I am an owner of an apartment at 308 Pitt Street and have huge concerns
about the overstation development at Pitt Street South.

It is unfair that Sydney Metro is trying to override planning
legislation and not follow planning guidelines in an attempt to
railroad (no pun intended) their application to overdevelop this small
site.

This is a reckless development which puts business first and people
second. This is a NO to Sydney Metro profiting whilst sacrificing the
amenity of its neighbours.

Another high rise structure in this pocket of the CBD will cause more
crowded streets, which will already be crowded from people getting on
and off this station.

Hyde Park is the only green space I and other CBD residents have in
the vicinity. Sydney Metro's application admits that it will increase
shadows for 6 months of the year. This is objectionable because it is
non-compliant with Sydney LEP 2012 and the sun access plane limits in
clause 6.17. An independent body should verify that their shadow study
is accurate.

I jog through this park 3 times a week for health reasons and would
hate to see additional overshadowing of Hyde Park. This sets a
dangerous precedent for other developers to overshadow our park.

Sydney Metro should make their building smaller to reduce
overshadowing to Hyde Park and protect any sunlight being removed from
the ANZAC war memorial.

I see many workers, visitors and local residents use this park and it
would be a terrible shame to ruin the amenity of the use of Hyde Park
just because Sydney Metro has chosen to build as many units as
possible on the site without moral regard to the impact of their
development.

I also object to the building being so close to Princeton because
Sydney Metro has not complied with Part 2F of the Apartment Design
Guidelines.

The current proposal means that Sydney Metro's building will be a mere
stone's throw away. The minimum separation under the ADG is between 18
metres and 24 metres. Sydney Metro has failed to adhere to this
separation requirement. Having another building so close to my home
will mean more noise, less privacy and less enjoyment of my home.

I also object to the overdevelopment because it does not follow
section 3B of the Apartment Design Guidelines.

According to the Solar Access Impact from Sydney Metro, if the
development is approved 5 out of 116 apartments (4.3%) will receive
the required access to direct sun as per the Apartment Design
Guidelines.

This is a horrible outcome and highly unacceptable. Sydney Metro could
easily minimise the overshadowing effect on my home by amending its
application so that it complies with chapter 3B of the Apartment
Design Guidelines.

Like the majority of people, I love living in an apartment which
receives beautiful natural light. It makes me happy and upbeat and
gives me a sense of belonging in this beautiful. If Sydney Metro's
application proceeds in its current form, 57 homes at Princeton will
be horribly affected according to its Solar Access Impact report.

Sydney Metro admits that there will be a 49% reduction of apartments
with sun exposure (per 1m2 of living room area between 9am to 3pm on
21 June).

The solar access effect on our building is a big one because under the
Apartment Design Guidelines, a proposed building should not lessen
solar access to more than 20% of neighbouring properties.

If you take Princeton alone as a building, Sydney Metro's plan is more
than double the maximum allowed reduction of solar access. This should
not be allowed.

Some of the residents at Princeton would like to install solar panels
to generate power but this is not even an option if Sydney Metro
decreases the sunlight from so many of our apartments.

Sydney Metro proposes 34 new car spots. There are currently no car
spaces in structures being demolished therefore this will add to
traffic congestion on Pitt Street which is already heavily congested.

Lastly many Princeton residents met with Sydney Metro's
representatives as part of the applicant's requirement under the
Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirements to engage with the
surrounding residents.

Many of my neighbours reported that Sydney Metro was not helpful in
allaying many of our fears. This makes me feel like Sydney Metro is
not looking to improve the amenity for it's neighbours.

Their sole aim in this overdevelopment of the overstation at Pitt
Street South is to cram as much into this small site in order to sell
it to a developer who will exploit the site even more.

As a resident of Princeton apartments the building immediately adjacent
to the Pitt St south over station development I have significant
concerns over the development application in its current form.
I feel that this is a gross overdevelopment and will cause a negative
impact not only on my living conditions but also on other properties
in the area.
I will be losing solar light in some of my living area and
particularly in the winter months will mean I have to use artificial
lighting and heating which will not only increase my electricity costs
but will also impact the environment by increasing my carbon
footprint.
I also feel that the development does not comply with the requirement
for a minimum separation between the Princeton and the new development
which will impact on my privacy.
A 3 metre seperation is definitely non compliant with Sydney local
environmental plan of 2012.
I think others have brought to your attention the overshadowing of
Hyde Park not to mention the effects on heritage buildings of the
Edinburgh Castle Hotel, Castlereagh St fire station and the Sydney
Water board Building.
I hope you will take all this into consideration when approving this
development as it stands at the moment.
I do not object to the actual development but only request that
changes are made to make it compliant and also consider how the
development as it stands now will effect residents in other properties
and public amenities

I do not agree and object to the Pitt Street Over Station Development.

