Independent Planning Commission - Pitt Street South Over Station Development

10.00am Monday 22 March 2021

Venue

This Public Meeting will be held remotely by electronic means. You can choose to present to the Panel by video-conference or telephone.

View Map

Contact Information

Casey Joshua

The NSW Department of Planning, Industry & Environment has now completed its evaluation of Sydney Metro Pitt Street South Over Station Development – Stage 2 (Detailed Design and Construction) (SSD 10376), in Sydney’s CBD, and provided it to the Independent Planning Commission NSW for determination.

The Commission has also received the Department’s assessment of Sydney Metro Pitt Street South Over Station Development (SSD 8876 MOD2) which seeks to modify the original concept approval to include ‘retail premises’ as a permitted land use and allow for protrusions beyond the approved building envelope.

Commissioners Chris Wilson (Panel Chair) and Professor Helen Lochhead have been appointed to determine both the SSD and modification applications. They will host a Public Meeting from 10am AEDT on Monday 22 March 2021 to hear directly from community members.

How to Have Your Say

If you wish to apply to speak at the electronic Public Meeting, you must complete the registration form on our website by no later than 5pm AEDT on Wednesday 17 March 2021.

How to watch and/or listen to the Meeting

This electronic Public Meeting will be live-streamed on the Commission’s website: www.ipcn.nsw.gov.au/livestream. If you have no or limited internet access, you’ll be able to listen to a live audio stream of proceedings by dialing 1800 093 431 and entering the following PIN: 21523511#

In the interests of openness and transparency, a transcript of the public meeting will also be published on the Commission’s website.

Written submissions

If you want to have your say on this project but are unable to participate in the Public Meeting, you can submit your comments in writing to the Commission up to one week (seven days) after the Public Meeting via email, post or our online portal: www.ipcn.nsw.gov.au/have-your-say. The deadline for written submissions is 5pm AEDT on Monday 29 March 2021.

Written comments are weighed the same as spoken presentations.

Meeting Documents

Public Meeting Notice Pitt Street South Over Station Development

22.02.2021 | pdf | 179.7 KB
PSSOSD Public Meeting Schedule

19.03.2021 | pdf | 93.7 KB
210322 PSSOSD Public Meeting transcript

23.03.2021 | pdf | 141.4 KB
PSSOSD Actual Public Meeting Schedule_v2

25.03.2021 | pdf | 93.3 KB

Statement from the Commission

210329 Statement from Commission Public Comment on Additional Material
29.03.2021 | pdf | 159.1 KB

Referral from the Department of Planning Industry and Environment

Assessment Report
18.02.2021 | pdf | 5.8 MB
Referral Letter
18.02.2021 | pdf | 37.9 KB
SSD Development Consent_SSD10376
18.02.2021 | pdf | 311.4 KB

Conflict of Interest Declaration

Conflicts Register Pitt St South
19.02.2021 | pdf | 66.3 KB

Site Inspection

210304_Site Inspection Notes_PSSOSD
08.03.2021 | pdf | 1.1 MB

Correspondence

Applicant

210311 OUT IPC to Applicant QoN PSSOSD

22.03.2021 | pdf | 93.0 KB
210318 IN Applicant to IPC Response to conditions

22.03.2021 | pdf | 135.6 KB
210318 IN Applicant to IPC Response to Internal Amenity question on notice

22.03.2021 | pdf | 59.9 MB
210318 IN Applicant to IPC Response to Solar Access question on notice

22.03.2021 | pdf | 469.2 KB
210322 OUT IPC to Applicant Public Meeting QoN PSSOSD

26.03.2021 | pdf | 96.4 KB
210326 IN Applicant to IPC Response to public meeting question on notice Chamfer

26.03.2021 | pdf | 1.9 MB
210326 IN Applicant to IPC Response to public meeting question on notice Internal Amenity

26.03.2021 | pdf | 2.1 MB
210326 IN Applicant to IPC Response to public meeting question on notice Solar Access

26.03.2021 | pdf | 1.4 MB

Department

210311 OUT IPC to DPIE QoN PSSOSD

18.03.2021 | pdf | 92.2 KB
210316 IN DPIE to IPC Response to QoN PSSOSD

18.03.2021 | pdf | 90.0 KB

Public Submissions

General Public Submissions

210323 Jorge Uzabeaga_Redacted

30.03.2021 | pdf | 283.9 KB

Comments on Additional Material

210329 Ellen Robertshaw
30.03.2021 | pdf | 892.3 KB
210331 CASA Response_Redacted
07.04.2021 | pdf | 158.9 KB
210331 Ellen Robertshaw_DFP Planning_Redacted
01.04.2021 | pdf | 699.8 KB
210331 John Freeman_Redacted
01.04.2021 | pdf | 39.5 KB
210401 Ben Shepherd 2_Redacted
06.04.2021 | pdf | 1.0 MB
210401 Ben Shepherd_Redacted
06.04.2021 | pdf | 1.0 MB
210401 C Manaroj_Redacted
06.04.2021 | pdf | 1.0 MB
210401 Clement Lee_Redacted
06.04.2021 | pdf | 633.4 KB
210401 H P_Redacted
06.04.2021 | pdf | 1.0 MB
210401 Shawn Li_Redacted
06.04.2021 | pdf | 1.0 MB
210401 Sunny Wu_Redacted
06.04.2021 | pdf | 562.8 KB
210401 Urbis on behalf of the proponent_Redacted
01.04.2021 | pdf | 302.0 KB
210401 Zheng_Redacted
06.04.2021 | pdf | 1.0 MB
210402 Christine Wang_Redacted
06.04.2021 | pdf | 1.0 MB
210402 Hans Zoellner_Redacted
06.04.2021 | pdf | 590.1 KB
210402 Hiro_Redacted
06.04.2021 | pdf | 1.0 MB
210402 Hok Chung Redacted
06.04.2021 | pdf | 734.6 KB
210402 Nigel Tee_Redacted
06.04.2021 | pdf | 1.0 MB
210402 Philip Au_Redacted
06.04.2021 | pdf | 1.0 MB
210402 Pin_Redacted
06.04.2021 | pdf | 522.2 KB
210402 Ray_Redacted
06.04.2021 | pdf | 566.5 KB
210402 S Frank Lee_Redacted
06.04.2021 | pdf | 1.1 MB
210402 S Hou_Redacted
06.04.2021 | pdf | 510.8 KB
210402 S Lu_Redacted
06.04.2021 | pdf | 1.0 MB
210402 Sean Henry_Redacted
06.04.2021 | pdf | 486.7 KB
210402 Sherry Yu_Redacted
06.04.2021 | pdf | 1.0 MB

Public Submissions

Name Redacted
Redacted | SUBMITTED: 28/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Name Redacted
NSW | SUBMITTED: 28/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Ben Shepherd
NSW | SUBMITTED: 24/03/2021

View comment

DOCX (165.3 KB)

Objection
Ben Shepherd
NSW | SUBMITTED: 29/03/2021

View comment

PDF (73.6 KB)
PDF (179.3 KB)

Objection
Name Redacted
NSW | SUBMITTED: 28/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Name Redacted
NSW | SUBMITTED: 28/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Name Redacted
Redacted | SUBMITTED: 29/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Name Redacted
NSW | SUBMITTED: 28/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Ellen Robertshaw
DFP Planning on behalf of Owners Corporation of Princeton Apartments
NSW | SUBMITTED: 22/03/2021

View comment

PDF (684.7 KB)
PDF (102.3 KB)

Objection
Frank N. Lee
Redacted | SUBMITTED: 28/03/2021

View comment

JPG (943.0 KB)
JPG (807.4 KB)

Objection
Name Redacted
NSW | SUBMITTED: 28/03/2021

View comment

Objection
J Cui
NSW | SUBMITTED: 28/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Name Redacted
NSW | SUBMITTED: 28/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Name Redacted
NSW | SUBMITTED: 28/03/2021

View comment

Objection
jj wong
Redacted | SUBMITTED: 26/03/2021

View comment

Support
Name Redacted
Redacted | SUBMITTED: 28/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Name Redacted
NSW | SUBMITTED: 29/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Juli Byfield
Redacted | SUBMITTED: 13/03/2021

View comment

Support
K Lay
NSW | SUBMITTED: 28/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Name Redacted
Redacted | SUBMITTED: 29/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Name Redacted
NSW | SUBMITTED: 28/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Name Redacted
NSW | SUBMITTED: 28/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Name Redacted
Redacted | SUBMITTED: 28/03/2021

View comment

PDF (568.1 KB)

