As a resident of Century Tower, I have had the opportunity to read Mr
Richard Hughes's letter to you on behalf of the Owners Corporation
SP55792 and fully endorse his comments.

However, I wish to add some views of my own:

Firstly, good architecture is in essence concerned with proportion and
context, but the proposal for this site is out of proportion when the
context of the Greenland (and I note the irony of a development of a
66 story tower being identified as "green", but we live in Orwellian
times) Tower is taken into consideration. Putting both towers together
on either side of Pitt Street creates a negative not a positive for
this area of the city for the reasons expressed by Mr Hughes.

Secondly, as a resident living in the middle of a modern and dynamic
city, I accept that new developments are required, but when the Primus
Hotel roof garden has a rock band playing on a Thursday or Friday
night - which they have had in the past- and in Century Tower you
cannot hear your television or radio, you have to wonder whether the
people making these decisions concerning developments are ever alive
to the consequences of their decisions, such as the one you are to
make.

Thirdly, Mr Hughes makes many good points, but the one concerning
natural light is vital. When this proposal and the Greenland Tower are
both built, the loss of light to the residents of Century Tower will
be massive - almost like Victorian times when the poor are always in
darkness and the rich bathed in sunlight. Also as a Government
Department, I am sure that you observed RYOK day, at the same time as
proposing to condemn residents of Century Tower and others in the city
to living without access to natural light, which has been shown has an
adverse affect on mental health.

Finally, this proposal to build above the Pitt Street South station is
driven by money - the train system has to be paid for. But this is in
a context of close to $3 billion being paid for a tram (less call it
what it is) to Randwick (hardly the population growth area of NSW).
Also, I will watch and read with interest what happens to the proposed
towers to be built at the North Sydney and Barangaroo stations, which
I understand are the subject of similar objections.

I do not object to the building of a tower above the Pitt Street South
station, but I do strongly object to the height and size of your
proposal. A much smaller development would balance the needs of the
Government and residents.

I have received no reportable donations in the past.

I thank you for the opportunity to make a submission.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the foreshadowed development
above the Pitt Street Metro Station on the south eastern corner of
Pitt and Bathurst Streets.

I am an owner occupier of Apartment 3202 Century Tower 343 Pitt Street
Sydney. 3202 is on the 32nd floor in the north east corner of the
building and we enjoy 4 substantial views from the apartment albeit
each framed and restricted by existing buildings. Recent approvals for
the Greenland tower and the hotel and apartments at The Castle tower,
both of which are currently under construction, will eliminate
respectively our two views north into the city and to Lady Macquarie's
Chair and the inner harbour. The proposed building referenced herein
would eliminate our view of the outer harbour and "The Heads".
Pleasing aspects of our view of Hyde Park including the Cenotaph will
be impacted by the proposed hotel development on Elizabeth Street
between Bathurst and Liverpool.

Hence the feeling of our aspects and light being under siege in a city
bereft of a master plan with developers encouraged to construct
substantial, architecturally uninspiring towers on any site that
becomes available. Developers are submitting proposals driven solely
by economics and it appears that Sydney City planners are reactive on
an application by application basis rather than having a master plan
which protects the aspects, light and privacy of existing residents
and offices. Apart from losing my treasured views I wish to object to
the subject proposal and to question the need for, and benefits of
contemplating a structure of the type and style outlined, on this
particular site.

I have made no financial contributions to political parties for 20
years. My comments reflect my concerns as to loss of aspect and light
on the quality of life enjoyed in the property at 3202 Century Tower
and are not influenced by financial factors on the property which may
arise from adjacent developments.
I am aware that representations have been made in respect of the
subject development by the Century Tower Owners' Corporation. This
email is a separate and personal submission.

I have 3 primary objections:
1. The Greenland Tower is an exceptionally dominant building both in
height and footprint. The impact of this tower on the ecology, noise
and air pollution, and wind impact will not become apparent until
construction is completed and the building is substantially occupied.
The approval of a tower of its scale should have been a one-off and
not a template and precedent for similar ambitions on sites along the
length of Pitt Street particularly exploitation of the precinct from
Bathurst Street to Liverpool Street. The subject site presents an
ideal opportunity for a lower (up to 15 story) retail, entertainment
and government services building broadly in a similar envelope to the
structures being replaced. The airspace should afford an opportunity
to motivate the design of individual tower buildings so as to
embellish and enhance the skyline rather than generate canyons of side
by side glass look a likes. Chicago and London are prime examples of
towers standing individually as works of great merit. London boasts
evocative and strong lower height commercial, cultural, retail and
residential developments which greatly enhance the inner city
streetscape without adding the mandatory 40 to 60 story glass box.
There are no grounds for a further tower on the subject site other
than the motive of economic profit for the developer or the NSW
government. Plonking a substantial tower on top of an eight story base
is dated and unimaginative and a replication of many similar
applications. The proposal strikes as seeking approval for an envelope
as described and if consent is granted neither the Sydney City
planners or local current residential and business occupants will be
able to adequately control the ultimate design, build or use; nor the
likely creep of expansion of the envelope and purpose through
modifications.