Any idiot can see that it is an over development of a very small site.

Instead of looking out my bedroom and living room window and seeing a
beautiful city view, Sydney Metro proposes to build a wall 12 metres
away from my window. How ridiculous and uncaring of this government
body to do this?

Sydney Metro's application needs to be sent back to the drawing board
so that they can come up with a plan that complies with the planning
standards and laws that it has admitted that it is in breach of.

Due to the unacceptable significant adverse impacts it will have on me
as an owner living at Princeton Tower and the other 120 or so other
apartments in this apartment block, Sydney Metro MUST be made to
revise its plans so that it complies with acceptable planning
guidelines.

Sydney Metro must be made to:

- Comply with the Hyde Park West Sun Access Plane under the Sydney LEP
2012. This government body should be doing its utmost to protect Hyde
Park from further overshadowing. Sydney Metro must reduce the bulk of
the proposed building so that it complies with the solar access
requirements in Sydney LEP 2012.

- Comply with its very own Over Station Development Design Guidelines
by minimising privacy and solar access impacts on surrounding
residential uses. This can be achieved if Sydney Metro were to
increase building separation to 18m to 24m in accordance with 2F of
the Apartment Design Guidelines. The current proposal of 12m building
separation is wholly unacceptable.

Until Sydney Metro offers up an alternative solution to address the
above, this application must not proceed. It would be unfair and
unjust to allow a government body to blatantly throw away the rule
book for the sake of profit at the expense of hard working tax payers
money living in the building next door.

I say NO to this proposal because a government body like Sydney Metro
should not be seen to to undermine planning controls or environmental
protections and guidelines. This is exactly what the current proposal
intends to do and therefore must be STOPPED.

I strongly OBJECT to the planned over station development at Pitt Street
South Metro Station.

The proposal cannot proceed because it is not compliant with planning
standards and instruments.

Accepting the proposal in its current form would result in a gross
overdevelopment of the site with unacceptable impacts to the
neighbouring building known as Princeton Tower at 308 Pitt Street.

The proposal has to be rejected because it allows further shadowing of
Hyde Park and is not compliant with the Hyde Park West Sun Access Plan
and setback requirements contained in the Sydney LEP 2012. If we allow
precedents like this to continue (especially if they are in the
vicinity of the Hyde Park) this may open up the floodgates for more
developers to use this project as consent to build high buildings
despite increasing the shadow creep at Hyde Park during the winter sun
months. This is completely unacceptable as it ruins the amenity of the
many residents that live in the area.

The proposal has to be rejected because is not compliant with the Over
Station Development Design Guidelines. The proposal fails to minimise
privacy and solar access impacts on surrounding residential uses. The
Environmental Impact Statement does not discuss in detail the loss of
privacy caused to residents in the neighbouring tower. The
Environmental Impact Statement advises residents in the neighbouring
tower to use screens to protect privacy. Why should we be made to use
screens to cover up our windows in our own homes for the sake of
privacy? Why should our quality of life be sacrificed by having to use
screens to block out prying eyes? The proposal is already taking away
a large proportion of our sunlight as mentioned in Sydney Metro's
Solar Access Studies, do they also expect us to shield our entire home
so that we live the majority of our lives in darkness? Humans need
sunlight for good health, mood and well being.

The proposal needs to be rejected because it is not compliant with the
Apartment Design Guidelines. Sydney Metro proposes to leave 12 metres
between Princeton and its development. This is not enough space
because according to the building separation requirements under the
Apartment Design Guidelines, at least 18 - 24 metres is required.

Princeton Tower was built to the very edge of the boundary because our
tower was constructed in the mid 90s before the Apartment Design
Guidelines were in force. The new development must be built at least
18 - 24 metres away from the exterior wall of our building so that it
is compliant with sound planning principles, guidelines and
legislation.

