This proposal in its current form really angers and upsets me.

As an owner of a 3 bedroom unit on level 37 at the northern side of
Princeton Apartments, I strongly OBJECT to this proposal and believe
that all residents at Princeton Apartments (308 Pitt Street) have a
legitimate and very strong case to object to the concept scheme as
presented in the DA.

The following reasons are valid grounds for objection:

1. SHADOW IMPACTS ON HYDE PARK

Given the substantial overshadowing impacts on Hyde Park, an
independent assessment MUST be undertaken to ensure compliance with
all current legislation to ensure amenity of the oldest park in Sydney
is protected.

2. BUILDING SEPARATION DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE DESIGN CRITERIA AS
NOTED IN PART 2F OF THE APARTMENT DESIGN GUIDELINE (ADG).

The Applicant has proposed a separation distance between its project
and Princeton to be 12metres. This is not acceptable and not compliant
with 2F ADG.

The minimum separation distance for a building of nine storeys and
above is 18m between habitable and non-habitable and 24m between
habitable rooms and balconies.

Given that all windows on the northern side of Princeton consist of
bedrooms and living rooms, the minimum separation distance between
Princeton and the new project needs to be at least 18m to 24m to
comply with the Apartment Design Guidelines.

The Applicant has argued that this should be disregarded because
Princeton has been built to the edge of the building but this argument
is invalid because Princeton was constructed at a time where the
Apartment Design Guidelines were not in force.

The plans submitted in relation to the concept scheme application
propose a setback of 3m from the northern boundary of the Princeton
Apartments site up to RL71. This is disgusting. How can a resident be
expected to look out their bedroom or living room window and be a mere
3 metres away from its neighbouring building? There is also the
possibility of the lower levels facing a wall with noisy aircon, plant
and machinery.

Above RL71 the Applicant's concept plans show a setback of 12m to the
northern boundary of the Princeton Apartments site. The residential
floor plans indicate that there will be habitable rooms (bedrooms and
living rooms) with windows facing Princeton Apartments. The
architectural plans prepared for the application (Appendices D and E)
do not include RLs.

In a `greenfield' situation, the building separation controls in Part
2F of the ADG are shared between developments (i.e. - in the case
where a 12m building separation is required, each building would be
setback 6m from the common boundary for the first 4 storeys, with the
separation increasing as the buildings increased in height). The
Applicant's proposal states that the Applicant will only provide its
`share' of the building separation notwithstanding that the approved
Princeton Apartments building cannot provide a setback from its
northern boundary.

The ADG notes that the Separation between buildings contributes to the
urban form of an area and the amenity within apartments and open space
areas. It is also important to note that the ADG states that this a
separation requirement, not a setback provision. Therefore whether
there is an existing building any new development should comply with
the separation requirements. And regardless of whether the building is
used for commercial or residential purposes, the impacts on the
amenity of residents in the Princeton Apartments will be similar and
therefore the separation should be at the upper level (i.e. - assume
habitable to habitable) in all cases.

Several amenity issues arise (including loss of solar access) due to
the unacceptable proposed building separation.

3. HERITAGE

It does not look like the curtilages provided to the Fire Station and
Edinburgh Castle Hotel are adequate. I believe that the Applicant's
project will impacts the heritage significance of these two heritage
items as well as the former Speedwell House and the old Sydney
Waterboard Board building.

This is a terribly adverse income.

4. PRIVACY

I will suffer a loss of privacy due to reduction in building
separation. Provision of louvres or screens will not address loss of
privacy as these can be changed and/or removed. A minimum separation
is required and/or no windows on should be permitted on the southern
elevation of the Applicant's proposed building.

5. ACOUSTIC IMPACTS

The reduced separation will result in increased acoustic impacts.

The lack of detail regarding plant location and specifications on the
lower levels of the Applicant's proposal make it difficult to verify
whether their proposal complies with relevant Australian Standards and
the NSW Environment Protection Authority noise generation/emission
standards.