2. Pitt Street is not a wide avenue and living in Century Tower
provides the experience of seeing directly into, or being seen
directly into, by nearby buildings at close quarters. Fortunately the
status quo sees a degree of offset of buildings from one side to the
other with occasional gaps. The west facing buildings are often
heavily curtained to manage the evening sun. The interiors of the
Greenland apartments are going to be far more public from Century
Tower than anything previous and the subject proposed tower interiors
would likely be very public throughout its entire height and intrude
substantially on the privacy of the occupants of Century Tower,
Greenland and the Princeton. The only acceptable offset for the tower
building on the subject proposal so as to ensure some distance and
privacy for adjacent buildings would place it so far back from the
Pitt Street boundary as to make the project illogical. Pitt Street,
between Bathurst Street and Liverpool Street should not become a high
rise canyon and wind tunnel.

3. There is a natural, and possibly legal, human "right to light" in
any abode. Not reflected or artificial light but natural sunlight.
When we purchased our apartment we enjoyed substantial sunlight from
all windows. If the developments currently proposed and foreshadowed
are approved and constructed our natural sunlight will be all but
extinguished and we will be in shadow throughout the day. Even on the
32nd floor. Preservation of aspects to the horizon and rights to light
of occupants should be a major factor when considering an application.

Richard Hughes:
Secretary. Owners Corporation SP55792.
4602/343-357 Pitt Street SYDNEY.
E:[email protected]
Tel; 9221 4000 or 0418 468 502.
Wednesday September 12th, 2018.

Your Ref: SSD:8876.

NSW Planning & Environment:

Dear Sirs,

Re: SYDNEY METRO PITT STREET (SOUTH) OVER STATION DEVELOPMENT (SSD
8876): Submission as to Notice of Exhibition:

The Executive Committee of the Owners Corporation 55792 represents the
residents and owners of "Century Tower", a fifty-two storey
residential building at 343-357 Pitt Street, Sydney on the southern
side of Wilmot Street. Our building has 296 residential units and five
ground level commercial lots and approximately one thousand residents.
Our building is diagonally opposite the proposed development at 302
Pitt Street (hereinafter referred to as "the subject development").
Notwithstanding the close proximity and substantial effect of the
subject development on "Century Tower", I have not anywhere seen in
the documents on exhibition any analysis of the likely effects of the
development specifically on the amenity of our building.

The writer is the Secretary of the Owners Corporation and delegated to
write on its behalf to you. The Owners Corporation on behalf of its
residents and owners objects to the Development Application and has
material concerns as to it. The views and instructions of the other
Executive Committee members, residents and our concierge / security
staff have been obtained and taken into account when compiling this
objection.

The Owners Corporation and the writer have no objection to the
publication or dissemination of this letter. The Owners Corporation
and the writer have not made any "reportable political donations" in
the previous two years. Any enquiries should be referred to the writer
ideally by email or telephone.

It has not been feasible to fully test and evaluate the compliance of
the subject development with the various development and regulatory
standards applicable to the site and development. Until we are
satisfied that those standards are complied with, we seriously
question whether the development does comply with the relevant
standards. If the site does comply with those standards, then revision
of those standards would be warranted.

The grounds of objection are summarised as follows:

Overdevelopment and loss of solar and wind access and views as
directly affecting "Century Tower":
A. Whilst it is difficult from the plans provided with the exhibition
to fully appreciate the size of this development, it is an excessively
tall and bulky development at the subject site which is in a
neighbourhood which is becoming similar to a canyon with the oversize
"Greenland" development opposite on the western side of Pitt Street,
the development under construction at the north western corner of
Bathurst & Castlereagh Street and the other nearby developments and
existing buildings (including ours "Century Tower").

B. The information provided underestimates and misrepresents the size
and bulk of the development by referring to a 35 storey development
and an 8 storey podium: what is not obvious is that the 35 storey
development is atop the podium providing in effect a 43 storey
development. The information provided indicates the top of the
proposed development will be at the same level as the top of our fifty
two storey building.

