I would like to preface my remarks by saying that it is entirely
unreasonable to expect people to comment on this development in
isolation to what will be built in the Waterloo Estate development and
with so little actual detail about what is exactly proposed for this
one. It is also reprehensible that it is necessary to put in separate
submissions for the Southern end and the Northern end. They are the
same block. One would almost think that the planning department was
trying to ensure as few responses as possible by making people do,two
seperate submissions.
-This is a gross overdevelopment. It does not comply with any of
Sydney Council's building regulation and LEP.
-The 30+ storey building is far too high in the context of its
position. The large buildings in the Waterloo Estate are not similar
because they are set well back, are separated by large areas of open
green space and the heights of the other public housing buildings on
the Estate are much lower than those proposed for 90% of those on all
of the three options for the new Estate and they're also set on large
areas of open green space.
-The shadow of the 30+ storey building, especially when taken along
with the other one at the Northern end of the block, will block the
winter sun until,11.00 a.m. over large areas to the west of Botany
Road. Shadow diagrams prepared by RedWatch show these shadows reaching
to Power Avenue at the western end of Alexandria Park adjacent to
Alexandria Park Community School. This will affect me directly. At
present, because the houses in Garden Street to the east of my house
have all added a second floor over the thirty years since I came here,
I do not get sun in my yard in winter until around 9.00 a.m. At around
11.00 a.m. it passes behind an old 2 storey building to the north of
my house. If these buildings were constructed I would no longer get
any sun in the winter and neither would my neighbours. These shadows
would also affect the amenity of everyone using the Park,including the
school children who use it for P.E and Sport.
-The development is totally unsympathetic to the nature of the
heritage suburbs it will be set in.
-The density of the buildings on the site is excessive. There should
be a much larger space around the heritage church than there appears
to be. The church will be dwarfed by the surrounding buildings. There
also needs to be much more open green space between any
buildings.These should not be token narrow pockets which will be
permantly shadowed wind tunnels. It difficult to see where set backs
are. Some buildings appear to go right up to the curb. Basically the
plans are useless in this respect.
-The density of the people in the residences is of an order of
magnitude greater than that of Green Square which will be the most
densely populated are in Australia. The Redfern, Alexandria.Waterloo
precinct is already one of the most densely populated areas and public
transport and the roads cannot cope now. With Westconnex this problem
will be even worse. Redfern Station should be upgraded before any of
these developments take place for a start.

This development is obviously serving someone's interests but is
certainly not serving the the interests of local residents or those of
the State. I think the planners need to slow this massive development
down (this has happenened in other electorates), rethink the whole
thing and, when they have plans that show the details of what is
really going on, then present it for comment.

We cannot let this development go ahead and have to object.

Skyscrapers are not needed at Central Station, Townhall Station,
Wynyard Station, St James Station or Museum Stations. They are all
located in Sydney CBD so why must Sydney Metro insist on
overdeveloping such a large high rise right next to a residential
block?

My elderly parents live in Princeton Tower and are upset at how close
and overdeveloped the overstation is.

They were both originally excited at the prospect of living near the
station because it opens up so many travel possibilities right on
their doorstep. They were looking forward to taking their yound
grandchildren to new and exciting suburbs for daytrips.

They did not however realise that Sydney Metro would take liberties
and exploit every square air space and fill every square inch with a
bulky, large skyrise as an excuse for an overstation.

Likewise, my elderly parents also like to take their young
grandchildren to Hyde Park so they can stretch their legs and run
around after day-care and so that they can stretch their muscles and
get exercise themselves. It saddens me to think that not only will
Sydney Metro be restricting sunlight for them in their own home (and
the homes of the other 116 neighbours in this tower) but also that
Sydney Metro will be restricting sunlight in Hyde Park. This is a
contravention of the sun access plan restrictions under the Hyde Park
submission of the Sydney LEP 2012

It cannot be believed!

How can Sydney Metro be allowed to sacrifice the amenity, visual
appearance, sunlight and privacy of hard working CBD residents in
order to try and maximise revenue?

How can Sydney Metro be allowed to build so close to our building and
directly overlook into all bedroom and living room windows of the
apartments on the northern end of Princeton? I do not understand but
it is so unfair and just not right.

We must protect as much of our sunlight and privacy as possible.

There is too much over development already in this area with the
Greenlands development and the Castle Residences development. There
are too many ultra high towers in Sydney and this is not acceptable.