Objection
Name Redacted
Redacted | SUBMITTED: 29/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Nigel S
NSW | SUBMITTED: 28/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Name Redacted
Redacted | SUBMITTED: 29/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Name Redacted
NSW | SUBMITTED: 29/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Name Redacted
Redacted | SUBMITTED: 29/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Name Redacted
Redacted | SUBMITTED: 29/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Q Liu
NSW | SUBMITTED: 28/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Name Redacted
NSW | SUBMITTED: 28/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Name Redacted
Redacted | SUBMITTED: 29/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Name Redacted
Redacted | SUBMITTED: 29/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Name Redacted
NSW | SUBMITTED: 28/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Name Redacted
Redacted | SUBMITTED: 29/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Name Redacted
Redacted | SUBMITTED: 28/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Name Redacted
NSW | SUBMITTED: 28/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Name Redacted
Redacted | SUBMITTED: 29/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Name Redacted
NSW | SUBMITTED: 28/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Name Redacted
NSW | SUBMITTED: 28/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Name Redacted
Redacted | SUBMITTED: 29/03/2021

View comment

Objection
X Su
NSW | SUBMITTED: 28/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Name Redacted
Redacted | SUBMITTED: 28/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Name Redacted
Redacted | SUBMITTED: 29/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Y Zong
NSW | SUBMITTED: 28/03/2021

View comment

Objection
Name Redacted
Redacted | SUBMITTED: 29/03/2021

View comment

Objection

1. My wife and I are owners and residents of Princeton Apartments. We have resided in this apartment for the last 7 years. 2. We strongly object to the overshadowing and loss of solar access that we will suffer as a result of the OSD, if approved as planned, particularly as it is in breach of the DA Conditions. 3. Our apartment faces east with our living room on the north side. The living room has two windows facing north which lets in the sunlight. These living room windows face the OSD development. Attached are photos of the sun we currently get through our living room windows. We also reside on a lower floor in Princeton which means that (being lower and with our living room on the north side) our apartment will be significantly and adversely affected by the OSD development. 4. Our understanding is that the OSD building envelope was approved subject to certain conditions including conditions related to solar impacts to the Princeton Apartments such as Conditions B3(e) and B3(h): B3. The detailed development application shall address the following built form considerations: ... (e) a varied setback from the Pitt Street boundary of the site, with the articulation of built forms be designed to minimise solar impacts to the living rooms of Princeton Apartments ... (h) for a residential scheme, achieve compliance with the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and the accompanying Apartment Design Guide 5. As we read the plans, there is a loss of solar access to about 57 apartments in Princeton Apartments (these apartments currently receive the minimum 2 hours of sun into their livings room during mid-winter). 6. The minor design changes proposed by the developer have not made any substantial improvement to the overshadowing and loss of solar access that will be suffered by Princeton residents. 7. Despite the conditions imposed by the Planning Minister, the proposed design of the OSD does not comply with Condition B3 (h) and the ADG related to building separation and solar access for Princeton Apartments and should not be approved until it complies. 8. It is outrageous for the developer to try to avoid the Conditions in the DA by saying that what the developer has designed is “reasonable” or for the Planning Department to accept this. It makes a mockery of the DA and its Conditions such as the provisions of Condition B3(h) and the ADG. For very good reasons (including mental health and living amenity), there is a benchmark that the planned development must achieve in before it can be approved. 9. What is required is that revised plans with changes such as an increase in the building separation, be prepared in order to reduce overshadowing and improve the solar access outcomes for Princeton residents. These will be minor, but long lasting, changes to the OSD which must be made for the health, amenity and lives of the residents of the Princeton Apartments. 10. There are also statements in the submissions by the developer (please be reminded that the developer is building for the benefit of an Ontario Pension Fund whose members have no connection with Sydney and that profits will be taken offshore) that changes would make the development unviable. This is a bland statement without any supporting evidence, and we would challenge the developer to provide evidence to prove this point. We do not believe the changes required by 3e(h) and ADG would make this a marginal development. 11. The developer is trying to fool everyone for the benefit of an overseas pension fund. Please require the OSD to comply with the Conditions set when the building envelope was approved. Thank you.

I strongly object to the design of the proposed over station development. The applicant does not appear to have met the requirements of the stage 1 concept approval. The development will introduce significant shadowing on the Princeton building and Hyde Park in breach of Apartment Design Guidelines and environmental requirements. Alarmingly 48 people’s apartments in Princeton will lose their required access to light. Each one of those apartments represents a home to families that will be put in darkness by this development. This in itself raises mental health issues at a time were these issues are under close scrutiny. This is an absolute disgrace. The applicant should be ashamed at the adverse impact they are leaving on the local community in respect of this irresponsible overdevelopment. The design should be amended so that: 1. There are sufficient set backs; 2. There is a sufficient separation of 24m between Princeton (per Apartment Design Guidelines 2F); 3. More solar access for the residents at Princeton; 4. Less shadowing for the residents at Princeton by reducing the height and width of the proposed building so that it complies with overshadowing requirements under Apartment Design Guidelines 3B. Squeezing a large tower into a small space with insufficient setbacks and insufficient separation between the neighbouring buildings is reckless. The development in its current form is akin to a high rise residential slum. I understand representatives from our building have commenced discussions with the developer to allow more solar access by removing a small corner from the development. I fully support any measure to improve solar access to Princeton and at the very least think the application should be suspended to allow investigation into this option. Inner city development can be sensible and sustainable if done correctly. I am concerned as this is government backed development the rules will be flaunted and the neighbourhood destroyed just so the government can recoup as much money as possible to support the underlying infrastructure project.

I live in the Princeton apartments and OBJECT to the proposed development applications for the following reasons: • The new building to going to exceed the maximum envelope previously approved so that they get more floor area. This will also make the building closer than the minimum 12 metres which is already having big impacts on our sun access and privacy. • The new building will reduce solar access to living areas at Princeton apartments as at 21st June from 54 of 116 to 6 apartments out of 116. This is a large impact and the developer has not even tried to reduce the loss of sun light to our living rooms even though the SSD 8876 consent said that new development was to maximise solar access to Princeton apartments and also comply with the Apartment Design Guidelines. The developer has made no attempt to maximise solar access and comply with the Apartment Design Guidelines. • The limited separation also will have impact of our privacy and again breaches the SEPP 65 and Apartment Design Guideline. The separation of buildings should be 24 metres when having habitable to habitable room over a height of 25 metres. 11.5 metres is clearly not enough and is the reason for lost sun light to our living areas. • The loss of sun light will lead to greater heating costs throughout winter, whilst also leading to a less sustainable building. The IPC needs to ensure that the developer redesigns the buildings so as to ensure no impact to the Princeton apartments and that it complies with the Apartment Design Guidelines for solar access, building separation, privacy and the SSD 8876 consent conditions. If this application is approved without proper consideration we will have less sustainability, privacy, sunlight, views, protection of heritage and more overshadowing, energy bills, overcrowding and mental health issues caused by removing 48 families’ access to sunlight. This would truly be a regrettable outcome and a lost opportunity to enforce sensible planning controls and design requirements.

I live in the adjacent Princeton building and my living amenity will be greatly affected through loss of solar light, privacy and substantial overshadowing of my living area and to the majority of other residents in the building; THE APPLICANT MUST MAKE THE BUILDING SLIMMER AND SHORTER TO COMBAT VARIOUS AMENITY ISSUES FOR THE ADOINING OWNERS AT PRINCETON. If the development is approved 6 out of 116 apartments (5.2%) will receive the required access to direct sun as per the Apartment Design Guide. 48 people’s homes will be substantially affected. This represents a 41.4% reduction in number of apartments with sun exposure (per 1m2 of living room area between 9am to 3pm on 21 June). Under Apartment Design Guide a proposed building of this nature should not reduce solar access to more than 20% of neighbouring properties. The applicant’s proposal is more than double the maximum allowed under the Apartment Design Guide. The practical effect will include heating and lighting costs increasing thus increasing our carbon footprint. The applicant has completely ignored the conditions of the stage 1 concept consent. Building separation does not comply with requirement of part 2F Apartment Design Guide. For a development of this size the minimum separation is 24 metres as habitable rooms are on the north boundary of Princeton and south boundary of proposed development floor plans. The ADG states that separation between building contributes to the urban form of an area and the amenity within apartments and open space areas. Inadequate separation also increases the risk of fires spreading, acoustic impacts, and reduced access to cooling north-easterly breezes leading to greater reliance on artificial cooling. I will lose all views to northern aspect. Century Tower will lose its views to St Mary’s Cathedral which was a condition of the stage 1 consent. It is shocking that the applicant would propose to add additional overshadowing to Hyde Park as a direct result of the proposed development; Remaining access to sunlight must be protected especially in the vicinity of the ANZAC memorial, which the proposed development casts all of the additional shadowing. The development appears like a large prison block with tiny cramped apartments which the applicant proposes to cram full. A new, ugly development which fails to meet design guidelines and places neighbouring buildings in shadow should not be approved.