C. Solar access: The subject development by itself will eliminate by
obstruction some of the solar access coming from the north east for
our building notably the lowest thirty floors. More significantly
whereas the present low height buildings at the subject site enable
solar, wind and visual access to the north east, the new proposed high
rise development coupled with the "Greenland" development opposite and
other buildings and developments will eliminate most of the solar
access to all of our building for most of the year. In winter for
example there will be little to no solar access for essentially all of
our building except in the late afternoon and some of that will be
eliminated if the proposed redevelopment of the Event /Hoyts Cinema
site on George Street proceeds as planned. Only in summer will our
building have any significant solar access and then when it is least
wanted. One of the adverse effects of the diminution of solar access
is the anticipated greater need of artificial heating and lighting in
winter for our building's occupants due to the withdrawl of solar
warming. Conversely the increased heat in summer from the increasing
proximity and radiated reflected summer sunshine of new developments
and the loss of cooling sea breezes will increase the need for air
conditioning to cool our building in summer.

D. Wind access: "Century Tower" currently benefits for most of the
year from sea breezes flowing from the Harbour to our building. The
currently available gap in the tall buildings at the subject
development site enables this airflow. Due to the increasing number of
tall buildings in our neighbourhood this development will
significantly impede our access to the wind coming from the harbour.
The reduction of wind access will increase the need for the use of air
conditioning to enable cooling in summer, which need will be increased
due to the heat radiation from the increasing number of adjoining
buildings including the subject development and the "Greenland"
development.

E. Obstruction of views: from the upper levels of "Century Tower"
there are currently views of Sydney Harbour covering from Rose Bay to
Neutral Bay (except for some obstruction by the former Electricity
Commission building at the corner of Park & Elizabeth Streets). The
proposed development will eliminate approximately 70% of the current
remaining views with consequent substantial loss of amenity and value
to our building. An importance of views is that they connect the
inhabitants enjoying the view to the outside world which connection is
lost when the view is changed to being merely that of the neighbouring
development on the other side of Pitt Street with the neighbourhood
downgraded to being alike a road canyon with the only sky being
directly above in the far distance.

F. Increased radiated noise: the increasing traffic congestion and the
enclosure by development of new buildings surrounding us increases the
level of noise generated adversely affecting our residents. This
neighbourhood has become markedly more noisy in the last fifteen years
due to (but not limited to) the increasing traffic congestion, the
increasing use by emergency vehicles of their sirens as they are stuck
in traffic jams increasing in intensity, the radiation of noise
bouncing off the surrounding buildings, the generation of noise by the
rooftop of the Primus Hotel and the increasingly noisy construction
work in our neighbourhood (including from the Greenland site, the
subject site and the forever ongoing tramlines construction on George
Street). The current air gap at the subject site enables some of that
noise to escape rather than be destined to perpetually bounce from one
overdevelopment to the next creating unending noise.

G. Risk of noise from upper podium: the top of the podium appears to
be an "open air" area. Our concern is that this will become a
replication of the misuse of the roof of the old Water Board building
(now Primus Hotel) where we have had regular problems with excessively
loud music being played requiring visits of Council Rangers to help to
quell the excessive music and crowd noise which has a very adverse
effect on the occupants of our building. Whilst we can accept the
podium, we are most concerned that a condition of the podium's usage
is that no amplified music (and preferably no licenced premises) be
permited on the podium roof.

H. Further loss of privacy: the proposed development will create a
significant number of new residential apartments on the other side of
Pitt Street peering at our building and further diminishing the
privacy of our inhabitants. Conversely the inhabitants of the new
development will also suffer from a lack of privacy especially when
the Greenland building directly opposite and overshadowing it is
completed. The loss of privacy is an indicia of slum like
accommodation being developed with a lack of consideration of the
amenity of the inhabitants. I have been informed the Environmental
Impact Statement has not addressed the issue of privacy notably as to
either of "Princeton" or "Century Tower" both being adjoining
residential towers: this is a serious omission.

Overdevelopment adversely affecting the neighbourhood:
A. Diminution of heritage sites: the proposed new development will
obviously have no heritage value. However it is so large and bulky
that it will overwhelm the few surviving heritage sites in our
neighbourhood including the 1938 former "old" Water Board building
(now Primus Hotel), the Duke of Edinburgh Hotel and the Fire Brigade
HQ on Castlereagh Street. The development proposed is simply too large
and overwhelming and will adversely detract from the heritage value of
these buildings. There appear no setbacks from the neighbouring
heritage buildings (Duke of Edinburgh Hotel and the Fire Brigade HQ)
when there should be. The heritage value of these buildings is
basically destroyed by the overwhelming development proposed.

