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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please listen to the objections and help us.

Enough is enough!

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

The reasons for my objection can be summarised as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,
Princeton Apartment Owner

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

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

SURROUNDING HERITAGE ITEMS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RESTRICTING SOLAR ACCESS TO HYDE PARK

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

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

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

THE BUILDING SEPARATION BETWEEN THE PROPOSAL AND PRINCETON APARTMENTS

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

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

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

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

LOSS OF SUNLIGHT FOR OWNERS AND OCCUPIERS AT PRINCETON APARTMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Shorten their proposed building

3. Increase the distance between the proposed building and Princeton

4. Reduce the footprint of their proposed building

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OVERSHADOWING & SOLAR ACCESS EFFECT ON PRINCETON

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


BUILDING SEPARATION AWAY FROM PRINCETON

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

* The minimum separation is:

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

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

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

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

* Inadequate separation increases the risk of fires spreading

* Reduced separation will result in increased acoustic impacts

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

LOSS OF VIEW

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

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

OVERSHADOWING OF HYDE PARK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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