6. VIEW LOSS

There is a substantial narrowing of the view corridor to the north
east and a complete loss of view from all north facing apartments in
my building. Personally, this will impact the view from my bedroom
balcony, bedroom window, living room window, living room balcony and
the living room winter garden.

7. SUSTAINABILITY/RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSIDERATIONS

The Applicant's proposed development negate the opportunity for my
building to install solar panels as an alternative source of power
generation. This is in addition to the reduction of solar access and
daylight to all apartments to the northside of Princeton

The Applicant must increase the distance between their building and
ours and reduce their height.

8. VENTILATION

The reduced separation will reduce opportunities for Princeton
Apartments to access cooling north-easterly breezes which will result
in a greater reliance of artificial cooling.

This again reduces sustainability and amenity for my home.

The Applicant's proposed development is clearly inappropriate due to
the significant and adverse impacts outlined above.

This RECKLESS development must be modified to minimise and/or negate
any adverse impacts.

I live at Princeton Apartments at 308 Pitt Street and thoroughly object
to another high-rise horror in this corner of the city.

The Applicant's proposal is unremarkable, unfriendly and ugly and
shows no respect for the historical and cultural nature of this part
of our city.

The old Sydney Water Board Building is just across the road from the
Applicant's development, Edinburgh Castle hotel is immediately next
door and the Castlereagh Fire Station is immediately behind. The
Applicant's project is flanked on all sides with important historical
and significant cultural sites of interest.

I and the majority of the neighbours at Princeton will stand up to
protect this beautiful part of the city against the greed for money
and power of the government. The government should be setting an
example instead of acting like a greedy developer.

If these high-rises continue to be built, an unstoppable precedent is
set, and more high-rises will inevitably follow in this pocket of
Sydney CBD.

Each generation should make its mark. Our challenge is to make it
well, and not as an act of vandalism or sacrificing the community and
amenity of a neighbourhood.

This approval in its current state must not be granted because:

- it will result in increased traffic and pedestrian congestion

- loss of views for all owners and tenants living on the northern side
of our 42 level building

- gross insufficient setbacks proposed by Sydney Metro

- unfair and reckless insufficient separations between the Sydney
Metro proposed high rise tower and our 42 level building

- extreme increased shadowing caused to our 42 level building

- increased overshadowing to Hyde Park and the Anzac War Memorial

- Loss of sunlight and daylight into all of the apartments on the
north side of our 42 level building. Sydney Metro's DA states that
"some" of the apartments in our building will be affected.
This makes me angry because it downplays the reality of the situation
which is why I need to make a stand now to OBJECT to this development.

The Solar Access Studies taken by Sydney Metro show 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 the applicant's development proceeds, an additional 57 apartments
lose their 2 hours of solar access. This means that only 5 apartments
out of 116 apartments of the building I live in will receive the
required solar access as required by Apartment Design Guidelines 3B
(overshadowing requirements during mid winter). THIS IS COMPLETELY
UNACCEPTABLE.

To whom it may concern
My name is Loretta Ford and i am an owner in the Princeton apartment
building at 308 pitt st Sydney next door to where a proposed building
over the metro is planned to be built.
Although i am not opposed to a development on this site, i am opposed
to this one for the following reasons.,

1 Sunlight
in the proposed development there seems to be a dogleg or extension at
the south east part of the proposed building envelope that will
significantly reduce the sunlight i presently enjoy.
I would ask the consent authority to consider this and direct the
applicant to scrap this part of the building as it would have a
significant reduction of sunlight to my apartment and others in the
building

2 Proposed building to close to ours.
i have been told that the distance between my apartment and the
proposed building does not comply with current regs.
As there is no clear plan of what the proposed building will end up
i.e. residential or commercial,
i would like to request the consent authority make sure the maximum
distance part of the regulation between the buildings is directed so
that it covers any development that may occur in the future. I am told
that this distance is 24 meters.