Sydney Metro must be made to comply with 2F and 3B of the Apartment
Design Guidelines before this development is application is approved.

I do not want to live in a high rise slum area that looks like a
concrete jungle. That is one of the reasons so many people choose to
leave China and Hong Kong for a better quality of life. Skyscraper
cities like the kind you see in Asia should not happen in beautiful
Sydney.

Stop this over development now.

My objection to the proposed over station development at Pitt Street
South is based on breaches of the following items:

1. Secretary's Environmental. Assessment Requirements;
2. City of Sydney Development Control Plan 2012;
3. Apartment Design Guide;
4. Sydney Metro's own Design Excellence Strategy and OSD Design
Guideline.

There are multiple breaches of the above standards in relation to
overshadowing, separation, privacy, loss of solar light, heritage,
loss of view.

The applicant's attitude to the numerous breaches seems to be that we
should expect bad planning and the removal of our amenity because we
live in the city. Surely it is in the city where spaces is more scarce
should planning regulations be most stringently enforced. This defies
logic. Sydney Metro are not a developer and it is clearly evident that
they do not understand the way planning controls should be applied.

Perhaps their own Design Excellence Strategy and OSD Design Guideline
were drafted by another department as it doesn't seem like Sydney
Metro understand their own internal guidelines. One example is the
disregard displayed in the body of the application to the Apartment
Design Guide while simultaneously referencing this in their guidelines
as "requirements" they must abide by. They are clearly confused or are
not fully aware of their own remit. A competent person at Sydney Metro
should read through their application in full and correct all of the
inconsistencies and false information.

State significant applications with the potential to destroy families'
amenity need to be properly assessed by an independent body comprising
of planning experts. I understand this may not be done purely because
the applicant is a public authority. But it is precisely the fact that
the applicant is a public body should the application be independently
assessed. The motives of Sydney Metro appear to be to package the
envelope to the maximum extent and sell it to the highest bidder in an
effort to raise the maximum profit available to offset the metro
costs.

I trust the objections raised to the application will be taken into
account. Sydney Metro must be accountable to the public if their
actions have the potential to damage the amenity of the residents in
Sydney.

The proposed over station development as detailed in the application
represents a breach of planning standards and controls. In particular
it breaches the Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirements,
SEPP 65, Sydney LEP 2012 and the Apartment Design Guide.

The nature of the application may be expected from a private developer
seeking to "try their luck" by brazenly breaching numerous standards
in an attempt to get some rogue details approved. It is alarming that
the applicant is a public authority who are afforded additional
protections from independent assessment. This is clearly an abuse of
power.

The application must be independently reviewed on its objective
merits. It is littered with subjective assertions, vague claims and
false statements. The applicant admits that they simply will not
comply with SEAR and the associated planning requirements purely on
the basis that we should expect the site will be developed blocking
out all our sunlight, destroying our views, invading our privacy,
disrespecting local heritage and overshadowing our building and Hyde
Park. This is disgraceful.

Details of the numerous breaches can be provided however the applicant
has done a good job of admitting to these breaches. Perhaps because
they feel like there will be no repercussion as they are a public
body. This has certainly been the attitude displayed by the applicant
throughout the few community engagements to date. Neighbouring
residents and the public are to have their amenity forcefully removed
to allow Sydney Metro to attempt to recoup their costs by selling the
envelope to the highest bidder. And the notion offered by the
applicant that a develop may not build to the extent of the envelope
available is laughable.

The applicant's position changes from one of an expert developer -
that the development can be expected and is usual in the
circumstances, to a clueless public authority - that the site won't be
developed to its full capacity and various matters such as privacy
will be address later as they do not have the capacity to address them
at present.

The application needs to be refused and the application amended to
provide adequate separation to Princeton and the heritage buildings
surrounding the site, a reduction in height within the Apartment
Design Guide and in compliance with standards affecting overshadowing
of Hyde Park and a reconsideration of the envelope dimensions to
protect privacy, loss of light and views.

I whole heartedly OBJECT to this development because it is a damaging
proposal.

A private commercial developer would be made to follow all the
planning requirements and guidelines so what makes Sydney Metro think
they can get away with not following legislation? Are they above the
law?

Sydney Metro's development application admits to breaching the
following instruments:

* 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 must be sent back to the drawing board to come up with a
better design so that it does not affect its adjoining neighbours so
drastically.

