I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed over station development at
Pitt Street South Metro Station.

The current application represents an overdevelopment of the site and
does not comply with planning controls.

I was shocked to read the details of the application and the effect it
will have on the Princeton building. 49% of residents will lose access
to the required amount of sun exposure, privacy will be significantly
diminished and our views will be lost.

There is a reason we have planning controls and apartment design
guidelines and these seem to be ignored by Sydney Metro. Before Sydney
Metro compulsory acquired the site there was going to be a new hotel
at a modest size inkeeping with the neighbouring surrounds. Instead we
have a proposal for a massive tower block that has been designed to
maximum development potential at the cost of its neighbours.

The proposal also adds additional overshadowing to Hyde Park for half
of the year in the vicinity of the war memorial. This should be enough
reason for its refusal.

I ask that neighbours amenity be respected and design and planning
controls respected.

I OBJECT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT.

If this development goes ahead, it will be concrete proof that the
government is attempting to override local community opposition to
overdevelopment. There is so much community anger and horror over the
colossal overdevelopment at Sydney Metro Pitt Street South.

The proposed development is surrounded by heritage buildings such as
the Edinburgh Castle Hotel, Castlereagh Street fire station and the
Sydney Water Board building. The proposed design represents a stock
standard corporate tower with no effort made to compliment the
heritage nature of the location.
The Edinburgh Castle Hotel has operated from the site from 1885. The
proposed development surrounds the corner site of hotel and does not
propose adequate setback from the heritage building. At a proposed 35
storeys the development dwarfs the 3 storey Edinburgh Castle Hotel. It
will remove any visual historical impact the hotel offers.

The proposed envelope is an unusual, ugly shape wrapping around two
sides of the Edinburgh Castle Hotel.

My building at Princeton Tower at least has considerable architectural
merit. A large building mass in such close proximity would
substantially detract from its quality and impact.
In addition, it does not appear that the spacing afforded to the
Castlereagh Street Fire Station is adequate. The impacts on the
heritage significance of the surrounding buildings will be adverse and
entirely unnecessary.

The new building is proposing to be 3 metres away on the lower levels
and 12 metres away on the higher levels from Princeton Tower.

Take a look at Princeton Tower and you will see that from level 9 to
level 42 of our building, either a living room or bedroom will
directly look into the new proposed development. Princeton Tower is a
residential tower not an office tower and so privacy is even more
crucial to maintain.

So many professionals live in this this building and we come home
after a good days honest work in the CBD to relax and enjoy our family
life. This will be terribly impacted if this overdeveloped overstation
goes ahead because our privacy and amenity will be drastically
affected.

Surely Sydney Metro should adhere to the planning regulations set out
in the Apartment Design Guide which stipulates that they should be 18m
to 24 m away from an adjoining building?
This is a reckless development because Sydney Metro is only caring
about their commercial interest. This is a government body who should
be setting an example on how to respect the history of the surrounding
sites of cultural significance and neighbourhood amenity.

Many apartments in CBD have overcrowding issues, do we really want to
give another opportunity for rich foreign investors to buy apartments,
fill and overcrowd them with tenants and hurtle towards a difficult
future of high rise slums?

The least Sydney Metro can do is design a suitable development in
accordance with Apartment Design Guidelines and all applicable
planning controls. They have NOT done this.

Shame on you Sydney Metro for acting like a greedy, money grabbing,
air grabbing developer!

I object to the design of the building. It is too bulky and has too much
mass. The proposed overstation is overbearing and out of scale for
such a small site. Why does the overstation need to be so tall and so
wide?

This part of Sydney CBD has historically not been the home of
high-rise atrocities and should remain that way in order to preserve
the beautiful character of this pocket of the CBD. The Queen Victoria
Building, St Andrews Church, Edinburgh Castle Hotel, the Fire Station
on Castlereagh Street, the ANZAC War Memorial building and Townhall
are in very close proximity of the site and are all very low
buildings. Why would we now cram another unacceptably high density
over developed overstation above the Metro? It makes no sense to
increase the shadow creep over these beautiful historical buildings,
especially when we are so near Hyde Park.