3 Views
My views will be significantly reduced out of my 2 north facing
windows and to a lessor extent from my north east balcony.
i would ask you to consider this and implement my request in section 2
above to minimise this impact.The proposed dogleg as mentioned above
would also have a huge negative impact on my views and again request
this part of the proposed building be scrapped


All in all the proposed building will take away a lot of benefits that
i enjoy now.I believe that without the dogleg on the south east part
of the proposed building scapped, and a minimum distance of 24 meters
between our buildings be directed, would greatly minimise the impact
on my apartment and would not make much difference to any development
next door
Yours faithfully
Loretta Ford unit 112/ 308 Pitt st at the Princeton

I object to concept development on the grounds that it is a complete
overdevelopment the site.

The site currently has 4 smaller buildings, all of which have no
parking. The new development should be in keeping with the scale,
size, bulk and height of the existing buildings. It should not be an
excuse for the NSW Government to become a property developer and
massively build to the max. destroying the city for residents,
commuters, and workers.

I am very concerned at the loss of amenity and how badly this
development will affect the living conditions for residents now living
and soon to be living in the area.

I am a low to mid-level purchaser in the Greenland Centre on Bathurst
St, under construction, due for completion 2020.

I am so sad and angry when I look at the way 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. What are residents
going to look into? More apartments? Surely this will affect the
amenity of living in Greenland Centre and affect the mental health of
residents in the lower and mid levels of Greenland Centre.

Is there any Solar Analysis (App M) on Greenland Centre? Does the
height of the building affect Hyde Park or the ANZAC Memorial? Is
there any shadow analysis for the residents of the Greenland Centre?
It seems that these adverse effects have been completely overlooked or
forgotten.

Additionally, if you build to this scale and bulk, there are going to
be so many residents/workers/ pedestrians in this area, in and out of
the building, adding to the passengers in and out of the Metro
Station. There are going to be big problems crossing the street at the
intersection of Pitt St and Bathurst St. A greater likelihood of
vehicular/pedestrian accidents. Pedestrian safety is important. How
can the concept proposal deal with this issue if it increases so much
the scale and size from what is currently on the site? Again, this is
overdevelopment of the site and inconsistent with the character of the
site and area.

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. This should not be
a property play for the NSW Government. The area and site is not
suitable for such a large development. Make Sydney a liveable Sydney.
Do not destroy Sydney!

Thank you.

I wish to make this submission to object to the scale, height, and bulk
of the concept proposal.

I am a purchaser in the Greenland Centre on Bathurst St, under
construction, due for completion 2020.

My apartment is mid-level (there are no "4" in the building, so there
are no 4th, 14th, 24th, 34th, or any 40-49th floors, etc in the
building.

I am shocked by 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.
It is like looking at a solid brick wall. Any open views that the
lower levels had are now completely gone. This will affect the health
and sanity of residents in the lower and mid levels of Greenland
Centre.

There will be loss of sunlight for Greenland mid level apartments and
there is no analysis of this in the Solar Analysis (App M) so the
application is defective in this regard.

Setbacks are insufficient along Bathurst St and increased setbacks
could go some way to reducing the impacts of loss of solar and
increased shadowing.

A lower building height could also reduce the impact of the loss of
solar and increased shadowing, helping with the health of residents.

It should be noted that the 4 previous buildings on the site, now
being demolished, were much smaller in height and scale. The concept
proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.

There is also a failure to take into account the increased traffic
congestion that is going to happen. The 4 current buildings, now to be
demolished, had no parking. The concept development is adding to
parking in an already congested area of Sydney. The right turn from
Pitt St to Bathurst St, both streets being one way, funnels all
traffic from surrounding buildings and traffic coming up Pitt St and
the concept development adds to this traffic jam. There are also
immense traffic problems in the next block turning left from Pitt st
into Park St. The proposed parking and use of the building for concept
development will add to this traffic problem.

Not only this, 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 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, reduce the parking, and make it more in
kind with the scale and use of the existing buildings. Sydney will be
a better city.