Allowing this development to go ahead would be a terrible injustice
and could open up the floodgates for even more skyscrapers to be built
in Sydney CBD around Hyde Park and right next to residential towers
with no regard to appropriate setback provisions and correct building
separation distances.

Sydney Metro is a public corporation which is accountable to people.

Sydney Metro should have an extra special regard for the quality of
life of Sydney residents (more so than the average commercial
developer). Sydney Metro has a duty to address in detail the local
concerns with this overdeveloped overstation.

Sydney Metro's website says that customers are at the centre of Sydney
Metro,.

Don't forget that these same customers are the ones who would like to
walk through Hyde Park without being overshadowed during the months of
April to September (inclusive) after 2.30pm without a loss of
wintersun.

These same customers are also the ones who would not like to live 3
metres to 12 metres away looking directly into an overdeveloped
overstation.

The development proposal is too close Princeton and too large for the
building envelope. Unless the building separations are at least 24
metres from Princeton, I will forever object.

No because not enough setbacks and building separations.

Sydney Metro have given no thought whatsoever to the surrounding
heritage buildings such as the Fire Station on Castlereagh Street
which is immediately behind the proposed building and the Edinburgh
Castle Hotel which is immediately adjacent next door to the north.
From looking at the design plans. Sydney Metro have not given enough
setbacks to these two heritage buildings.

There is also insufficient separation between Princeton and Sydney
Metro's building which means that it is unlawful under the Apartment
Design Guidelines 2F. The lack of building separation and appropriate
setbacks between Princeton and Sydney Metro's building is even more
damaging because there are 116 homes in this tower.

I understand around half of these homes will be directly affected
because they will overlook the new Sydney Metro Building.

This means there will be a general loss of amenity for me and my
neighbours and we will lost views, privacy and sunlight.

How can this development proceed when Sydney Metro have not considered
privacy for their neighbours despite this being a criteria under SEAR
and the Sydney Metro design guideline requirements?

I want to make it clear that I do not oppose the overstation
development as a concept in itself but I do oppose the sheer size,
bulk, width and height.

Sydney Metro has described their building as slim. I disagree. They
can make it slimmer by ensuring that their proposal has the correct
building separations under the Apartment Design Guidelines 2F as well
as the correct setbacks.

Definitely no. There are 116 apartments at Princeton Tower right next
door to the proposed project.

If this development application is approved then this will be a
travesty to everyone living at Princeton. This is especially so for
the neighbours on the north side because they will be directly facing
the new building which in my view is far too large in size for the
building footprint.

Every single unit on the north side of Princeton will completely lose
their view and by consequence their privacy, sense of security and
amenity.

It is ridiculous and unlawful for this development application to
proceed in its current form.

Sydney Metro admits in its own application:

1. They will cause extra shadowing on Hyde Park during April, May,
June, July, August and September

2. They have failed to obey the Hyde Park Sun Access Plane regulations
under the Sydney LEP 2012

3. They have failed to obey part 3B of the Apartment Design Guidelines

4. They have failed to obey to give Princeton the required levels of
sunshine into the living areas as required by the Apartment Design
Guidelines.

5. In relation to sunlight, Sydney Metro have admitted that only 4.3%
of apartments at Princeton will get the required levels of sunshine
into the living areas as required by the Apartment Design Guidelines
once their development is built.

6. This means 57 apartments which currently enjoy the required levels
of sunshine into their living areas under the Apartment Design
Guidelines will lose the solar access as recommended under the
Apartment Design Guidelines.

7. They have failed to obey part 2F of the Apartment Design Guidelines
because they only want to leave 3m - 12 m building separation between
Princeton Tower and their monstrosity.

8. As per the Apartment Design Guidelines Part 2F, Sydney Metro should
ensure that they have a 24 metre building separation because their
building has over 9 storeys

To recap, I object!

I was initially excited to find out that a new metro station was being
built next door to our building. My excitement was then replaced by
apprehension at the news that Sydney Metro were also acting as a
developer in applying for approved for an over station development. My
fears have been confirmed when reading the contents of the development
application.

To set out all of the non-compliance issues, false statements and
incorrect assertions would almost take a document the length of the
application submitted. I will attempt to summarise them below.

