the Sydney LEP 2012 and the sun access plane limits
and should not be allowed.

The development application should be REJECTED until Sydney Metro
fixes the building separation issues, restriction of solar access
issues and overshadowing of Hyde Park issues in its design.

I strongly object to the development application in its current form. It
is a serious overdevelopment that does not comply with planning
controls and drastically reduces the amenity in my building.

The overshadowing effect of the proposed development on the Princeton
building is severe. I understand it is non-compliant with the
Apartment Design Guide and according to the applicant's own Solar
Access Impact report will cause 57 apartments in Princeton to lose the
required amount of sun exposure. This in itself should be grounds for
the application to be rejected.

In addition to overshadowing Princeton and causing a massive loss of
solar access I understand the proposed development will add additional
overshadowing to Hyde Park in the vicinity of the ANZAC memorial
during 6 months of the year. I do not understand how the applicant as
a public body could even be allowed to propose this. The proposed
envelope should be reduced to remove any additional overshadowing of
Hyde Park which is a precious inner city open space for residents and
tourists.

The applicant clearly understands and acknowledges that they require
to comply with separation requirements but has simply elected not to
do so while falsely stating that Princeton is a non-complying
development despite the building being approved from a planning
perspective and built 20 years before the separation requirements came
into force. I understand the minimum separation should be in the
region of 18m up to 9 storeys and 24m above 9 storeys between
habitable rooms. The applicant has proposed 3m up to 9 storeys and 12
m above 9 storeys which is woefully inadequate. Inadequate separation
combined with the excessive height of the proposed envelope will mean
next to no privacy, complete overshadowing and loss of view to many
apartments in Princeton.
The applicant has also failed to include any meaningful privacy
analysis in their proposal. Privacy is a huge factor for residents of
Princeton which is a wholly residential building with northern facing
windows looking into main living areas and bedrooms.

Heritage considerations have also mostly been ignored. The proposed
envelope surrounds the beautiful Edinburgh Castle Hotel building on
two sides and looms over it dwarfing any heritage impact it once had.
This is another example of inconsiderate planning.

Please consider my objection to the development application on the
grounds mentioned above. Planning regulations and requirements should
be mandatory for public bodies especially considering the massive
impact this will have to the detriment of our building if approved. I
was shocked to discover that the applicant's own Design Quality
Guidelines that were meant to apply to all over station developments
were blatently ignored. Separation limits, solar access effects,
overshadowing limits and privacy concerns should be addressed
adequately by the applicant before any approval is given. We need a
sensible approach to inner city planning to safeguard our beautiful
city.

I object to the proposed over station development at Pitt Street South
Metro station. At present the proposal is non-compliant with numerous
planning standards and represents a gross overdevelopment of the site.

The reasons for my objection can be summarised as follows:

1. Overshadowing of Princeton and Hyde Park;
2. Loss of sunlight;
3. Privacy;
4. Loss of views;
5. Separation.

The proposed overshadowing of Princeton apartments is completely
unnaceptable. Sunlight in 57 homes will be lost between the target
hours of 9am to 3pm. The effect on resident's quality of life will be
huge. This in turn will lead to an increased reliance on artificial
heating and lighting.

The overshadowing impact on Hyde Park for 6 months of the year is
completely unnacceptable from the perspective of all residents and
visitors to Sydney. There is precious little open space in the city
that should be protected from new development eroding the access to
sunlight.

The application fails to address any privacy concerns despite the
applicant's own design guidelines claiming to support the protection
of pricacy for all over station developments. This is a glaring
oversight by the applicant and a huge concern for residents of
Princeton, who have multiple windows directly facing the development
into living areas and bedrooms.

Residents in Princeton will also lose north facing views if the
development proceeds in its current proposed form. I understand the
Greenland building will also lose much of its eastern views.
The proposed development does not comply with separation requirements
at its boundary with Princeton. The 12m proposed separation is half
the required amount for new developments. The applicant has
acknowledged it simply will not comply with this requirement.

The applicant's rationale for the removal of residential amenity in
Princeton is that this type of development can be expected in the
inner city. This is not genuine planning justification but mere
opinion and is not based on any evidence. The applicant also claims
that our building is non-compliant with design guidelines that came
into force 20 years after Princeton was built. I was shocked to read
baseless opinion and incorrect assertions as the grounds for Sydney
Metro's development and expected more from a public body.

The proposed over station development at Pitt Street South Metro
station breaches planning standards and will cause significant impact
on neighbouring residents and should be rejected in its current form.

We object to Sydney Metro building such an unnecessarily wide and tall
building over the station at Pitt Street South.