I live at Princeton Apartments at 308 Pitt Street and object to this development. The development is ugly and shows no respect for the historical and cultural nature of this part of the city. The Sydney Water Board Building, Edinburgh Castle hotel and the Castlereagh Fire Station flanks the site with important historical and significant cultural impacts. We should be supporting modern, classy and sustainable developments not high-rise slums full of tenants with insufficient access to natural light. This application must not be granted as: - loss of views for all owners and tenants living on the northern side of our 42 level building; - loss of St. Mary’s Cathedral views for Century which was a specific requirement of the conditions of consent - insufficient setbacks of less than half the required amount - increased overshadowing to Hyde Park in the vicinity of the Anzac War Memorial - considerable privacy concerns with living rooms on the south side of the development in clear view of apartments in Princeton. The proposed louvres do not extend to the living room areas which is a clear oversight - Loss of sunlight and daylight into all of the apartments on the north side of our 42 level building. This is extremely frustrating given the Apartment Design Guidelines have not been complied with which again was a condition of consent The solar access study undertaken by the applicant show that currently Princeton apartments has 54 out of 116 apartments achieving 2 hours of solar access between 9am and 3pm on the 21st June. If the applicant's development proceeds, 48 apartments lose their 2 hours of solar access. This means that only 6 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. The applicant should be required to meaningfully consult with its neighbours to address the many shortfalls with this development. If the applicant genuinely wanted to address the conditions of consent it would consider greater separation and amending the shape of the development to allow more vital solar access to our building. I fear that because this is a government backed development the fundamental planning rules will not apply.

I am an owner in the Princeton and want to express my strongest objection. The applicant clearly does not care about its neighbours and the development should be refused as they have blatantly disregarded the consent conditions contained in SSD 8876 and the planning controls such as SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Guidelines. The consent conditions A24 clearly state that the development is to maximise solar access to Princeton which it clearly does not given that apartments receiving 2 hours of solar access to their Living room between 9am and 3pm as at 21st June will reduce from 56 apartments to 6 representing a 41.4% reduction. Condition B3 states that any residential scheme being considered on the site will need to comply with SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Guidelines. Again the developer has failed to comply with the ADG as they have reduced solar access to apartments by 41.4%, where the ADG only allows a maximum reduction of 20% for apartment complexes not already meeting the required 70% solar access as outlined in 3B-2 of the ADG. Further the building separation has been reduced to 11.5m when the ADG part 2F says that separation between habitable to habitable rooms should be 24 metres on building heights greater than 25 metres – another clear breach of the ADG. This reduced separation will also have a significant impact of our privacy. The new development will also cast additional shadows over the Heritage Listed Hyde Park. Hyde Park should be protected for any further overshadowing as it is one of the limited places for city residents to go enjoy open space and sun light. The developer clearly does not have any regard for the impacts on the Princeton apartments, Hyde Park, Heritage buildings or any other neighbours, and specifically they obviously don’t have any concerns in breaching planning controls or consent conditions which is a very big concern. The IPC needs to ensure that the developer redesigns the buildings so as to ensure no impact to the Princeton apartments and that it complies with the ADG for solar access, building separation, privacy and the SSD 8876 consent conditions.

This proposals represents an over-development of this small city-centre site. It is designed to maximise revenue at the cost of amenity to neighbours and to new residents in the development. The size of the tower is too large and the apartment sizes within are too small. The build to rent model is untested and unwise in the current climate. A key issue is the proposed 12metre separation between the buildings. This is much narrower than the 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 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." The privacy louvres proposed will be ineffective and in any event do not extend to the living areas in the development. Due to the nature of the site there should be special regard for the quality of life of Sydney residents, and should therefore take full account of local concerns. Quality of life/amenity will be devastated by this development, both to Princeton by blocking out all natural light and to residents in the new development as it does not even comply with solar access requirements and sustainability metrics itself. The development should be rejected in its current form also because of the applicant’s own shadow study shows that its proposal would cause additional overshadowing to Hyde Park. This is in contravention to the Sydney LEP 2012 (clause 6.17). There is total loss of water views from multiple rooms in north facing apartments at Princeton. There is also total loss of the views to St. Mary’s Cathedral for Century Tower, again in direct contravention of consent condition A24. The modification application seeks to further exceed the boundaries proposed by the concept envelope at stage 1. This will reduce the setback by 45cm to Princeton therefore they do even intend to comply with their 12m proposition which in itself isn’t sufficient. The applicant seems to focus on sustainability but the net effect of this development will be an increased reliance on artificial heating and lighting in the winter and artificial cooling in the summer at Princeton due to a complete block of our solar access. The design of the building is well below what we should expect of a “state significant” development in this location. A huge orange, dated looking tower with minimum glass and limited access to natural light. At the very least the build form should be modern like the new developments all around it. It does not meet heritage requirements just because it adopts the same colour as the Edinburgh Castle Hotel. Allowing this development in its present form would be reckless and damaging, and would be heavily criticised by future generations. New developments must, at the minimum meet current planning requirements. To allow this application would create a precedent that requirements don’t matter. This should especially not be the case for state significant developments. We have lodged a great number of objections to the application throughout this process. I believe somewhere in the region of 170 objections in total. It is clear that there are fundamental issues with this application as the residents in our building are not anti-development and have supported numerous developments in the neighbourhood. We want something sensible, sustainable and of high quality and expected more from a state significant development. I believe the design of the building can be greatly improved if the developer listened to our opinions instead of trying to force their plan through the loopholes of the stage significant planning process. We have tried to open a dialogue with the developer to discuss slightly reducing the building size on the south eastern side to allow more solar access to our building. A small reduction here would be of great benefit to our building and to the 48 families that will lose essential access to sunlight. I hope my views with be taken into account and the applicant be directed to consider this option to comply with the conditions of consent.

I oppose the proposed Overstation Development application as it presently stands. The grounds for my objection should be no surprise to the applicant as they have acknowledged the various blatant breaches of planning controls and failures to address certain items in the SEAR and stage 1 consent in their application. Their blatant disregard for neighbouring buildings, planning process and heritage is a disgrace. I am extremely disappointed in the lazy attitude of the applicant displayed throughout the application. They acknowledge that separation requirements, privacy concerns, solar access, overshadowing, heritage requirements have all been significantly breached. Their justification for doing so? Incorrect assertions of the development can be reasonably expected in the city (no evidence provided in support), changing required metrics of compliance (ADG solar access measurements), describing the envelope being a slender form to name a few. The Sydney Metro Pitt Street South Over Station Development Design Guidelines and Sydney Metro Design Excellence Strategy have been set out and consequently completely ignored. They refer to the Apartment Design Guide as a “requirement” then in another part of the application states that they will not comply with the ADG and that they shouldn’t have to. Even their own proposed building does not meet fundamental requirements of ADG in relation to its residents! It appears they wish to build a substandard high rise slum block which is marketed toward overseas students in the heart of our city. The shear volume of inconsistencies in the application is staggering. The applicant appears to be of the view that due to the length of the documents and amount of information provided no-one will actually properly consider the contents or fact check the assertions made. The application needs to be amended to allow the required separation under the ADG at all levels, a reduction in height to remove excessive overshadowing onto Princeton and onto Hyde Park, a reduction in size to comply with ADG and heritage requirements. The applicant also needs to engage properly with the community and take their concerns into account.

I own a unit at Princeton with my partner and also a unit at Century Tower. The proposed over development next door to Princeton has made us very angry. We BOTH STRONGLY OBJECT on the following grounds: - All units on the north side of Princeton 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 and vital for our mental health and wellbeing; - 48 families in Princeton will lose their required access to natural light. This is disgraceful. We would not expect such callous disregard for human life from a government backed development, of apparent “state significance”. If this was a private development this wouldn’t even be an issue for objection. Shame on the planning department for recommending approval of the current application; - We wish to protect our building from losing natural sunlight and warmth. Our heating bills will be more expensive meaning less sustainability; - The building next door will be far too close to our building. The applicant has ignored and is in breach of the ADG which was a specific condition imposed on them from stage 1 consent. The development should be separated from Princeton by 24m in accordance with ADG; - The proposed development doesn’t even meet new building standards. Lack of solar access to new units shows inherent unsuitability of the site. I understand only 50% of new apartments will meet solar access standards!; - Century Tower will lose its precious views of St. Mary’s Cathedral. It was a specific condition of stage 1 consent that these views be maintained; - We wish to protect our privacy which has not been adequately addressed. We will see into living rooms in the new development and they will see into our living rooms; - The modification to the stage 1 consent proposed is to further reduce set backs and will even make the proposal non-compliant with its own metrics for minimum set backs to Princeton; - Less sunlight for Hyde Park which means that the trees and plants won’t get the energy they need. This is disrespectful because Hyde park is one of the oldest public parklands in Australia; - The stage 1 consent conditions have been blatantly ignored. - The proposed build form is extremely ugly and over-appointed with tiny apartments with inadequate access to natural light. This will not attract premium tenants but inevitably lead to over crowding. Build to rent is an untested model in Sydney, why test it on a prestige site?; There is too much over development already in this area with the Greenland development to our 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. The planning authorities 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. We have approached the applicant and attempted to work with them to improve the design however they have not been cooperative, rather pressed ahead with trying to get the approval granted behind our backs. For example we have proposed that the design be slightly altered at the south eastern side to cut back the build form by a small amount which would only reduce the developer’s GFA by a minimal percentage but allow vital solar access to Princeton. They have not investigated this option with any diligence to date. We are not against smart, sustainable development however we are disappointed with the current proposal and complete lack of care displayed by the developer to improve their design.