There will be an adverse effect on the residential amenity of
neighbours. I own a unit at Princeton and know that if this
development is approved, all residents in our building will suffer
noise, disturbance, overlooking, loss of privacy and overshadowing
once the building is built. I know this from Sydney Metro's admission
that they intend to build 3 metres away from our building on the lower
levels and 12 metres away from the higher levels. How can we approve
this application when it is in flagrant breach of the Apartment Design
Guide 2F?

The loss of existing views from the north side of Princeton would
adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring owners.

The effect of this development (due to its sheer size and shape) means
that around 100 apartments at Princeton Tower will lose a lot of their
wintersun AND Hyde Park will also lose wintersun 6 months every year
after 2.30pm. This sunlight can never be returned if this approval
goes ahead. Removing sunlight from such a beautiful green park is a
crime to the local residents and tourists who enjoy this public space.
It is also a breach of the Sydney LEP 2012 sun access plane
provisions.

This is supposed to Sydney Australia; a city of livability with a
beautiful quality of life.

Keep high rises near other high rises and leave this pocket of CBD
alone. I do not wish to feel like I am living in a human ant colony.

I am an owner at 308 Pitt Street which neighbours the proposed
development.

Sydney Metro should respect good planning principles and be a good
neighbour.

They should not be using the Metro Station as an excuse to become a
greedy, reckless, profit driven developer in an attempt to offset the
development costs of the Metro. The size of the tower is the largest
possible shape they can cram onto the site.

Just because the government has a history of going overbudget with its
developments does not mean that they should try and recoup their
losses by taking as much airspace and land space as possible.

Sydney Metro's design will mean that over a hundred homes in adjacent
buildings will lost the majority of their winter sunlight. This was
admitted in Sydney Metro's Solar Access Impact Plan.

We can't let Sydney Metro just admit that they will block the light
from all these homes and do nothing. Where is the justice?

I am also shocked that Sydney Metro's design allows significant
shadowing on Hyde Park which is in breach of the Sydney LEP 2012 sun
access planes. Their own shadow study admitted that from Autumn to
Spring after 2.30pm, there will be reduced sunlight. This is wholly
unjust and unacceptable and must be stopped.

The objections to this development must be heard and published so
everyone can see the terrible impact of this overdeveloped
overstation.

Please do not approve such a high rise building with such a large
width right next to my home at 308 Pitt Street, enough is enough!!!

It is unnecessary to build so close to Princeton Tower. There must be
at least 18 metres to 24 metres worth of building separation between
my home and the new building.

Please respect the privacy of adjoining owners who work hard for a
living and own apartments in the CBD. It is horrible to think that
another building so close can look into our living rooms and bedrooms.
At least make Sydney Metro's building 18metres to 24 metres away as
per the Apartment Design Guidelines 2F.

There is no housing shortage in Sydney CBD. Developers and real estate
agents are finding it tough to sell apartments so why do we need to
build more in a site where it will ruin the amenity for hundreds of
adjoining residents?

I must add that we are also living near so many heritage listed items
such as the Sydney Water Board, former Speedwell house, City Fire
Station and Edinburgh Castle hotel.

The site is surrounded in heritage and sites of cultural interest. We
must protect our heritage by saying no to the current design of this
application until the above issues are addressed and properly dealt
with.

I object to the design of the application by Sydney Metro.

The government is using the Sydney Metro project as an excuse to
overdevelop land and air above planned stations.

This is exactly what happened earlier this year when the government
gave Sydney Metro special developer status and approved non-compliant
towers above the Martin Place station.

I STRONGLY believe that the planning approval for two towers over the
Pitt Street station should not be approved. The towers will introduce
significant shadowing from Autumn to Spring on Hyde Park in breach of
the LEP sun access plane designed to stop shadow creep on this
important public park from future CBD towers.

Alarmingly over a hundred homes in adjacent buildings will lose almost
all their winter sunlight.

This is an absolute disgrace. Sydney Metro should be ashamed at the
adverse impact they are leaving on the local community in respect of
this irresponsible overdevelopment.