Thank you.

I OBJECT to the Applicant's development.

Rome, Paris, Amsterdam and Barcelona have one thing in common. They do
not allow the construction of high-rise buildings in their cities'
historic heart. No one can argue their tourism or name has suffered in
consequence.

As they have a history, we have a history; as they have a culture, we
have a culture. It is for us to honour these things, to act as
guardians of our world, and to create a new world that draws and
builds on them.

The Applicant has admitted that their site is located within direct
and close proximity to a number of locally and state listed heritage
items in chapter 3.7 of "Concept State Significant Development
Application". These items must be respected and preserved.

This square mile of Sydney CBD holds the historical and cultural
remains of this outstanding and much-loved city.
The Applicant's proposed project does not show an iconic building, but
stock-standard corporate towers like thousands of others.

Now is the moment we decide what sort of city we want to live in; when
we decide whether we want a city which still retains and respects
history and culture, or whether we want to live in a sad and broken
town where the richness of the tapestry of the history of our city is
destroyed

The following heritage sites are immediately situated next door,
across the road from and behind the Applicant's proposed development.
To increase overshadowing on these significant sites of interest would
be a crime by the government.

1. FORMER "SYDNEY WATER" BUILDING (339-341 PITT ST) INCLUDING
INTERIORS & LIGHTWELL AT 115-119 BATHURST STREET, SYDNEY, NSW 2000
(STATE SIGNFICANCE)

This Former Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board Head Office
Building was built in 1939 and has state significance. The primary
significance of the site/building:
-Lies in its 116-year association with Sydney Water (and its
predecessors). As `Head Office' it has high significance in the
hierarchy of sites associated with Sydney Water.
-As a fine example of a late 1930s Art Deco Style commercial building.
The quality of finishes externally and internally is exceptional.
Examples of these finishes survive throughout the building.
-For its association with the architectural practice of H.E. Budden &
Mackey, who also designed Railway House and Transport House.
-For the former Ratings Chamber, now heavily modified, but still a
significant public chamber of the era.

2. EDINBURGH CASTLE HOTEL INCLUDING INTERIOR AT 294-294B Pitt Street,
Sydney, NSW 2000 (LOCAL SIGNFICANCE)

The Edinburgh Castle Hotel, a three storey hotel of Inter War Georgian
Style, is located on a prominent corner site. The building is socially
significant as it has remained a hotel of the same name on the same
site since the 1885's and prior to that on the diagonally opposite
corner. The building has historic significance for its embodiment of a
lengthy tradition of hotel trading on this site and for the continuity
of the hotel name from the 1860s.

It is an important building in the professional work of the noted
architectural partnership of Rudder and Grout. The building has
aesthetic significance as rare and outstanding example of a highly
intact original hotel exterior and interior of high quality design
with outstanding potential, due to its degree of integrity, to
continue in its original state. The building is significant for its
contribution as a landmark building to the corner of Pitt and Bathurst
Streets.

3. CITY OF SYDNEY FIRE STATION - BRIGADE HEADQUARTERS AT 211-217
CASTLEREAGH STREET, SYDNEY (LOCAL SIGNFICANCE)

This marvellous building was built in 1887 and has historical state
significance. It is a fine working example of a fire station in the
Victorian Free Classical style dating from the late 1880s and displays
an evolutionary process of the fire station design into the early
years of the twentieth century. The building is a rare example of
Victorian Industrial building incorporating innovative international
planning techniques and technology in fire station design from the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

4. ANZAC MEMORIAL, War Memorial Hyde Park, Hyde Park Memorial

The ANZAC Memorial, completed in 1934, is of historical significance
to the State for its embodiment of the collective grief of the people
of NSW at the loss of Australian servicemen and women since World War
I. It is associated with the landing of Australian troops at Gallipoli
on 25 April 1915, since fundraising for the memorial was established
on the first anniversary of the landing. It is also associated with
returned servicemen and their organisations including the RSL, which
lobbied for the erection of the monument and occupied offices within
it. The ANZAC Memorial is of State aesthetic significance as a great
work of public art which is arguably the finest expression of Art Deco
monumentality in Australia.