I object to this gross over development and forceful removal of neighbouring amenity on the landmark site. I have been involved in the planning industry for over 40 years and was alarmed to discover the shortfalls in this application. The applicant has fails in the most fundamental aspects to meet the requirements of plannings controls, design guidelines and the conditions of consent placed upon them. The applicant's response seems to be that it's too hard to comply, the site makes it inconvenient to comply or that they shouldn't be held to account as it is a state significant development. None of these reasons carry any weight. The applicant seems to rely on the lack of integrity of the planning department and inherent bias in the process for SSDs. It is the mandate of the IPC to hold the applicant to account and in my view SSD should advance good planning and make an example rather than flaunt the rules. In the future we should look to developments above critical infrastructure to set examples of how inner city planning should be expressed. This proposal does not achieve this end. Instead we are faced with the prospect of 48 family homes in Princeton losing access to the required sunlight. 48 families including the elderly, young couples and children deprived of this basic amenity. This is disgraceful. Not only will existing residents suffer in this manner but it is proposed that half of the new residents of the development will not have sufficient access to sunlight. The prospect is not only inhumane but demonstrative of the blatant disregard exhibited by the applicant throughout the application process. A truly shameful example of greed above responsible planning practice. And to attempt to justify this by reference to the protection of investment for elderly Canadian pensioners is unethical. Access to sunlight, amenity, protection of privacy, respect for heritage, prevention of overshadowing of public parks, compliance with ADG, SEAR and conditions of consent should all be enforced. Not to perform this duty is a dereliction of IPC duty. Myself and fellow interested parties will be reviewing this matter in great detail. There are a multitude of ways the application could be improved if the applicant actually wished to do so. It is evident that they lack the competence or integrity to perform this task therefore they must be compelled to do so. One example would be to model the improvement of solar access if the design was altered to create a diagonal edge on the south eastern side. This would only result in minimal GFA reduction to the development. To date the applicant has shown no interest in genuinely exploring such options and it is the residents of Princeton who are left to make such proposals. I trust the IPC will consider all submissions made and properly hold the applicant to account for its failures. I look forward to hearing the outcome of this process and reviewing further proposals to improve the design elements.

I write to object to the proposed overstation development. I have been a health professional for over 40 years and have an understanding and interest in mental health issues relative to living conditions. I wish to offer my perspective on the adverse effects this development would have if approved in its current form. Although there are multiple non-compliance issues with the application I will focus on the removal of amenity through lack of solar access. As we know natural light boosts vitamin D, prevents bone loss, reduces the risk of heart disease, weight gain and cancer. It also wards of seasonal depression, improves sleep and reduces the health risks associated with reliance on artificial fluorescent lighting. Physiological and psychological wellbeing of residents in inner cities is greatly reliant on access to natural light. This includes improvements to mood, less mental health related distress, higher quality sleep, stronger bone development and lower blood pressure. All of these factors can be improved with increased access to natural light but also conversely can suffer will removal of natural light to day to day life. Residents of inner city buildings are more reliant and susceptible to the effects of removing existing natural light (and general amenity) due to having inherently less access. This is especially true for the elderly and young children. To remove access to natural light for 48 family homes in Princeton apartments as the applicant proposes would have a significant detrimental impact on its residents, especially the most vulnerable including elderly and young children. On reading the material provided by the applicant they clearly do not appreciate these effects or do not consider them sufficiently important to stand in the way of profit through construction of an over-appointed tower in the heart of the city. This is emphasised by examination of the proposal to provide only half of new apartment will sufficient access to light ("sufficient" as determined by reference to planning controls not medical studies, which I consider if adopted would put the applicant in a more damning position). I respectfully request that the IPC considers my views and the human cost of the applicant's negligence and uphold the planning controls it has a duty to enforce.

I object to the current application at it breaches every one of the planning controls it is subject to. I love living in this city and support development which enhances our amenity, is sustainable and adds to architectural merit. I have witnessed positive development in our neighbourhood including renovation of the Primus Hotel, Greenland development, The Castle and many more upcoming proposals. We know good development when we see it and bad development is very obvious. I was shocked at the total disregard the developer has demonstrated to local planning controls and regulations. I question the relationship the developer has with the department of planning to allow such disregard to go unchecked to date. I realise now that state significant developments can be rushed through by the government and they receive special treatment and the rules do not usually apply to them. But we need to stand up to poor development which will haunt us for decades to come. It proposes to remove our access to natural light, remove our views, invade our privacy, overshadow our public parks and disregard the heritage of our neighbourhood. There are 48 families in our building that will lose their required access to natural light. This is a disgrace. Especially in circumstances where the design could be improved to allow more solar access by cutting a small portion from the south eastern side. But this proposal has been ignored by the developer or merely brushed aside. They should be compelled to consider such improvements to actually meet the requirements of the conditions of consent. The conditions of consent are not general guidelines but express, specific conditions placed upon this developer for this development. I find it hard to believe they can be so blatantly ignored. A 12m separation from Princeton is woefully inadequate. The minimum required separation is 24m which should be fully enforced here. This will greatly improve a number of concerns including solar access, overshadowing and privacy. But the applicant will not consider these issues if left to their own devices. They need to be compelled to do so. I watched the developer's submission to the IPC and was entirely convinced of their efforts to meet the minimum planning controls and conditions of consent. I also did not understand how Canadian pension funds are relevant with a proposed high rise slum tower block in Sydney. If investments are to be protected at all costs sustainable, long term development should be promoted. A tenant only building in this economic environment in this location will be overrun, overcrowded and will lead to rapid deterioration of the building as the services are over used and structure pushed to breaking point. I urge the IPC takes a common sense approach and supports the residents of Sydney by holding the applicant to account. It cannot be allowed to breach every control and flaunt every basic planning and humanitarian consideration.

Dear Sirs Please take this as my formal notice of objection against the current design of the Sydney Metro Pitt Street South Overstation Development. I am an owner of a 3 bedroom apartment on Level 30 of the Princeton Building at 308 Pitt Street and have happily resided in this building for around 7 years. It really saddens me that the Over Station development is happening right next door to the building we live in. We are bewildered that the developer’s design does not mean the standards and requirements of the Department of Planning. How could the developer next door have gotten away with this? Surely just because the developer is being backed by a Government Entity does not mean that they can get away with this kind of blatant rule breaking behaviour? If the development proceeds, I will lose a substantial amount of amenity, solar access and view from my living room, bedroom and office. Instead of looking out the window and enjoying the sunlight and view, I will be looking at a brick wall. This is terrible. It might be ok for New York City apartments to have windows facing brick walls but we are in Sydney. Not New York. This sort of overstation development design might be acceptable if it was right next door to a commercial office building but definitely not for a residential building. There are many commercial office buildings in the city however the few residential towers and the residents who are living in those towers who have worked hard to pay for their investment need to be protected. The decision makers need to take into account that there is a residential building right next door to this development and ensure that the developer changes the current design to ensure as little impact is made as possible to the residents next door. The developer may get away with its current plans if this was an office building, but this is a fully residential building where the large majority of people and families are working from home and have a right (like me) to enjoy their home for working and living in privacy. It’s bad enough that there is constant construction noise emanating from the worksite at most hours of the day (even at night). How is this even possible and legal? Surely the developer should have consideration for people that need to sleep in the evenings? If this development goes ahead I will lose two windows and two views from two of my balconies. 48 homes at The Princeton will lose access to natural light as a result of the developer’s current design. This will obviously affect the happiness and financial wellbeing and mental health of those living in those homes. We support a proposed design to cut off the corner of the current design for the Pitt Street Overstation Development because the 6m x 16m triangle would provide a greater amount of sunlight to other residents. The developer needs to re-think its design and actually meet the conditions of consent, the apartment guidelines and planning standards. We hope that this objection to the Independent Planning Commission will not fall on deaf ears. We trust that you will indeed be independent and fair and hope that this process of making an objection is not a waste of time. I have counted that there were over 170 objections lodged so far over the two stages of the development application. This is evidence that this development is extremely controversial and against the public interest and any permanent decisions being made in relation to this development must be taken with great care, thought and consideration not those who will be adversely affected. The amount of people that will now be living in this new overstation building will be tremendous. I understand there will be 230 apartments over 39 storeys. The increase in the volume of people in this little pocket of Sydney CBD has grown exponentially at a dramatic rate. Think of the number of new people that will be moving in to Greenland’s development at 115 Bathurst Street, Sydney later this year. This tower features 479 new residences over 67 storeys. Think of the number of new people that will be moving into Shanghai United’s development at 110 Bathurst Street, Sydney in the following year. This tower features 200 residences over 35 levels. Then take into account the number of new people who will be living right next door above the Pitt Street South OSD. These towers are only a few metres from each other. Think of the increased traffic and pedestrian footfall. There is already a lot of congestion in this area already. This development cannot go ahead in its current format because it will be in breach of the following conditions and requirements. • Condition A24(b)(i) - maximize sunlight access and views for adjoining properties • Condition B3 - designed to minimise impacts to outlook and amenity of Princeton Apartments • Comply with requirements of SEPP 65 and ADG (Apartment Design Guide) Allowing this development to go ahead in its current format is against the public interest and illegal.