The design of the overstation development in its current form should
be amended so that:

1. There are sufficient set backs

2. There is a sufficient separation of 18m-24m between Princeton Tower
and the overstation development (per Apartment Design Guidelines 2F)

3. More solar access for the residents at Princeton Tower instead of
what is contemplated in the current Solar Access Impact Study

4. There is less shadowing for the residents at Princeton Tower by
reducing the height and width of the proposed building so that it
complies with overshadowing requirements under Apartment Design
Guidelines 3B

Squeezing a large tower into a small space with insufficient setbacks
and insufficient separation between the neighbouring buildings is
reckless.

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

Dear Sir / Madam

Thank you for considering my below concerns regarding the proposed
development at 302 Pitt St.

My home is in unit 64 on Level 24 of 304-308 Pitt St (The Princeton),
and my apartment faces both East and North. As such, I currently enjoy
significant amenity from both sunlight and a city-wide view to the
North, which will be lost should the development proceed as planned.

Of general concern, is that documents describing the proposed
development significantly understate impact on my apartment as
detailed below, while there are further adverse effects seemingly not
considered in the available development documents. I am sure that
similarly negative impact will be experienced by all identically
orientated apartments in my building, comprising about one quarter of
residences. The same effects will impact my neighbors with apartments
on the direct North side of the building, so that considered together,
at least one half of residences will be badly affected, while another
quarter of residences facing West, will also have some loss of
amenity.

1) LOSS OF DIRECT SUNLIGHT AND EFFECT ON HEATING, LIGHTING,
ELECTRICITY USE, AND CARBON FOOTPRINT
The development will block all currently enjoyed Northern sunlight.
Current direct sunlight to my apartment permits minimum heating during
winter, with heaters only needed later in the day when existing
shadows are cast across my Northern windows. Direct sunlight also
reduces electricity use for lighting. The shadow cast by the proposed
development will require greatly increased electricity use for heating
and lighting, increasing the carbon foot print of my building at a
time that efforts should be directed towards reducing the use of
energy.

2) CURRENT DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENTS DO NOT CONSIDER LOSS OF INDIRECT
SCATTERED LIGHT, GREATLY UNDERESTIMATING IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT
in addition to direct sunlight (1 above), I currently enjoy
substantial illumination from indirect light scatter from buildings
and the sky to my North. My North-facing living room windows don't
have direct sunlight in the afternoon, but there is still enough light
scatter to cast a shadow. Even towards sunset, enough light is
scattered into the room to see quite well. As such, I currently
harvest scattered light from across much of the city, but the proposed
building would reduce this to what little light might find it's way
down the shadowed Southern side of the new construction.

The effect is that it would be very much darker. Because of this, the
limited shadow analysis in the current proposal, greatly understates
the impact of the new development for all apartments with light from
the North. Notably, proposal documents suggest that only 'some'
apartments in my building would be affected. In practice, all
apartments with Northern light, that is about 75% of apartments, will
be adversely affected by loss of both direct and indirect scattered
light.

3) LOSS OF A CITY VIEW WILL REDUCE MY ENJOYMENT AND SENSE OF HUMAN
CONNECTION
I gain daily pleasure from my Northern view of the city. One reason I
moved to the city from my previous home in the suburbs, is that I
enjoy the sense of anonymous connection and belonging, that comes from
hubbub of city life. Whether rising in the morning, or walking through
the door at the end of the day, it is a joy to look out my windows,
and see myself part of the living city. During day, the signs of
people going about their business are everywhere, while at night,
office and apartment lights wink on and off, patterning the darkness
with human activity. This is a significant enjoyment I would lose,
were that outlook lost to the proposed development.

4) INADEQUATE SEPARATION FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
In addition to concerns outlined above (1 to 3), the proposed
development places the wall of the new building exceedingly close to
my own apartment. This would minimize direct and indirect light entry,
to very low levels. There may also be a negative effect on privacy,
currently largely protected by the distance from other windows in
other buildings.

