I am writing to object to the development in its current form.

- It does not comply with Condition B3 and Condition A24 of the conditions of consent - solar access, building separation, and also does not comply with ADG 4A-1 relating to solar access.
- It is detrimental to sustainability for Princeton apartments and contrary to the intent of ADG.
- Plant Rooms – next door and abutting the lower apartments in Princeton. Apart from lack of solar access, there is the issue of noise/acoustic impacts, vibrations, harmful emissions, radiation and others coming from plant and machinery into the living areas and bedrooms of residents in Princeton. This can cause serious health problems including mental health issues.
- The separation between buildings should begin at the level below the living areas of the residents in Princeton. No plant rooms should be located in the vicinity of the living areas of residents.
- There will be additional overshadowing of Hyde Park and a breach of the access plane . This should not be allowed.

The proposal needs to be modified to comply with the conditions of consent, ADG and access plane controls.

Thank you.

I am in full agreement with all of the objections listed in the enclosed letter by DFP Planning Consultants, and would add my own comments and objections as follows:
(1) I worked at a senior level for five UK Planning Authorities over a 45 year period, and in my considered view it is vitally important to maintain consistency and integrity in planning advice and guidance. Without this continuity the planning system is open to delays and appeals.
In this instance the development site and the project brief was promoted by a NSW Government Agency, and so the associated land disposal proceeds are seen to be supporting the very commendable Sydney Metro Project. It is therefore essential that the planning process in this case should be seen to be fair, open and transparent.
(2) The adjacent Princetown Apartments Building is entirely residential, and it has a high proportion of frontage which is glazed, and has multiple balconies which will be very close to the proposed development. The departure from the original project brief makes the development onerous to affected residents.
(3) As a chartered Landscape Architect and Local Economic Development Practitioner I am of the view that Princetown Apartments is a building of architectural merit, and that its immediate setting is worthy of protection. Of all of the Central Business Area building, in my view, this is one of the most attractive.
(4) I was involved for many years in urban regeneration in Glasgow (Scotland), and can testify that overdevelopment of high rise residential areas will inevitably result in the creation of areas of multiple deprivation, particularly at inner city centre locations. You can see this process in action at some of the high rise city centre districts of Hong Kong, where lack of privacy between high rise residential blocks is a key issue. In Glasgow as you may know, many of the high rise residential blocks have now been demolished.
These issues would be mitigated if the developer adheres to the approved planning brief, and so allows more space between the buildings. If the planning application is modified in this way I will withdraw my objection.

As a former Princeton resident, I object to the current design of the over the station development over Pitt St Metro.

Apart from the obvious loss of sunlight and privacy to the Princeton units, the overshadowing to Hyde Park will be detrimental to the flora and environment within the park. As an analogy, I have a small garden in my current dwelling, that despite the north facing aspect is significantly overshadowed during the winter months by buildings on the northern and western side. By contrast, during summer all the plants receive a large quantity of sunlight. Needless to say, these solar extremes wreck havoc on the plants in the garden. The same fate is in store for the plants and trees in Hyde Park if this development were to proceed as planned.

Hyde Park is also one of the few green spaces in the Sydney CBD and should be preserved in its current state wherever possible.

I am writing to express my concern and the impact the over station development at the Pitt st station will have on the quality of living in my apartment.
There will be significant loss of solar access to my apartment which will impact heating bills in winter and overall power bills for lighting.
Also the proposed gap between Princeton and the new development is significantly less than 25 metres which does not comply with apartment design guidelines.
This will lead to loss of privacy, ventilation and also outlook.
Please consider my objections to the development as it stands at present and make necessary compliance changes.

From outlines given to me, the over development will be blocking part of my balcony view, and overshadowing sunlight to my apartment. I have concerns of great devaluation of my apartment and quality of living for my unit from this development.

1. While I do not object to the concept of development of the site with a high rise apartment tower, I have read in detail the Shadow Analysis Report prepared for the developer. Initially my interest was in respect of Hyde Park overshadowing.
I feel that the analysis of the Hyde Park overshadowing is too limited – it just considers isolated points in time. In the afternoons, after shadowing first reaches the Park there is no mention of how much the proposed tower will subsequently increase areas of shadow on the Park.
2. Then I noticed the conclusions with respect of the Princeton Apartments. Here I found some very dubious logic.
As a qualified civil engineer, I am familiar reading with subconsultant reports. Sometimes they rely on judgment (referred to as ‘considered opinion’) to give recommendations – which is reasonable up to a point. However this report seems to have done everything (and more) to end up with a favourable conclusion.
According to the report, the ADG guidelines have been manipulated to achieve a favourable answer. Habitable areas, ie bedrooms, have been added to living space areas to make the percentage loss of sunlight seem less. The sunlight assessment period has been changed from 9 to 3 to 8 to 4 by the adoption of unspecified criteria. Again to include more sunlight in bedrooms which further reduces the calculated loss of sunlight amenity.
3. I therefore object to the development proposal as currently presented. The potential overshadowing of Hyde Park, particularly in winter afternoons when people may be seeking out areas of sunlight in the city, should be more comprehensively described. As well, the Apartment Design Guidelines should not be at the discretion of developers to modify so significantly.
I request that an independent consultant, and employed by the State Government, be asked to review the conclusions the Shadow Analysis Report in detail. If this second opinion fully validates the current report, so be it.
However, if not, surely some adjustments to the bulk of the tower, will reduce its impact sufficiently.

May I object in the strongest possible terms, to the above development.
The proposed plan is for 12 metres separation from the Princeton building. The acceptable distance is 24 metres (Condition A24 (c) (i)
(c) requirement). Not only does it restrict solar access (between 9 am and 3pm in the winter), but will reduce privacy to apartments, not to mention loss of views. This is unacceptable also for health reasons.
The ADG requires 70% of apartments to receive 2 hours of solar access between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter for new developments in the Sydney Metro area. There is a serious breach of regulations - (condition 3B (h)).
I ask that you seriously consider the situation as soon as possible. We don't want Sydney to become a slum like city as seen in such places as New York and other large cities of the world.