I strongly oppose the over station development application in its current form. It is far too close to Princeton in breach of the ADG. The modification to the proposal puts the development in further breach. Sydney Metro state in their own design guidelines that the ADG are requirements must be complied with and this was also a condition of the stage 1 consent. Separation requirements need to be respected otherwise it will lead to a myriad of negative impacts on solar access, privacy, amenity and sustainability. The proposed form of the development is hideous and resembles a prison. In keeping with a prison it is proposed to be filled with hundreds of small apartments with insufficient access to light. I understand that half of new apartment will not only be tiny, potentially over-crowded but also with insufficient access to natural light. It seems they are trying to create slum-like conditions at the expense of everybody to squeeze as much money from the project as possible. This site is in the middle of Sydney CBD and not in a slum. Hyde Park and Town Hall are a block away. It is nestled amongst heritage items like the Water Board, Edinburgh Castle Hotel and Fire Station. Does the developer serious propose to place a tenant only, build to rent, unsustainable, hideously ugly, over-crowded tower block here? The development will overshadow Princeton to a devastating degree. It will also cast additional overshadowing to Hyde Park in the vicinity of the war memorial. Both neighbouring amenity and public amenity have been disregarded here in the pursuit of profit. Princeton will lose the minimum required amount of solar access to 48 apartments. 48 families will lose sunlight because the applicant doesn’t want to comply with planning controls. I can only imagine the detrimental affect on mental health this will have. Princeton will also lose all northern views. In place we will see an ugly terracotta coloured concrete wall with vertical lines and metallic bars line prison jail cells crammed as close to our building as possible. The application takes little account on the effect of the privacy of Princeton residents. Their attitude appears to be they will insert variable louvres on only the bedroom and not the living rooms which will have free sight into our apartments and vica versa. On our lower floors residents will look out their windows to zero separation between them and plant and equipment floors. Our communal bbq and gym areas will be immediately adjacent to plant and equipment floors. I am shocked to think of the acoustic and impacts to amenity this will have. It is bad planning (and a lack of common sense) to place a 39-storey building over a 3-storey heritage building in circumstances where the development is “cut around” the Edinburgh Castle Hotel heritage building and will loom over it to negate any heritage impact it might have. Planning controls exist for a reason. They were designed to protect us from private developers exploiting building potential in our great city. Developers should be more accountable to residents and visitors. A sensible, measured approach needs to replace the greed and disregard as is evident in this application. I am shocked that The modification application to stage 1 concept consent should be rejected as the envelope is not a negotiable boundary which can be flaunted at will. The modification proposes to encroach a further 45cm toward Princeton, in addition to extended beyond other boundaries. So the 12m minimum separation is proposed to become 11.45m when it should be 24m in accordance with ADG which is a requirement of SEAR and stage 1 consent conditions. I ask that you take my views into account and reject this application on this basis.

This application cannot be approved because it does not provide enough setbacks and building separation form Princeton apartments. The modification application further demonstrates the applicant’s disregard for planning controls and conditions of stage 1 consent. The application fails to meet SSD 8876 concept approval conditions in relation to solar access, loss of views, loss of privacy, ADG building separation, overshadowing Hyde Park and arguably also heritage requirements. The applicant has clearly ignored the conditions of consent and Sydney Metro design guidelines. It is alarming the extent of these failures and attitude towards modifying the envelope to reduce setback even more. The new development must be sustainable not a towering slum full of tiny apartments marketed for foreign students. The insufficient separation between Princeton and the proposed development renders it unlawful under the Apartment Design Guidelines 2F. The lack of building separation and appropriate setbacks between Princeton and Sydney Metro’s building is even more damaging because there are 116 units in Princeton. The applicant has given no thought whatsoever to the surrounding heritage buildings such as the Fire Station on Castlereagh Street which is immediately behind the proposed building and the Edinburgh Castle Hotel which is immediately adjacent next door to the north. From looking at the design plans. they have also not given enough setbacks to these two heritage buildings. I want to make it clear that I do not oppose the overstation development as a concept in itself but I do oppose the sheer size, bulk, width and height. The applicant can make amendments to reduce the width ensuring that their proposal has the correct building separations under the Apartment Design Guidelines 2F as well as the correct setbacks. To approve this application will set a dangerous precedent that any planning requirements can be ignored, residential amenity in the city is for sale and state significant developments are being sold off to untested models incorporating rented high rise slums in the heart of our great city. This is not representative of this city.

I whole heartedly OBJECT to this development because it is a damaging proposal. A private developer should be made to follow all the planning requirements and guidelines so what makes the applicant think they can get away with not following same? The development application admits to breaching the following instruments: • Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements; • Environmental Planning Instruments; • State Environmental Planning Policy 65; • The Apartment Design Guidelines; • The Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012. The application must be modified to create a better design so that it does not affect its adjoining neighbours so drastically. The form of design is one of the ugliest building I have seen and looks like a place to house prisoners. The building does not even meet design guidelines for residents’ access to sunlight, how is this even possible for a state significant development? Allowing this development to go ahead would be a terrible injustice and could open up the floodgates for even more unsightly skyscrapers to be built in Sydney CBD around Hyde Park and right next to residential towers with no regard to appropriate setback provisions and correct building separation distances. The applicant should have extra special regard for the quality of life of Sydney residents given the significance of this site. They have a duty not only to meet the requirements placed on them from the stage 1 concept approval but to build a sustainable development and address in detail local concerns. It should be noted that the residents proposed to live in this development are the people who will be living in sub-standard cramped rented accommodation and walking through Hyde Park in shadow. Existing residents are also the ones who would not like to live 3 to 12 metres away looking directly into an overdeveloped overstation. Some neighbouring residents will look out their windows to be met with a point blank view of a solid wall. The development proposal is too close Princeton and too large for the building envelope. Unless the building separations are at least 24 metres from Princeton, solar access is within the required metrics, overshadowing prevented to Hyde Park and privacy concerns properly addressed, the application cannot be approved. There are 48 apartments in Princeton that will lose their required access to natural light if this application is approved, including myself. This is outrageous. The mental health benefits and consequential removal of access to sunlight are well known. Combine this with a proposal that provides around 50% of new apartments with the required access to natural light and it becomes apparent the complete lack of merit and sustainability with this application. We will be left with the prospect of increased artificial cooling in the summer months and increased heating in winter. It makes me very sad to think of the living conditions in both the new development and our building if this application is approved. The developer has not shown any interest in genuine communication with us to seek to improve the design of the building to comply with the conditions of consent. We have proposed a small section of the building at the south eastern side be tapered back to provide us with more solar access, at a very insignificant reduction in the floor area of the development. The developer has stalled and has shown no interest of investigating this genuine proposal. If the application is approved we will have permanently lost this opportunity. I personally feel that without the IPC our voices will be ignored and planning controls completely flaunted in favour of greed. It seems the developer and planning department simply do not care about this city, its heritage, resident’s amenity and good building design.