As an owner of an apartment in the neighbouring residential apartment
block, the Princeton and as a Sydney citizen walking daily through
Hyde Park, I object to the application due to:
1) undue huge overshadowing of neighbouring residential buildings
2) undue huge overshadowing of neighbouring area in Hyde Park
3) objectionable/illegal closeness to Princeton
4) prevents the possibility to create a Solar Panel Power Wall, which
could act as a model

To whom it may concern,

I wish to object to the Sydney Metro Pitt St (South) Over Station
Development Concept DA - SSD 8876.

As a Princeton owner, I strongly object to the development because it
will significantly affect my and my family's living amenity for the
below three reasons:


1. ADG-2F Building Separation

According to the proposed plans, the proposed development will be
between 3-3.5m and 12m from the Princeton.

It appears that residents of the Princeton's low/mid-rise floors that
have north facing living areas and are below RL71.0 will have a
significantly impacted living amenity, both from a visual perspective
and also potentially from an aural perspective. This if proceeds will
impact my family significantly.

My wife and I attended the information session at the Primus Hotel on
30 August between 4pm and 7pm, and specifically asked how the Transfer
Slab at RL58.25 relates to our Princeton apartment (on level 17), and
advised our concerns. I gave my name and email address and was told
that Sydney Metro planners would get back to me.

We repeated this question at the Information session with Sydney Metro
officials on Tuesday 4 September at 5:30pm. Again, the Sydney Metro
staff could not answer my question and we asked for a commitment as to
when we'd get an answer. Sydney Metro staff advised they'd have an
answer by Thursday 6 September. Again, this date passed with no
answer.

I cannot help but think that my family will be left with a development
that is built 3-3.5 metres from our living areas, which is a
significant impact to our privacy, our enjoyment of the cityscape, a
reduction in cooling summer breezes etc.

Furthermore, I also believe 9 metres is still too close for the higher
floors. I would have expected a development to be 18-24 metres from an
existing building with impacted living areas, as per development
guidelines.


2. ADG 3B - Solar Access

According to "Appendix M - Solar Access Impact On Adjacent Properties"
of the development's lodged documents, around 50% of Princeton
Apartments stand to be impacted by reduced solar access.

Specifically, my family's apartment (Apartment 35 Level 17) stands to
to be significantly impacted by reduced solar access. According to the
document's Comparison table, our living room and both bedrooms will
lose solar access. This significantly affects my family's emotional
disposition, our power bills and our standard of living. I feel we'll
feel depressed having such little sunlight greet us each day.

Financially, it will also result in increased heating and lighting
costs in Winter, and increased carbon emissions.

Disappointingly, I see very little modelling from Sydney Metro on
various set-backs, building shapes and building heights that would
offer alternatives to minimise the solar impact. I note that at
Central Park in Broadway there are some intuitive plan to reflect
light between buildings - none of which are considered here.


3. General Impact to city amenity

At such a large height, the proposed development will overshadow Hyde
Park (particularly the Memorial), and neighbouring streets and
buildings. It will cause lost views to Princeton, Century Towers,
Telstra Plaza, Greenland residents, yet as city residents in high
density environments it's often our view that calms our soul and
provides us a quality of living.

I foresee Pitt St becoming even busier than it currently is, with
residents of the proposed development having all of their mail,
rubbish, deliveries and themselves transported along Pitt St. Already
I see the Fire Brigade struggle up Pitt St in peak hours. I fear if we
add thousands of more people the situation will only get worse.

There is already a hive of activity in the immediate vicinity with the
Greenland development, Castle Residences and many others on Bathurst
St, with Lumiere, Princeton and Century Towers creating a significant
density of residential blocks already.

I urge this go to an Independent development authority for review.

Regards,

Peter Jaques

To whom it may concern,



I wish to object to the Sydney Metro Pitt St (South) Over Station
Development Concept DA - SSD 8876.



As a Princeton owner/investor since 2008, I strongly object to the
development.



I believe the Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEAR)
Environmental Planning Instruments (EPI) called on the development to
comply with:



SEPP 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

Apartment Design Guide, Sydney LEP 2012 which is informed by the City
of Sydney DCP 2012



However the development fails both and it appears the developer hasn't
truly attempted to comply.



In particular I object for the following reasons:



ADG 3B - Overshadowing of neighbouring properties is minimised during
mid-winter

As the owner of Apartment 35 on Level 17 of the Princeton, it's clear
in the Development Application that my apartment will lose solar
access to the living areas. This is unacceptable to my tenants and I
wouldn't have bought the apartment if I had have known there could be
a building approved that would eliminate my apartment's solar access.



What is disheartening is that it doesn't appear that Sydney Metro have
modelled different design envelopes so as to minimise the impact to
Princeton residents.



