Dear Sir/Madam

I am putting forward a submission according to the over development
and high rise plus historic buildings is under threat for demolition.

The metro station for Pitt St South under SSD_8876 the historic facade
should be retain. It shows it significance.

It is disappointing that the historic facade for Pitt St North under
SSD_8875 sadly got demolished it was one its best known. It just shows
that there a contradiction that the facade has no values. It would
help in care of interest to help retains for heritage.

See attached pics

With such a significant to the community and we cannot afford to loose
it. With the massive high rise buildings that don't blend in. It would
be the most tragic to create more congestion.

For redevelopment it should only stick to what is essential and its
limitation. It requires careful planing. Leave out what is best known.
You must consider the long-term effect to the community that will have
devastated impact. There needs to be a feasibility study under EIS
Environment Impact Statement. Help to be sustainable for better future
to live with harmony.


To have the most inspiring atmosphere. There is no way this should
face demolition to its best known iconic buildings because it is
irreplaceable as its character. With the re-development it will spoil
the atmosphere. You need to be sympathetic to how it has to be
handled. With re-development it need to be kept to a minimum.

You must consider to help be sustainable especially create more
greenery vegetation and parklands spaces. Need to focus more on public
transport, walkways and cycleways. Need to stop unnecessary car uses.
I agree that metro rail is a practical way to go. I needs careful
planning. I think it should be compatible for double deck carriages as
well as the single deck to traverse the metro line.

We had so many sad losses over the years now missing significant
buildings.
The Sydney region already has a high level of medium density
development and three major high rise hubs in surrounded suburban area
these days. But government demands more.
Some of what should be proposed

* According to the meeting August 21 at the Epping Civic Trust
announced that a lot more high rise towers are proposed and the
temporary railway closure Chatswood to Epping replacement buses. Help
sustainability plus reduce emission.
* They will loom over parts making a sunless overshadow zone.
* The stark unreality is that unless our community acts it will not
stop with current proposals.
* A 60 storey maxi tower and 38 storey tower are proposed for in a lot
of surrounding area that will not be able to handle the situation .
* A lot more massive towers are proposed that can't go on like this.
Once the 50 - 60 storey tower goes ahead there will be no stopping a
wall of development and pressure to redone the western side of the
Highway. So walls could become a canyon.

I look forward to your response.
Please notify me what action will be taken to handle all this?

see attachment

Fire + Rescue NSW will not at this time be providing comment on the
Sydney Metro Pitt Street North (SSD 8875) & South (SSD 8876) Over
Station Development - Notice of Exhibition as there is currently
insufficient information available regarding the fire safety and
emergency response management aspects of the project.

We request that we be given the opportunity to review and provide
comment once approvals have been granted and the project has
progressed such that there is more relevant detailed information
available.

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.

Because the height of the proposed development has increased, The
submission is currently with CASA, Airservices & The Federal
Department of Infrastructure & Regional Development & Cites for
reassessment.

To whom it may concern
My name is With Held 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

I would like to object to the proposed development of the Sydney Metro
Station at 302 Pitt Street.

I am an apartment owner - 3202/343 Pitt Street, Sydney 2000 - opposite
the proposed development.

I would like to clarify that I have not paid or received any
reportable political donations in the last twenty years.

My objection are -

1. The proposed development is excessively tall and bulky - 43 storeys
reaching to the same height as our 52 storey building. The proposed
construction will cause an over-densification of what is already a
densely populated residential area. The excessive height and massing
of the proposed development will harm it's surroundings by
overshadowing, overlooking and disrupt the local building character of
the area.

2. The over development of this site will rob light, direct sun,
breezes and views from our entire building. Pitt Street is one of the
narrower streets in the area and with such over development it is
becoming a dark canyon with little of the context, character or
streetscape that should instead be preserved and enhanced at all
costs.

3. All views to the east will be eliminated with the subsequent loss
of amenity and value to our property. This will be replaced by loss of
privacy from an apartment directly across a narrow street and the
increased traffic and noise that come with the proposed density.

The proposal as such should not be approved and a reduction in both
height and mass should be considered.