The proposed over station development in the application breaches planning standards and controls, in particular the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements, SEPP 65, Sydney LEP 2012, the Apartment Design Guide as well as the conditions of consent for the stage 1 concept approval. It is alarming that without sufficient objections this application would have avoided independent assessment and would have been an abuse of the nature of state significant developments. The application is littered with subjective assertions, vague claims and false statements. The applicant admits that they simply will not comply with SEAR, stage 1 concept consent conditions and the associated planning requirements purely on the basis that we should expect the site will be developed blocking out all our sunlight, destroying our views, invading our privacy, disrespecting local heritage and overshadowing our building and Hyde Park. This is disgraceful. The applicant has done a good job of admitting to these breaches so I do not propose to repeat them here. Perhaps because they feel like there will be no repercussion as it is a state significant development notwithstanding the fact that the high rise residential slum being proposed has no apparent interaction with the metro station, apart from sharing a side entrance. Neighbouring residents and the public are to have their amenity forcefully removed to allow the trial of a new build to rent model which will see residents crammed into over-appointed dorm like facilities reminiscent in appearance and size of a prison cell block. The applicant proposes to remove vital access to sunlight to 48 family homes in our building despite the conditions of consent requiring them to maximum sunlight access for adjoining properties and minimize impacts to the amenity to Princeton apartments. This 41.4% reduction in solar access is also a breach of the ADG which allows a maximum 20% reduction. The applicant’s development itself also does not comply with ADG with only half of new apartments receiving the required solar access. The application needs to be refused and the application amended to provide adequate separation to Princeton and the heritage buildings surrounding the site, a reduction in height within the Apartment Design Guide and in compliance with standards affecting overshadowing of Hyde Park and a reconsideration of the dimensions to protect privacy, loss of light and views. These are the minimum expectations of a building of this nature.

I object as to this application as we must do better for our great city. I question why we are proposing to add such a large high rise right next to a residential block. Likewise, my elderly parents also like to take their young grandchildren to Hyde Park so they can stretch their legs and run around after day-care and get exercise themselves. It saddens me to think that not only will the development be restricting sunlight for the homes of 48 families in my building, but also restricting sunlight in Hyde Park. I dread to think of the mental health effects this will have on so many families. How can the applicant be allowed to sacrifice the amenity, visual appearance, sunlight and privacy of hard working CBD residents in order to try and maximise revenue? How can Sydney Metro be allowed to build so close to our building and directly overlook into bedroom and living room windows of the apartments on the northern end of Princeton? The addition of privacy louvres to their bedrooms does not extend to living areas. We must protect as much of our sunlight and privacy as possible. The developer must be made to comply with 2F and 3B of the Apartment Design Guidelines before this development is application is approved. The modification application to further erode into our amenity, views, solar access and privacy must also be rejected. This represents additional non-compliance with planning requirements. Useless architectural embellishments that further the development’s likeness to a dated jail cell should be removed or proposed within the concept envelope. There is too much over development already in this area with the Greenlands development and the Castle Residences development. There are too many ultra high towers in this part of Sydney cbd and this is not acceptable. I do not want to live in a high rise slum area that looks like a concrete jungle. That is one of the reasons so many people choose to leave China and Hong Kong for a better quality of life. Skyscraper cities like the kind you see in Asia should not happen in beautiful Sydney. Stop this gross over development now.

I object because of the multiple issues against the application and I defer to DFP Planning Consultants’ submissions which set out these failures in detail. My objection to the development of a 39 storey, 234 apartment block above the metro station next door is that it is inhumane. It is far too close to Princeton and too wide. I can see the developer wants to build an “L” shaped building with the longest edge completely blocking out Princeton. This seems to me because it has to build around Edinburgh Castle Hotel and wants to fit in as many units as it can into the build form. The site is not suitable for a building of this nature. Corner blocks are desirable for development but I struggle to think of a comparable modern development which has such devastating effects on the amenity of its neighbours. If the applicant has been sold the opportunity to trial a build to rent model in Sydney it should be done in a more suitable location, not one bound by heritage items all around and blocking views and light to multiple apartment blocks. It is amazing that all surrounding apartment blocks will be negatively affected. Century Tower will lose their St. Mary’s Cathedral views, Greenland will lose Hyde Park views and Princeton will lose all northerly views, solar access, privacy, sustainability, the list goes on. Even public amenity at Hyde Park does not escape this development, overshadowed near Anzac Memorial. This is not what new development should represent. I also struggle to understand the state significance of 234 build to rent apartments. How does this relate to the metro station below or the state? Does state significance mean poor design, breach of planning regulations and the opportunity for the government to make quick money supporting residential slums in Sydney? Does it mean the process is opaque and the public are denied access to fair planning processes? We have a great opportunity here to create something special for this corner of Sydney. Even with the challenges of this site we can have a sensible development that does not devastate all its neighbours and is built within sustainable and approved planning rules. To allow otherwise is to disregard precedent and common sense in the pursuit of greed and uncertainty.

I formally object to this development application. I do not object because I am anti-development but because this application is so fundamentally flawed it cannot be approved in its current state. The reasons for my objection are already adequately set out in the objections to the concept and detailed design stages of the application so I do not propose to list them again in full. I will concentrate on what I consider to be the main issues. I would like to see competent, sensible and sustainable development in place of what can only be described as a totally incompetent application. I am very familiar with what good development looks like and it is obvious when I see an incompetent application which attempts to take advantage of the lenient approval process applicable to government backed developments. This is part of the corruption in this industry which we need to address by having open, frank discussions and calling out such bad behaviour when we see it. The IPC needs to be independent regardless of its members’ ties with the department of planning. This developer has completely disregarded the conditions of consent this development has been made subject to. It freely admits to this failure, and seems confident the application will be approved regardless, presumably due to the inherent bias with state significant developments or some other private arrangement which has been made with the government. I understand this deal may of great value to the government but this should not prevent the exercise of an objective assessment by the IPC. Conditions A24(b)(i) and B3 require that the applicant maximize sunlight access and views for adjoining properties, design the development to minimise the impacts to outlook and amenity of Princeton apartments and comply with SEPP 65 and ADG. The applicant has failed on all counts. I see no evidence of any real consideration of alteration to the development to accommodate even basic considerations in respect of maximizing sunlight, minimizing impacts to amenity or compliance with ADG. The developer has admitted doing so would be too hard and that giving up is the best they can do. This is total incompetence. If the developer is not able to do its job competently perhaps it can enlist the assistance of competent external assistance. If so we would be happy to provide recommendations in this regard. We are faced with a truly horrifying prospect of 48 families losing their solar access in Princeton. The mental health effects of this are well documented but this present a devastating prospect for every one of those families which include the elderly, young children and young couples. I also understand around half of the roughly 230 proposed apartments will not have sufficient solar access as prescribed by the ADG. May I remind you that for a new development the ADG requires 70% of apartments have sufficient solar access. The developer is again woefully inadequate here. In my experience the combination of factors we are faced with here does not equate to a successful development. The unit sizes are small, there are no owner-occupiers (only tenants), there is insufficient solar access, the building is over appointed with units and the design features thick vertical columns and balustrades which obscure windows. The only saving grace for this development is at least it will be centrally owned and so the failure will be borne by one (foreign) entity, however I don’t think the Canadian pension funds will be satisfied but at least they will be far enough removed from the project to realize the extent of its fundamental flaws. Separation between the development and Princeton needs to be properly respected. We all know 12m (or 11.55 as the developer proposes) is not sufficient under ADG. A number of associated issues regarding amenity would be resolved if the developer merely abided by the separation rules in ADG. 24m is required for a reason. Personally this proposal would strip a considerable amount of amenity from my family home. My views will be lost and replaced by a sheer wall. We will lose all night form the north and be forced to rely on more artificial means of providing cooling in the summer as breezes are lost, and heating in the winter as sunlight is lost. Multiply this effect on 48 families and you get a considerable reduction in sustainability, which is supposedly championed by the developer. There were 174 objections over 2 application stages to date. I assume there with the IPC submissions there will be well over 200 objections. The numbers speak for themselves. My neighbours and EC members would not object if faced with a sensible proposal within planning regulations. The most significant community consultation the developer has conducted to date was when they were forced to answer questions on our proposal to cut back a small section of the development on the south eastern corner. I understand they have submitted a brief response on 26 March in an attempt to demonstrate they have considered the matter, just one business day before the deadline for IPC submissions. The developer has not engaged with us in any meaningful way and has not considered any way to improve the development to comply with the conditions of consent. Their attitude to date has inspired zero confidence they will comply with any conditions imposed upon them or act with a single shred of competency. They must be compelled to improve this application by the IPC.