5) MACHINE NOISE FROM THE NEW DEVELOPMENT AND IMPACT ON VENTILATION
There is currently significant noise from air conditioning machinery
in adjacent buildings, but the current separation from those buildings
makes the impact bearable. Were similar air conditioning installed on
the lower levels of the proposed development, as seems to be currently
planned, the close proximity of the building to my own windows would
raise noise levels to seriously unpleasant levels.

This would likely not be sufficiently ameliorated by closing the
windows alone, while doing so would prevent me from exploiting the
afternoon sea-breeze for ventilation and cooling, necessitating use of
energy consumptive air-conditioning. With regard to this, the new
development would likely disrupt airflow, further impacting
ventilation of my home.

6) REDUCED LIVABILITY OF THE CITY - A POOR PRINCIPLE AND OUTCOME FOR
DEVELOPMENT
From the above, the current development proposal badly underestimates
the negative impact of the development, and will reduce overall
livability of the city for about 75% of residences in my building
alone.

This must be seen in context of further large developments for
residential apartments in the immediate area, where the impact of this
new large development cannot yet be properly assessed because there
are no current residents available to consider impacts and express
concern.

Given efforts to make the centre of Sydney more attractive for
business and residence, the excessive infringement on livability that
the proposed development imposes on my own building, as well as on
others near by, sets very poor precedent for Sydney development, and I
believe will have the ultimate effect of reducing interest in CBD
living and investment.

I do believe that a more enlightened and considerate approach to
development, that takes proper and thoughtful account of the impacts
on, and needs of established residents, is required for successful
long-term development of the CBD. The current proposal, falls well
short of that level of consideration.

RE: Sydney Metro City & Southwest - Pitts Street (South) Concept
Development application for Over Station Development - SSD 8876

I write to express my significant concerns and objection to the
proposed Sydney Metro City & Southwest - Pitts Street (South) Concept
DA - SSD 8876.

I am a resident in the adjacent building "the Princeton" located at
304-308 Pitt Street, Sydney. The proposed concept development which is
currently on exhibition is a gross over development and will impact
the living amenity of residents in the Princeton through the loss of
privacy and solar light access to living areas.

The Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirements ("SEAR") clearly
outline that the applicant was to address all Environmental Planning
Instruments ("EPI") including, but not limited to SEPP 65 - Design
Quality of Residential Flat Development and the Apartment Design Guide
("ADG"), Sydney LEP 2012 which is informed by the City of Sydney DCP
2012. Despite these clear instructions the applicant has conveniently
decided not to address the aforementioned EPI's or has concluded that
they simply will not comply. The SEAR's also outline in point 6
"Amenity" that the EIS shall "demonstrate the impacts of the proposal
on the amenity of surrounding residential development including
measures to minimise potential overshadowing, privacy and view
impacts". Whilst the impacts of the proposal on the amenity of
surrounding residential development has been demonstrated for Solar
Light access, the applicant has elected not to minimise the impact of
overshadowing or loss of privacy through reductions in the bulk of
building mass, or by increasing the separation between the proposed
development and existing residential development to the suggested
18-24 metres as prescribed by the ADG for building heights over 9
storeys, and the 12-18 metres from levels 5 to 8.

The ADG's state that the separation requirements are a minimum, they
are not a set-back provision and as such the full minimum separation
distance should be enforced so as to achieve the objectives of good
urban form and amenity within existing and proposed apartments.

Apartment Design Guide - Non compliance

Having reviewed the proposed concept it is clear that the following
elements have not been addressed and hence render the concept proposal
non-compliant when assessed in terms of the ADG:

ADG 3B - Overshadowing of neighbouring properties is minimised during
mid-winter. The Solar access studies undertaken by the applicant show
that currently Princeton apartments have 62 out of 116 apartments
achieving 2 hours of solar access to 1sqm of living room area between
9am and 3pm on the 21st June. Should the proposed concept be approved
in its current form this will see an additional 57 apartments lose
their 2 hours of solar access to 1sqm of living room area, at the 21st
June, reducing solar compliance for Princeton to 5 apartments out of
116 apartments. Simply put only 4.3% of the apartments in Princeton
will receive the required solar access as asserted by the ADG causing
a significant impact to the amenity of the residents at Princeton.