ADG 2F - Building Separation

As the owner of Apartment 35 on Level 17 of the Princeton, it appears
the proposed development will be 3 metres from my apartment. Even if I
was the owner of a higher floor and subject to 9 metres from the
development I would object because I believe that approval should only
be given if they are 24 metres from the Princeton, however 3 metres is
absolutely unacceptable. It would result in a severely impacted
amenity to the residents of my apartment.



Again, there's no way I would have bought the apartment if had have
known there could be a building 3 metres from my apartment's living
areas and bedrooms.



Other

Residents of the Princeton strata committee have been having initial
discussions about solar panels on the north wall. The proposed
development would eliminate this option, preventing the residents from
accessing cheap power and reduced carbon impact.



I urge this go to an Independent development authority for review.



Regards,

Audrey Tam

Dear Planning Authorities,



Re: Concept DA - SSD 8876.



I strongly object to the Sydney Metro Pitt St (South) Over Station
Development. I have owned my apartment at Princeton since 2006.
Throughout this time I have enjoyed the solar access my living rooms
have, the distance between my living room and my neighbours and it's
the impact to these amenities that I strongly object to, on behalf of
my family and I.



Solar Access -
Being 11 floors from the ground, my family's apartment will be
significantly impacted by reduced solar access should this development
proceed. According to the Development Application, our living room and
both bedrooms will lose solar access. This will result in us being in
darkness throughout the year. It has the opportunity to create health
problems for my family, will increase our power bills and will
generally reduce the liveability of the apartment. When living in an
apartment with no terrace and no backyard, sunshine is one of the few
opportunities we have to connect with nature. This development
proposal takes this away from us.



I am not against development. I feel this could be mitigated somewhat
should there be greater building separation and a small building
enveloped employed. I don't believe Sydney Metro are offering
different models that could minimise the impact especially when the
proposed building envelop is proposing the maximum impact on our
building.



Building Separation -
I attended the information session at the Primus Hotel on 30 August
with my husband, and asked how the proposed building separation maps
to our Princeton apartment.

My husband gave his name and email address and was told that Sydney
Metro planners would get back to us.



We repeated this question at the Information session with Sydney Metro
officials on Tuesday 4 September at the Princeton. Again, the Sydney
Metro staff could not answer our question but to date they haven't
responded despite committing to respond twice with no answers. Given
submissions close September 12 this lack of reply is unacceptable.



However, given the floor my family and I are on (11 floors from the
ground) I believe this corresponds to the Transfer Slab and terrace
area of the proposed development which will be around 3 metres from
our 2 bedrooms. As I value our privacy, this effectively means I'll
never feel comfortable opening my blinds. As a result I'll feel
somewhat trapped/enclosed in the apartment each day. Surely it's not
appropriate that approval be given for any less than 18-24 metres from
our living area.



Similarly for my neighbours on the high rise floors, I also believe 9
metres is still too close. I would have expected a development of this
size be 18-24 metres from an existing residential building.



General thoughts -
When I'm not at home or work, I enjoy walking my dog through Hyde Park
in the sunshine however according to the plans the proposed
development will overshadow Hyde Park (including the War Memorial),
and neighbouring streets and buildings. I find it unacceptable that
not only does the development intend to block the solar access of my
living room and bedrooms but also block the solar access of my local
park.



The development will also block the northern view of the city from my
bedrooms. This is a view that brings me peace and serenity each
morning.



Lastly, I'm also concerned about general overcrowding in the area.
Obviously the metro station will bring increased traffic to the area,
so to add all the deliveries, mail, coming and going of residential or
office workers with a building of the proposed scale will surely
result in this being one of the highest density areas in all of
Sydney. However Pitt St is already very busy and I feel can't
accommodate the influx.



I urge you to please reject the application as is, and enforce
building separation of 18-24 metres so we can retain some peace and
solar access.



Regards,

Jessie Teng Jaques

I say NO to the proposed Sydney Metro City & Southwest - Pitts Street
(South) Concept DA - SSD 8876.

This development application must be independently reviewed because of
the numerous significant adverse impacts it will have to hundreds of
neighbouring homes.

I own a unit in the Princeton building located immediately next door
at 308 Pitt Street, Sydney.

The Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirements require Sydney
Metro to address:

- All Environmental Planning Instruments
- State Environmental Planning Policy 65
- The Apartment Design Guidelines; and
- The Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012

In addressing many of the above issues, Sydney Metro has simply said
it will not comply.