I object to the development application. The reasons for my objection have been well documented in my previous objection to the detailed design application and concept application. I am not against development and support sensible, sustainable and compliant development. Planning controls exist for a reason and protect our great city from a multitude of issues including the protection of resident’s amenity. I have lived and worked in the city for most of my life and have experienced various stages of development but have never seen such a poorly considered proposal as this. I understand state significant development means that most planning controls don’t apply to government however this proposal represents an alarming degree of fundamental non-compliance that it must be objectively assessed on its merits. The developer has completely disregarded specific directives from the conditions of planning consent. These directives are not optional or subject to subjective interpretation. They have been expressly required to maximise sunlight access and views for adjoining properties. They have been expressly required to minimise impacts to outlook and the amenity of Princeton Apartments. They have been expressly required to comply with SEPP 65 and the ADG. They have been expressly required to retain views to St. Mary’s Cathedral from Century Tower. Not a single one of these requirements have been met. I cannot see any interpretation of the rules or planning perspective where this would be acceptable. This under any other circumstance involving a private developer would deem the application void but we seem to have arrived at this position as it is a state significant development, merely because it is to be built on top of a metro station. This logic and the progress of the application to date is truly baffling. Viewing this from outset the property industry is enlightening. I had no idea of the bias, corruption and lack of procedural fairness that exists in this industry and how ripe it is for change. I would urge the IPC to consider the human effect of greed here. There are 48 families in Princeton that will lose their vital solar access. I personally know most of these residents, many of whom are elderly and fall into the category of the people in most need of protection from health issues and mental wellbeing considerations. The applicant should quite frankly be ashamed of its conduct and to even attempt to justify its position by referring to Canadian pensioners is morally abhorrent. I doubt those pensioners would appreciate their funds being used in part to develop high rise slums. Has the developer even considered the target market for its build to rent model with any reference to similar examples? They propose a high rise full of undersized apartments, 50% of which have insufficient access to natural light (another breach of ADG) and no owner occupation. Speaking from experience in my involvement on the executive committee in Princeton this is a recipe for disaster. Our EC are constantly involved in efforts to address overcrowding and sub letting in a building with majority owner-occupiers. Separation should be 24m not 11.55m as the applicant proposes. I note they don’t even propose to comply with their own 12m metric here. It is proposed that Princeton will lose all natural light from the north with no mitigating efforts. We will be forced to use more artificial means of heating and cooling in the winter and summer months. Our building will be become substantially less sustainable. My neighbours are passionate about sustainability and ways to improve the environmental impact we have for example by installing solar panels on our building which will now be prevented. The developer has been non-responsive to our efforts to improve their development, instead pushing ahead by brute force support from the government. We have proposed a 6m x 16m reduction on the south east side of the development but I understand have only received the developer’s response 1 business day before the deadline for IPC submissions. It is clear that more time is required and a direction made to the developer to explore genuine ways to meet the conditions of consent rather than just admit they have breach them. In any other industry the developer’s admission of breach and lack of effort would not even be entertained and the application immediately denied. I look forward to the IPC’s response to my submission and trust that my views will be taken into account.

I understand from the developer’s submission at the recent IPC hearing that the application should proceed in order to protect the pension fund for Canadian pensioners. If that doesn’t reveal the tone deaf logic of the applicant I don’t know what will. Perhaps instead of considering Canadian pensioners we actually consider following planning controls and design requirements we might better this great city we live in. I’m sure Canadian pensioners would be in support of good investments through sustainable, amenable developments with architectural merit. I’m also equally sure that Canadian pensioners would not support the forceful removal of natural sunlight to 48 families’ homes (a large proportion of which are elderly) nor would they support a new development where half of its resident have sufficient access to sunlight. It the applicant truly believes in a long term investment in Sydney it should be compelled to create something of worth that will contribute to the amenity of the city for years to come. This proposed high rise slum is an affront to our great city and mere blocks from iconic sights such as Hyde Park and Town Hall. This application needs to be reconsidered in line with the conditions placed upon it. As it seems the planning department has undermined its own integrity by recommending approval the task now falls with the IPC to hold the applicant to account. I urge the IPC to do the right thing and hold this application to the base planning standards it should be required to comply with. State Significant Developments must not be allowed to bypass planning controls. There are genuine ways to improve the development to allow more solar access to Princeton, respect the amenity of fellow residents and allow Century Tower to retain its St Mary’s Cathedral views. A slightly smaller design with increased setbacks would achieve a huge benefit to neighbours’ amenity while reducing a fraction of the development’s footprint.

I writing to formally object to the current Development Applications which will have a significant impact on my apartment and my family’s amenity. The new development is proposed to be far too close to the Princeton and will block a significant amount of sun to the living areas. Even the developer has concluded that they do not comply with the Apartment Design Guideline (ADG) for Solar Access. Their reports state that they will reduce the amount of apartments receiving solar access to living area for a minimum of 2 hours between 9am and 3pm as at 21st June, from 54 apartments out of 116 (being 46.55%) to 6 apartments out of 116. That is a reduction of 41.4% which is in breach of the ADG which states that solar access cannot be reduced by more than 20% if the existing building does not already receive the minimum of 70% solar access as at 21st June. The suggested structure is being built to close to the Princeton apartments, which is causing the impact on solar access, which also reducing privacy and the amenity of our apartments. Further the SSD 8876 MOD 2 suggests that they are proposing to be even closer than the 12 metres, as the developer now wants to exceed the approved envelope by more than 500mm on each façade, leading to even more adverse impacts. Blocking the sun access to our living rooms during winter will also lead to increased power use and costs, leading less sustainable building. The design is also very unsympathetic to the surrounding heritage items such as the Edinburgh Hotel. The structure looks very brutal and prison like. Very poor choice of colours and structural elements. It is clear that the developer did not even consider the consent conditions for the SSD 8776 stage 1 DA, which clearly stated in condition B3 (h) for a residential scheme, achieve compliance with the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and the accompanying Apartment Design Guide” In it’s design the developer has: Gone outside the envelope as proposed in SSD 8876 MOD 2 by up to 500mm. Has significantly reduced the solar access to Princeton apartments and breached ADG 3B Not complied with the ADG 2F requiring a 24 metre separation form habitable to habitable rooms, impacting on privacy and amenity of apartments. The above non compliances and disregard to even attempt to reduce the impacts to the Princeton Apartments and other surrounding neighbours shows that the developer does not care about being responsible whilst also suggesting that the consent authority will be compliant in its breaches of the ADG and conditions of consent for SSD 8876 consent. Poor design and planning leads to poor outcomes. This application needs to be refused and redesigned to be undertaken to remove adverse impacts to the Princeton apartments and it’s neighbours in accordance with the conditions of consent. I find it remarkable that the planning department recommended approval of the application despite the applicant paying no regard to the departments conditions. This would never happen if the site was a private development. I seriously question the ethics and procedural fairness of the way this application has been handled. I think the planning department should be investigated for its role in this application. I understand there have been over 170 objections submitted to date and there will be even more following the IPC consultations. The numbers alone speak volumes. I am pro-development in Sydney CBD but this does not mean sub-standard, unsustainable development as the applicant proposes. We have the opportunity to promote competent and ethical design which we will lose if the application is rubber stamped by the IPC. The developer has demonstrated no interest in working to improve their design by listening to our opinions. I have seen a proposal to remove a 6x16m corner from the south east side which would drastically improve the solar access to Princeton and result in only a 5.8% reduction in gross floor area. I understand we are awaiting modeling from the developer but they have delayed providing this and elected to press on with approval. If they are approved we have no hope that the design will be altered in any way. The stage 1 consent provided us with a little hope that the developer would do the right thing but we are left disappointed that they have made zero effort to comply with the conditions of consent. I urge the IPC to defer the application pending proper consideration of how the conditions of consent can actually be met.

There are 116 apartments at Princeton Tower right next door to the proposed project which will be stripped of essential amenity, privacy and views if this application is approved. This is especially so for the neighbours on the north side because they will be directly facing the new building which in my view is far too large in size for the building footprint. The site is completely unsuitable for a high rise of this nature, a factor which is evident by the concessions taken by the applicant in design, features and essential amenity for its own residents. Mental health is a big issue at the moment and the sudden loss of access to light will have a huge effect on resident’s well being. Every single unit on the north side of Princeton will completely lose their view (including water views) and by consequence their privacy, sense of security and amenity. Privacy louvres on only the bedrooms is not sufficient. 234 new apartments in a site that small with the practical limitations it has is ridiculous. It does not even achieve the ADG requirements for a new development. It is supposed to be a landmark state significant development in the heart of Sydney not short term backpacker/student accommodation. It will look a feel like a vertical prison and the build to rent model will be a costly experiment. I couldn’t have imagined a worse design and colour and it will compare extremely poorly to Greenland and The Castle. It is ridiculous and unlawful for this development application to proceed in its current form. The applicant admits in its own application: 1. They will cause extra shadowing on Hyde Park 2. They have failed to obey the sun access regulations under the Sydney LEP 2012 3. They have failed to obey part 3B of the Apartment Design Guidelines 4. They have failed to obey to give Princeton the required levels of sunshine into the living areas as required by the Apartment Design Guidelines. 5. In relation to sunlight, Sydney Metro have admitted that only 5.2% of apartments at Princeton will get the required levels of sunshine into the living areas as required by the Apartment Design Guidelines once their development is built. 6. This means 48 apartments which currently enjoy the required levels of sunshine into their living areas under the Apartment Design Guidelines will lose the solar access as recommended under the Apartment Design Guidelines. That is 48 family homes. 7. They have failed to obey part 2F of the Apartment Design Guidelines because they only want to leave 0 – 12 m building separation between Princeton Tower and their monstrosity. 8. Sustainability should be a priority. This fails in respect of the new development and its effect on Princeton. As per the Apartment Design Guidelines Part 2F, Sydney Metro should ensure that they have a 24 metre building separation because their building has over 9 storeys. They should comply with the stage 1 consent conditions, SEARS and the Sydney Metro’s design requirements. This should be an absolute minimum. The application is fundamentally flawed on multiple factors, that when taken separately should be reason enough for its refusal.