5. FORMER `SPEEDWELL HOUSE' INCLUDING INTERIORS AT 284-292 Pitt
Street, Sydney,

The former 'Speedwell House' was built in 1907 and has historical
significance as the home for over 50 years of Bennett and Wood, a
well-known Sydney supplier of motor cycles and parts which is still in
business today. It has aesthetic significance as a good and restrained
example of the Federation warehouse style, largely intact externally,
which achieves prominence because of its corner location, and exhibits
the typical curved corner with timber windows curved in plan.

6. Former `YMCA' building including interiors AT 323-331 Pitt Street,
Sydney,

The building at 323-327 Pitt Street was constructed in 1907 . It has
historic significance as the home of the YMCA movement in Sydney for
nearly 100 years, and for associations with a number of prominent
people, including founder Sir James Fairfax and architect Charles
Slatyer. It is aesthetically significant as a fine and elaborately
ornamented example of the Federation Free Style, and retains many fine
decorative elements of this period including moulded plaster, carved
stonework and coloured leadlight glass. The building has social
significance as a physical reminder of the activities and important
influence of the Young Men's Christian Association in Sydney, and an
exemplar of the typical development pattern of the time with retail
uses at street level.

7. Hyde Park, Sydney

Hyde Park has State significance as public land (the Australian
colony's first common) that has influenced the development of Sydney's
layout from as early as 1789, occupying approximately the same site
since that time. Proclaimed by Governor Macquarie, it is Australia's
oldest designated public parkland (1810), and has been continuously
used from 1788 for public open space, recreation, remembrance,
celebration and leisure. Hyde Park has contributed to the cultural
development of the city as a recreational space encapsulating the
principles of a Victorian parkland through the use of a hierarchy of
pathways and the strategic siting of monuments, statues and built
items. It is of State significance as a demonstration of the
international spread of the English public parks movement originating
in the mid-19th century.

For the above cultural and historical factors, I opposed this
development

We say NO to the Proposed Concept Over Station development at Pitt Street
(South).

The proposed development needs to be reduced and the building
separation must be increased to reduce the significant impact on the
amenity of the Princeton apartments next door.

We own a 3 bedroom unit at Princeton facing the northerly direction.

The large majority of the residents facing the building will
permanently suffer significant loss of sunlight and visual privacy.

Sun light and privacy are essential components which contribute to the
overall well being and mental health of human beings.

It is unfair that this development go ahead because it's not compliant
with the guidelines below:

1. Apartment Design Guideline 3B - Amenity should be preserved by
avoiding overshadowing of neighbouring properties in mid winter. A
minimum of 4 hours of solar access should be retained to solar
collectors on neighbouring buildings. The Solar Access Studies taken
by the Applicant show that if their proposal goes ahead, only 5
apartments out of the 116 apartments will get the required access to
sunlight as required under the ADG. Why would anyone allow the
residents of 111 apartments to be deprived of the requisite sunlight
under the ADG 3B? Why has no one questioned the applicant about this?

2. Apartment Design Guideline 2F - Amenity should be improved through
establishing minimum distances between apartments within the site. In
Chapter 8.4.2 of the Applicant's development application it states
Princeton windows facing the applicant's proposed development are
typically "secondary".

This is WRONG because it is not secondary windows we are talking
about. These large windows are our north facing windows which measure
180m (wide) x 137m (high) and are the ONLY north facing windows we
have (if you do not count the balconies as windows)

This means all 3 bedroom units facing the north side will lose a
minimum 5 sqm each of the amenity of these windows. We have a right to
maintain visual privacy to use our private spaces without being
overlooked. This can be assisted if the Applicant increased the
building separation to 18-24 metres as required by the Apartment
Design Guidelines

For the reasons above we STRONGLY OBJECT the development.