This unacceptable response requires further scrutiny so that Sydney
Metro can be held accountable for their lack of compliance.

SEARs point 6 "Amenity" requires Sydney Metro to:

"demonstrate the impacts of the proposal on the amenity of surrounding
residential development including measures to minimise potential
overshadowing, privacy and view impacts."

Sydney Metro has not minimised the impact of overshadowing or loss of
privacy. This could be achieved if Sydney Metro was made to change
their design to reduce their
bulk of building mass and by increasing the separation between the
over station building and the Princeton Building.

Sydney Metro has failed to ensure 18-24 metres separation between the
over station building and the Princeton Building. This means Sydney
Metro has not complied with Apartment Design Guidelines 2F.

Failing to ensure 18-24 metres separation will drastically have a
terrible impact on the amenity and enjoyment of my home. This means
that my family and I will lose privacy as people will be able to look
directly into my apartment.

Many of the families living at Princeton will have their privacy
violated because the overstation development will result in many of
the bedroom windows and living room windows being looked into by
strangers.

My amenity, my view and enjoyment of my home can be improved if Sydney
Metro was made to comply with Apartment Design Guidelines 2F.

Sydney Metro has also failed to comply with Apartment Design Guideline
3B. This means that I will lose a substantial amount of sunlight due
to overshadowing as outlined in Sydney Metro's Solar Access Study.

Sydney Metro has admitted that currently Princeton apartments has 62
out of 116 apartments achieving 2 hours of solar access between 9am
and 3pm on the 21st June.

IF SYDNEY METRO'S APPLICATION PROCEEDS, AN ADDITIONAL 57 APARTMENTS
WILL LOSE THEIR TWO HOURS OF SOLAR ACCESS. THIS IS A DISGUSTING AND
AVOIDABLE RESULT.

According to Sydney Metro's Solar Access Study, if Sydney Metro's
application proceeds only 5 apartments out of 116 apartments of
Princeton Tower will receive the required solar access as required by
the Apartment Design Guidelines.

This will cause a substantial DETRIMENTAL impact to the amenity of the
vast majority of the residents living in my building.

AS ADMITTED IN SYDNEY METRO'S SHADOW STUDY, IF THIS APPLICATION
PROCEEDS, IT WILL CAUSE FURTHER OVERSHADOWING TO HYDE PARK. THIS IS A
BREACH OF THE SUN ACCESS PLANE LIMITS CONTAINED IN THE SYDNEY LOCAL
ENVIRONMENT PLAN 2012.

It is disgusting and vile that a government entity could be
responsible for not only reducing amenity for all members of the
public that use Hyde Park but also for casting a shadow over the ANZAC
War Memorial at Hyde Park. Where is Sydney Metro's respect for those
that have fallen in war to protect our country?

I am saddened and upset thinking about the adverse impacts the
overdeveloped overstation structure will have on my family, my
building and the families of the neighbours in my building.

All 116 units will suffer some form of loss of amenity, view or
privacy as a result of Sydney Metro's focus on squeezing as much
profit out as possible from their application. Since when did Sydney
Metro start acting like greedy developers? They should be setting an
example.

I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION.

I live at 308 Pitt Street which is a 42 level residential tower
immediately next door to Sydney Metro's proposed development.

Whilst I welcome the transportation improvements that Sydney Metro
will bring to NSW, I do not agree with the overstation development in
its current form as proposed by Sydney Metro.

Due to the importance of this project it is imperative that the Sydney
Metro Plans are independently reviewed and assessed because there are
several valid grounds for objection to their application as outlined
below.

1. Insufficient set backs proposed by Sydney Metro

2. Insufficient separation between Princeton and the overstation
development by Sydney Metro as required under the Apartment Design
Guidelines 2F

3. Loss of solar access for the residents at Princeton

4. Increased shadowing for the residents at Princeton and non
compliance with overshadowing requirements under the Apartment Design
Guidelines 3B

5. Loss of views for the residents at Princeton

6. General loss of amenity for the residents at Princeton

7. Increased traffic congestion and pedestrian traffic

The weaselly way in which Sydney Metro have downplayed many of their
responses to non-compliance has truly angered and upset me.

The government should be setting an example on following guidelines
and complying with legislation. Over developing the site and cramming
a large tower into a small space with insufficient setbacks and
insufficient separation between the neighbouring buildings is reckless
and irresponsible.

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