This is an OBJECTION against lawlessness by the authorities which is
taking place against all owners and occupiers living at Princeton
Tower at 308 Pitt Street.

Shame on Sydney Metro for not complying with planning legislation,
guidelines and instruments!

Sydney Metro have disclosed that they are in breach of the following:

* Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirements
* Environmental Planning Instruments
* State Environmental Planning Policy 65
* The Apartment Design Guidelines
* The Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012

Sydney Metro is trying to cram as many units/offices on to the site to
try and make more money. The owners at Princeton should not be
punished because of Sydney Metro's inability and failure to budget
their project well.

Government related entities such as Sydney Metro have a long history
of delivering projects late and over budget. Instead of spending
precious time and money engaging consultants and advisors to maximise
profit for the site, Sydney Metro should dedicate their resources to
completing the station on time and under budget.

We OBJECT because we want to protect our building's sunshine and
daylight.

I am not anti-development and would welcome something beautiful and
useful to be built on Sydney Metro's site however I do not believe it
necessary to build such a tall and wide building where it is not
needed. Especially if this is carried out at the expense of
sacrificing privacy, solar access and amenity of adjoining residents.

Sydney Metro has been extremely irresponsible in the proposed over
development of this site.

I am SHOCKED that only 5 units out of 116 at Princeton Apartments will
get the required sunlight after the proposed development is
constructed.

I am HORRIFIED that Sydney Metro has proposed a 3 metre building
separation on lower floors and a 12 metre building separation on
higher floors. This is a blatant breach of the Apartment Design
Guidelines 2F.

I am APPALLED that the Sydney Metro's shadow study (Appendix H of the
Environmental Impact Statement) show that there will be additional
shadowing caused by the development to Hyde Park from April to August
(inclusive) from 2.30pm onwards. This is a major substantial adverse
effect on this public park. This is a blatant breach of the sun access
plane controls contained in the Sydney LEP 2012 clause 6.17.

The Architectural drawings show a station ventilation plant on the
lower floors of the proposed residential Sydney Metro Tower. I dread
to think about the acoustic disturbances as well as the unsightly
visual impact that this will bring to the lower floors of Princeton
Apartments on the North side.

Sydney Metro's development application cannot proceed in its current
form.

Please listen to the objections and help us.

Enough is enough!

I am deeply concerned with the development application by Sydney Metro.

The application simply does not comply with planning regulations and
is an overdevelopment of the site that will cause negative impacts on
neighbouring properties and public amenity.
I live in Princeton which is greatly affected by the development next
door. The proposed development will overshadow our building causing 57
apartments to lose the required sun exposure according to the
Apartment Design Guide.

Separation requirements in the Apartment Design Guide will also be
breached. The 3m proposed separation to the lower floors and 12m
proposed separation to storeys 9 and above is non-compliant.
Hyde Park will also be overshadowed by the proposed development. This
is disgraceful and under no circumstances should it be allowed. It is
shocking that a public body would propose this.

Our privacy will be affected due to the fact that we have north facing
windows in many apartments in Princeton. The applicant has ignored
this concern despite their own guielines stating privacy should be
considered.

The heritage and histroy of surrounding buildings such as the
Edinburgh Castle Hotel, Castlereagh Street Fire Station and Sydney
Water Board will all be affected by this ugly new development.

Pitt Street already suffers from traffic jams and congestion without
adding more congestin by adding parking spaces to a site which by its
nature (metro station) should reduce congestion.

The development could be a lovely addition to our neighbouring if
approached in a sensible manner in compiance with planning
regulations. The planning regulations are there for a reason and a
public body should set an exmaple by complying with them and their own
design guidelines. For these reasons the application must be rejected
in it current form.

I am writing to object to the Concept DA - SSD 8876 (Proposed Sydney
Metro City & Southwest - Pitt Street) We are the owner of 308 Pitt
Street Sydney which is an adjacent building to the proposed
Development.

The proposed development will have an substantial impact on the
occupancy of my unit through the loss of natural light and privacy,
overshadowing majority of the unit as well as loosing its valuable
view.