B. Overshadowing of Pitt Street: this large and bulky development will
accentuate the canyon like nature of Pitt Street which has become an
epicentre of excessive development reminiscent of the Manhattan
streetscape where the only sky is that which is strictly and distantly
vertically overhead. The streetscape of Pitt Street is devalued by the
lack of solar access due to increasingly tall and bulky ribbon
development along it.

C. Overshadowing of Hyde Park: whilst the documents provided with the
application claim there is going to be minimal if any overshadowing of
Hyde Park, we seriously question such claims especially when the even
taller Greenland development stands closely to the west of the subject
development. The Shadow Study provided clearly shows significant
additional overshadowing over Hyde Park as a result of the subject
development. Hyde Park provides the only significant green open
parkland in or near to our neighbourhood, is one of the few
significant parks in the City and provides great enjoyment to tens of
thousands of people who walk or otherwise travel through or around it
each day. The overshadowing anticipated further deprecates the value
of our neighbourhood.

D. Overshadowing of the Hyde Park War Memorial: in particular it is
most likely the proposed development will increase the time each day
the War Memorial is in the shadow. There are already some times when
the Memorial is in the shade produced by the tall buildings to its
west and north west which is clearly visible to the writer from his
apartment. The writer whose parents, grandfather and several other
past and present relatives have served in war and peace in the
Australian and British military forces in Australia and on overseas
service, finds such overshadowing quite disrespectful including as it
can be readily avoided.

E. Detrimental effects on "Princeton": the residential building
"Princeton" on the eastern side of Pitt Street diagonally opposite
"Century Tower" is right next to the proposed development and will be
clearly significantly adversely affected by the proposed development
notably with the loss of solar and wind access, overshadowing, noise,
loss of privacy and increased noise. I understand they are making
submissions as to the development and it should be noted that from my
understanding of those submissions, "Century Tower" supports the
submissions in objection to the development made by "Princeton".

F. Increased traffic congestion: the plans indicate the only road
access for this development with 34 car spaces is an exit & entry on
Pitt Street and no exit or entry on Bathurst Street. The problem is
that due to the narrowing of Pitt and Bathurst Streets (notably by
footpath encroachment) and the addition of several large new
developments in the neighbourhood, the volume of pedestrian and
vehicular traffic has greatly increased in recent years. Any exit or
entry to the proposed building would be better placed on Bathurst than
on Pitt Street because Pitt Street outside the development is now so
congested that vehicles exiting the development site would usually be
met with stationary vehicles on Pitt Street awaiting crossing the Pitt
and Bathurst Streets cross roads. This development can be anticipated
to add further to the pedestrian and vehicle congestion in our
neighbourhood.

G. Fails to take into account the impact of the Greenland development:
the subject development is far smaller than the Greenland development
on the other side of Pitt Street. There appears to be no taking
account of the Greenland development's impact on the neighbourhood
when considering the impact of the subject development. This is a
dysfunctional methodology promoting overdevelopment and the risk of
slums of the future being created by overdevelopment.

H. Fails to take into account the impact on the Greenland's future
inhabitants: the subject development will destroy the views to the
east of the purchasers in that building who have purchased "off the
plan". They may feel inspired by Jamie Packer's Barangaroo development
action against the State Government for loss of views to seek similar
compensation arising from this subject development destroying
Greenland's easterly views.


In summary we object to the proposed development and say the proposal
needs amendment to deal with the issues raised in these submissions.
In summary we see this development as an overdevelopment of the site
leading to deterioration of the amenity of our residents and of the
neighbourhood. Such overdevelopment to maximise profits for developers
should not be permitted to detriment existing residents.

For the Owners Corporation I would also like to record my complaint as
to the lack of opportunity provided to those affected by this
development to correspond to you with their views. Your letter dated
August 14th 2018 received on 21st ult does not provide a specific
mailing address, an email address, a FAX number or any means of
sending submissions other than a departmental GPO Box and an online
submission system which is unduly complex and camouflaged so that many
of us including the writer are challenged when trying to use it. Why
is it so difficult for your department to provide an email address to
which submissions can be sent? I have been requested to formally seek
an extension of time (fourteen days) to allow submissions to be sent
to you by other persons (residents and owners in our building) who
were taken by surprise or otherwise unable to determine how to send
their submissions to you. Please advise an email address to which
submissions can be sent to you. If you need a form of declaration
(e.g. as to donations) to accompany the submissions please forward by
return email to me a copy of the form which can be completed by those
wishing to provide submissions.

Please advise the time, date and place of any meeting at which this
proposal is to be discussed and which is open to the public so that
our views can be further expressed. Please contact me on 9221 4000 or
email if you would like further information or explanations.

Yours faithfully,
Richard Hughes: Secretary of Executive Committee:
Owners Corporation: Strata Plan 55792.

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!