Further the ADG's stipulates that a proposed building should NOT
reduce solar access to more than 20% of neighbouring properties. The
proposal clearly non-compliant with this criteria proposing to reduce
solar access by more than 95% to existing residents in the Princeton
who currently receive 2 hours of solar access to 1sqm of living area
as at 21st June.

ADG 2F - Building Separation. Minimum building separation for the
proposed concept plan should be 18-24 metres for all levels above
level 9 and 12-18 metres for levels 5 to 8. Given Princeton apartments
have north facing habitable rooms/balconies, 18 metres would be the
required building separation should no habitable rooms/balconies be
south facing on the proposed concept development, however if habitable
rooms/balconies are proposed on the south facing façade of the
proposed building separation should be increased to 24 metres. The
proposed separation of 12 metres at the higher level, and 3 metres at
the lower level of 5 to 8 is insufficient to provide adequate privacy
and amenity and would significantly impact residents in Princeton. The
3m metre and 12 metre separation would also be non complaint with ADG
3F.

City of Sydney DCP 2012 - Non Compliance

As illustrated above there are significant impacts on the Amenity of
Princeton residents in particular in respect of privacy and solar
access which have not been enhanced as required by clause 4.2.3 of the
City of Sydney DCP 2012, and loss of solar access required by clause
4.2.3.1 of the City of Sydney DCP 2012.

Heritage Impact

The proposed development significantly impacts the existing Edinburgh
Castle Hotel which is listed as a Heritage item on the City of Sydney
LEP 2012. The proposal will dwarf the current heritage site, as the
proposal does not propose any setbacks from the Edinburgh Castle Hotel
as required under the City of Sydney DCP 2012.

Hyde Park Overshadowing

It should be of significant concern that the concept proposal will in
fact add additional overshadowing of Hyde Park as outlined in the
applicant's own Shadow study. Further overshadowing of Hype Park
should not be permitted as this would not only constitute additional
non-compliance with the Sydney LEP 2012 and the sun access plane
limits as outlined in clause 6.17 but would also have a considerable
detrimental impact on public amenity enjoyed by thousands and the
historic War Memorial.

Given Pitt Street South OSD proposal does not fall into Category A or
B under the provision of 6.18 and 6.19, there should be no additional
overshadowing of Hyde Park.



Meeting Representatives Sydney Metro

The above concerns have been brought to the attention of the
representatives of the Sydney Metro in a meeting held on 4th September
2018 at Princeton apartments. Unfortunately our concerns were
dismissed by the applicants representatives simply saying that we
could not expect to maintain solar access and privacy when living in
the CBD despite planning controls in the City of Sydney DCP, ADG's and
the SEAR's suggesting that these issues were to be minimised as part
of any proposal. They further suggested that as our building was built
to the boundary they were not required to provide the full separation
as per the ADG's, which is incorrect given the objectives of the ADG's
and recent case law in Land & Environment Court decisions.

Consultation

It is extremely disappointing that the state government continuously
promotes community consultation however does not practice what it
preaches. Community consultation is not presenting the final plan for
which the community has not been consulted on to determine what is
important to us. Community consultation is engaging the residents and
stakeholders and working closely with them to determine the best
outcome for all. We are seeking the applicant (government authority)
to undertake more community consultation specifically with the
residents who's amenity through the loss of privacy and solar light
are currently most impacted by this proposal. This is what should have
taken place initially but never did.


I strongly object to the proposed concept Over Station development at
Pitt Street (South) and request the proposal be amended to comply with
planning controls and that certain elements of the south east portion
of the proposed development envelop be removed so as to increase solar
access to Princeton apartments. In addition to reduction in mass of
proposal, the envelope of the proposed building should adopt the
minimum separation requirements as per the ADG's so as to reduce the
significant impact on the amenity of Princeton apartments and their
residents through the significant loss of solar light access and
privacy. The reduction should also ensure that there is NO additional
overshadowing impact on Hyde Park and the area surrounding the war
memorial.

Please confirm receipt of this submission.

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.

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 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.