I live at Princeton, 308 Pitt Street which is immediately adjacent to the
Applicant's proposed development.

1. The proposals from Sydney Metro represent an over-development of
this small city-centre site. The proposals are designed to maximise
revenue, and hence to offset the development costs of the Metro. The
size of the tower is the largest which the developers can cram onto
the site.

2. A key issue is the proposed 12metre separation between the
buildings. This is much narrower than the 18-24 metre standard which
is set out in the Apartment Design Guidelines 2F. The Princeton Tower
at 308 Pitt Street is wholly a residential development (not offices,
etc), and so privacy is a very important factor. You would not wish to
re-create the mistakes made in neighbourhoods of Hong Kong where
residential buildings are so close together in places they are
regarded as high rise "slums." Would a public body want to risk this
mistake in Central Sydney?

3. As a public body accountable to the people, Sydney Metro should
have a special regard for the quality of life of Sydney residents, and
should therefore take full account of local concerns. The Sydney Metro
executive directors should have a public interest remit, and should
not seek to maximise profit at the expense of local residents. A key
question is "would any commercial developer dare to submit such a
damaging proposal?"

4. In the view of our professional advisers, the Princeton Tower has
considerable architectural merit, in many ways comparable to
outstanding high-rise buildings such as the Chrysler Building or the
"Flat Iron" Building in New York. A large building mass in such close
to proximity would substantially detract from its quality and impact.

5. The development should be rejected in its current form also because
of Sydney Metro's own shadow study which shows that its proposal would
cause additional overshadowing to Hyde Park. This is in contravention
to the Sydney LEP 2012 (clause 6.17) and the sun access plane limits.

6. An important planning fundamental is "The Precautionary Principle."
Allowing this development in its present form would be reckless and
damaging, and would be heavily criticised by future generations.

I own unit 5201 at Century Tower at 343 Pitt Street.

I do not agree to the over station development by the government
across the road. It has to be stopped.

I can let you have photos of the views from my unit to show how close
the Sydney Metro building will be to the building next door. There
will be a loss of amenity and sunlight if this building goes ahead.

There is too much over development already in this area with the
Greenlands development 233 Castlereagh St to my left and the Castle
Residences development at the corner of Bathurst and Castlereagh
Street. There are too many ultra high towers in Sydney and this is not
acceptable.

This pocket of the city will turn into a concrete jungle with the way
ultra high towers are shooting up. All pedestrians walking on the
streets will be walking in shadows.

Sydney Metro have not answered questions we have asked them about the
over development.

More skyscrapers mean more wind tunnels.

The government should not act like a developer. The government should
ensure that the development over the station is reasonable and not
over developed for the sake of profit.

Overshadowing Hyde Park with the Sydney Metro building is disgusting
because this is where a lot of CBD residents and tourists in Sydney go
to enjoy the outside environment.

It is not necessary to have even more residential units in the city.
Australia is not short on land so why are we overdeveloping in the
city?

Stop this over development now. Over development causes loss of
amenity and sunlight for so many residents.

My name is Yan Ping Chen. I own a unit next door at 308 Pitt Street with
my partner Qu Yuan Liu.

The over development next door by Sydney Metro has made us both very
angry.

We BOTH STRONGLY OBJECT because:

- the ANZAC War Memorial will be overshadowed which is disrespectful
to our military who fought and died for this country

- less sunlight for Hyde Park which means that the trees and plants
won't get the energy they need to grow and thrive. This is
disrespectful because Hyde park is the oldest public parkland in
Australia

- we wish to protect our building from losing the warmth of the
sunshine. our heating bills will be more expensive

- all units on the north side of our building will lose the majority
of their sunlight and all units on the south side will lose scattered
light

- my partner and I are older and feel that sunlight is important to
boost our immune system

- we wish to protect our privacy

- the building next door will be far too close to our building

- the government should not get away with over development because
that makes them no better than greedy developers