1. Overshadowing of Princeton - a reduction of the number of apartments
with sun exposure (per 1sqm of living room area between 9am to 3pm on
21 June) from 62 apartments to 5 apartments. This represents a 49%
change to our detriment. See Solar Access report (https://majorprojects.accelo.com/public/92e174bd594429b81f4ed0f94a141747/Appendix%20M%20-%20Solar%20Access%20Impact%20on%20Adjacent%20Properties);
2. Overshadowing of Hyde Park - the proposed development will cast
additional shadowing onto Hyde Park for 6 months of the year. This is
a significant issue not just for Princeton. See Shadow Study (https://majorprojects.accelo.com/public/294169dd796ad9463d67b213fe39d846/Appendix%20H%20-%20Shadow%20Study);
3. Building Separation - minimum building separation should be 18-24
metres for all levels above 9 storeys. As we have north facing
habitable rooms, it should be 18 metres separation (if no habitable
rooms/balconies be south facing on the proposed development) or 24
metres (if habitable rooms/balconies be on the south facing façade of
the proposed development). The proposed current separation of 12
metres is insufficient to provide adequate privacy and amenity.

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

I am an owner in the Greenland Centre on Bathurst St, under
construction, due for completion 2020. My apartment is lower to
mid-level in the building.

I am concerned about the lack of sunlight and loss of views. The
concept proposal should be set back further from Bathurst St and
lowered in height. 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. This is a big loss of amenity to residents.

There will be significant loss of sunlight for Greenland low to mid
level apartments and there is no analysis of this in the Solar
Analysis (App M).

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

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

This proposed bulk and height of the building could cause dark,
narrow, windswept corridors along Bathurst and Pitt Sts. This
canyoning affect is detrimental to residents and workers in this area
of Sydney.

It should be noted that the 4 previous buildings on the site, now
being demolished, were much smaller in height and scale. There is
currently sunlight, and breathability in the area. The concept
proposal is a huge overdevelopment of the site.

There is also a failure to take into account the increased traffic
congestion. The 4 current buildings, now to be demolished, had no
parking. There will be immense traffic problems in the next block
turning left from Pitt St into Park St, and along Bathurst St. The
proposed parking and use of the building for concept development will
add to existing traffic congestion problems.

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 bulk of the development and 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 (setbacks and building separations),
reduce the parking, and make it more in kind with the scale and use of
the existing buildings.

Sydney will be a better and more liveable city.

Thank you.

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

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

The site currently has 4 smaller buildings. The new development should
be in keeping with the scale, size, bulk and height of the existing
buildings.

I am very concerned at the loss of amenity (solar, views, shadows,
wind, liveability) and how badly this development will affect the
living conditions for residents now living and soon to be living in
the area.

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.

It seems that there will adverse effects in terms of loss of sunlight,
increased shadows, increased wind channels, creation of dark canyons
along the streets. These effects need to be ameliorated, not
overlooked or forgotten.

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.

Thank you.

I am writing to object to the height, scale, and bulk of the proposed
building envelope of the concept design.

I am an owner of an apartment in Princeton, situated at a lower level
of the building, with north and northeast views from the living areas.

I will be severely impacted by the large scale of the development
unless there are proper setbacks and building separations.

Currently I receive almost 6 hours of sunshine from the north during
the winter months. Unless the setback from the south and east
boundaries and from the southeast corner are increased, I will suffer
a drastic cut in the amount of sunshine and light from the north. The
apartment will be non-compliant with ADG Design Guidance (Appendix M).

There will also be a complete loss of views to the north judging by
the scale of the development and a loss of privacy. Building
separation is therefore an important issue as it affects the amount of
sun and privacy for a lower level resident. I urge that the
regulations and guidelines for building separation be adhered to for
the protection of residents. Are residents going to be looking into
the windows of residents in the new building?

As a lower level occupant of the building, I am concerned about
increased noise from the Metro Station development echoing between
buildings. What is being planned on the southern boundary?

All these loss of amenity aspects need to be addressed constructively
and satisfactorily by the concept plan.

Separately, I am concerned about increased street shadowing and a
canyon effect caused by such large buildings along Pitt St and
Bathurst Streets.

I am also concerned by the increase in traffic congestion as there are
already traffic problems at Pitt and Park Sts, and Bathurst and
Elizabeth Sts. Traffic congestion at these intersections is getting
worse and this development will add to and aggravate the problem.
Meanwhile, there will be increased pedestrians on the streets. There
are already incidents of pedestrians jumping out between cars to run
across the road and other pedestrians failing to adhere to the traffic
lights. This will get worse and heighten the risk of serious
accidents. Overdevelopment of the site will increase both vehicular
traffic and pedestrians.

Finally, I am concerned about the effect of such a large concept
development on the heritage value of the Edinburgh hotel. The design
concept should be more in keeping with the heritage aspects of the
Edinburgh Hotel and its surrounds.

I urge Planning to ensure that this area of Sydney continues to be
liveable and in keeping with what a wonderful city Sydney is. The
concept design should be sympathetic to the area, its surrounds and
with the interest of residents, workers and commuters in mind. Please
do not destroy Sydney. Thank you.