1. Overshadowing:

- Failure to comply with 3B of the ADG;

- Additional overshadowing to Hyde Park for half the year (April to
September).
2. Solar access:

- Failure to comply with the required levels of sunlight to living
areas as set out in the ADG;

- A reduction in compliance to 4.3% of all apartments in Princeton;

- Failure to comply with 4.2.3 of the City of Sydney DCP 2012.
3. Separation:

- Failure to comply with 2F of the ADG;

- Proposed 3m separation at lower levels should be 12m up to 4 storeys
and 18m from storeys 5-8;

- Proposed 12m above storey 9 should be 24m.

4. Loss of views:

- Complete loss of views to Princeton north facing apartments;

- Incorrect assertion of Princeton planning approval being subject to
a covenant on title. No evidence provided (simple title search).

5. Privacy:

- No substantive privacy considerations despite the SEAR direction and
Sydney Metro design guideline requirements;

- Failure to comply with 4.3.2 of City of Sydney Development Control
Plan 2012.

6. Heritage:

- No consideration of surrounding heritage buildings including
Edinburgh Castle Hotel or Castlereagh Fire Station;

- Insufficient setbacks to heritage buildings.

New development in Sydney is undoubtedly a positive thing. When rules,
guidelines and regulations are not followed it can easily turn into
something negative.

This application is a prime example of how not to approach
development.

Disregard to all rules, neighbor concerns, public amenity and the
heritage and history of this great city sets a dangerous precedent.

This application needs to be reviewed by an independent body.

Perhaps Sydney Metro should engage professionals with experience in
this field to guide them accordingly.

We cannot allow this application to be approved.

I strongly oppose the concept over station development lodged by Sydney
Metro.

The proposed envelope is far too close to Princeton in breach of the
ADG. Sydney Metro state in their own design guidelines that the ADG
are requirements they must comply with. Separation requirements need
to be respected otherwise it will lead to a myriad of negative
impacts.

The development will overshadow Princeton to a devastating degree. It
will also cast additional overshadowing to Hyde Park in the vicinity
of the war memorial for 6 months in a year. Both neighbouring amenity
and public amenity have been disregarded here in the pursuit of
profit.

Princeton will lose the minimum required amount of solar access to 57
apartments. 57 families will lose sunlight because Sydney Metro
doesn't want to comply with planning controls.

Princeton will also lose all northern views. In place we will see a
concrete wall crammed as close to our building as possible.
The application takes no account on the effect of the privacy of
Princeton residents. Sydney Metro's attitude appears to be this can be
dealt with at a later date when they have sold the site and it is
someone else's problem. This is not how planning decisions should
work.

There is no respect shown to heritage buildings which surround the
development site. Due to the proximity of Edinburgh Castle Hotel and
Castlereagh Fire Station this demands that heritage regulations be
followed. It is bad planning (and a lack of common sense) to place a
35-storey building over a 3-storey heritage building in circumstances
where the development is "cut around" the heritage building and will
loom over it to negate any heritage impact it might have.

Representatives of Sydney Metro have been extremely unhelpful in
addressing any of our concerns. Promises of further diagrams,
information and rationale have been broken. False statements have been
made orally and in writing. Complete disregard for community feedback
has been demonstrated.

Planning controls exist for a reason. They were designed to protect us
from private developers exploiting building potential in our great
city. The same controls need to apply to public authorities. Public
authorities should be more accountable to residents and visitors. A
sensible, measured approach needs to replace the greed and disregard
as is evident in this application.

I ask that you take my views into account and reject this application
on this basis.

I strongly object to the gross overdevelopment as set out in the Sydney
Metro application for an over station development at Pitt Street
South.

I question why Sydney Metro even have the authority to lodge this
application as it is clear from the contents that they lack the basic
knowledge and experience to properly address the requirements they are
subject to. It truly appears they are out of their depth.

At least they have managed to identify the various obligations and
regulations they propose to breach, although this is largely due to
the direction of the SEAR and not through any competence of their own.

It's hard to believe that without residents taking action against this
application it could potentially be rubber stamped and decided
internally. I wonder how many developers have leverage on this process
and question the independency of the applicant. We have a situation
where a public body is acting as a developer with little to no
accountability to the public, with the only real motivation being
profit to offset the cost of the metro development (and who knows what
else).

This is disgraceful and needs to be brought to light for the broader
public.

The application needs to be rejected in its current form. It fails to
comply with the SEAR, the ADG, various other planning controls and the
applicant's own design guidelines.