I formally object to the development application is it currently stands. I am not against development in general but believe it should be of requisite quality and meet basic planning controls and design guides. It is obvious throughout the application that the development is non-compliant and in breach of multiple planning controls. The applicant admits this much so this point does not require to be debated. The main issue at hand is should the applicant be allowed to breach the conditions of consent, SEPP 65, SEAR and Apartment Design Guide. The only arguments I can glean from the applicant in support of this proposition is that the site is a state significant development, the site location makes it difficult to comply and (from the applicant’s submission to IPC) that Canadian pension funds should be protected. The last point is completely irrelevant so does not merit discussion. I understand that the government deemed this site as state significant due to its connection to the underlying infrastructure (although I fail to see the connection between a build to rent residential development and the Sydney Metro station). In all the reading I have undertaken in an attempt to understand this subject I have not come across any exemption of planning controls for state significant developments. And to the contrary the department of planning expressly imposed conditions of consent on the applicant to comply with these very planning controls. So the applicant’s argument must fail on these grounds in relation to state significant developments. In relation to the location of the site as a reason for non-compliance I have not come across any exemption of planning controls to particular sites which the applicant can rely on. I have truly attempted to try and justify the applicant’s position but cannot envisage any interpretation of planning controls that would permit the application to be granted in its current condition. I would like to work with the applicant to improve the design of the development to meet at least some of the planning controls. Removing a small portion of the footprint at the south eastern corner would be a positive first step which would allow more access to natural light to Princeton and would at least show some measure towards minimising the negative effects on amenity. And perhaps if the design of the new apartments was conducted in a more sensible manner they would meet the basic ADG requirements on their own resident’s access to natural light. I look forward to the IPC upholding our basic planning principles and supporting decent, sustainable development in our wonderful city.

I formally object to the Development Applications for the Over the Station Development for Pitt Street South. It is extremely disappointing that the developer has decided simply disregard the Stage 1 Consent conditions and the requirement to comply with SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Guidelines (ADG). Condition A24(b)(i) requires the following: “Maximise sunlight access and views for adjoining and surrounding properties.” Condition A24(c)(i)(c) requires the following: “articulation of built forms from the Pitt Street boundary of the site should be designed to maximise solar access to the living rooms of Princeton Apartments between 9 am – 3 pm at winter solstice.” Condition B3 of the concept DA consent requires the detailed development application to address the following build form considerations: (d) the structure reservation zone is only to be used for non-gross floor area (including structural supports and plants/services relating to the integration with the approved station), alternative options should be considered before built form is proposed in the zone. Any structure or built forms within the structure reservation zone must be designed to minimise its impacts to the outlook and amenity of the adjoining Princeton Apartments (e) a varied setback from the Pitt Street boundary of the site, with the articulation of built forms be designed to minimise solar impacts to the living rooms of Princeton Apartments. (h) for a residential scheme, achieve compliance with the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and the accompanying Apartment Design Guide Despite the above conditions stressing the importance of maximising solar access to Princeton apartments and requiring compliance with the ADG the applicant’s development plans and supporting documents reveal a substantial loss of solar access. According to the Shadow Analysis Report (Appendix E2): 54/116 (or 46.6%) of Princeton Apartments currently receive the minimum 2 hours of solar access to their living rooms between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter. The ADG requires a minimum of 70% of apartment to receive 2 hours of solar access between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter for new development in the Sydney Metro area. With the introduction of the OSD, solar access to Princeton apartments will reduce to 5.2% (6 apartments out of a total of 116 meeting the ADG minimum requirements with respect to solar access). Objective 3B-2 of the ADG requires the following: Where an adjoining property does not currently receive the required hours of solar access, the proposed building ensures solar access to neighbouring properties is not reduced by more than 20%. Given Princeton Apartments does not currently meet the ADG 70% threshold for solar access, the OSD is in breach of condition B3(h) of the concept application which requires compliance with SEPP 65 and the ADG, as solar access to Princeton Apartments is reducing by 41.4%. Non Compliance with Minimum Separation of 12 metres The SSD 8876 MOD 2 contradicts the design plans lodged as part of SSD 10376. It seeks approval to breach the approved envelop by up to 500mm on facades. This means despite the developer suggesting that he will be the required 12 metre minimum separation from the southern boundary, the request to breach envelope by up to 450mm on the southern boundary will make them within that 12 metre minimum separation. It should be also pointed out that “minimum separation” is simply that, it is the minimum separation subject to ensuring NO other impacts to neighbouring buildings which is not evident in this development. Non Compliance with SEPP 65 and Apartment design Guidelines Building Separation – Section 2F of ADG The preamble to this section states the following in relation to building separation: Building separation ensures communal and private open spaces can have useable space with landscaping, deep soil and adequate sunlight and privacy. Within apartments, building separation assists with visual and acoustic privacy, outlook, natural ventilation and daylight access. The aims of building separation include: Assist in providing residential amenity including visual and acoustic privacy, natural ventilation, sunlight and daylight access and outlook. The ADG requires a minimum of 24m separation between habitable rooms for developments over 25m in height. Again, the proposed OSD does not comply with this separation and is therefore in breach of condition B3(h). Other considerations to take into account: Privacy – The OSD has attempted to address the amenity impacts associated with the reduced building separation by providing louvres along the southern façade of the building in the locaiton of the bedrooms. These louvres however do not extend across the living room windows on the southern elevation of the OSD building. This will have a significant impacts in terms of amenity and loss of privacy for Princeton residents. Please reference Section 3F-1 or ADG Visual Privacy. Sustainability – The loss of solar access and daylight to Princeton Apartments to the extent that residents will likely be required to rely on artificial lighting and heating which will lead to increased power costs and therefore reduced sustainability. Ventilation – Access of Princeton Apartments to NE breezes will be reduced which we lead to increased use of air conditioning. Acoustic impacts – location of the terrace communal open space immediately adjacent to Princeton will result in acoustic impacts Solar Access for Apartments 4A-1 of ADG - The new development fails to provide 70% of new apartments solar access of 2 hours or more to the living area glazing and private open space between 9am-3pm on June 21st. The design is non compliant with ADG 4A-1 as it only provides solar access to 50.9% of apartments in new development. Further the ADG states that a maximum of 15% of apartments are to receive NO solar access during the same period. The design has 17.9% of apartments receiving NO solar access, which is non compliant with ADG. It is clear that the developer has no regard for it’s neighbours and the substantial impact their development will have on the Princeton apartments solar access, privacy and overall amenity. If the developer and the government were serious about minimising the impacts of development of existing owners and residences in the Princeton, the developer should be instructed to redesign the proposed building to reduce the impacts to solar access, privacy and amenity. I have seen a proposal made to remove a 6 x 16m triangular section from the south east corner of the development which would increase solar access significantly and only result in a 5.8% reduction in gross floor area. I understand the applicant has only submitted its short response to this proposal on 26 March 2021 which 1 one business day before the closing date for IPC submissions. It is clear that this proposal needs to be discussed and explored further and it would represent the only step the developer would have taken to meet the conditions of consent. I think the only sensible outcome at this stage would be a deferment of the application to explore this proposal. It is alarming that this is the first genuine consultation the applicant has undertaken with our building. For the reasons outlined above the application should not proceed and the applicant compelled to comply with basic planning controls.

I object to this development application as no effort has been made to meet the conditions of consent. I find it alarming that the applicant can blatantly admit non-compliance and expect the application to be granted. I find it equally alarming that the planning department would recommend approval on this basis. This truly confirms our suspicions regarding the inherent bias in government backed developments. If this application was made on a non-state significant site there would be no hesitation to reject the application. This process has been an eye-opening experience for a lot of residents in our building who naively assumed that they would be protected by the rule of law of proper regulation of development in our wonderful city. I will be fully supporting an investigation into this matter if the IPC does not do its job as I have not experience any such bias in other industries with such potentially disastrous outcomes. What we have at risk here is not office conditions or commercial tenants but family homes. Princeton is a wholly residential building. Please take this into account when performing your duty. Government bodies and government appointed commissions should answer to citizens and not be so blatently bought out by foreign investment. Not only should this application be rejected for obvious breach of planning controls and specific conditions of consent but the planning department should be investigated for its role in this corruption. This seems to me to be the bigger issue here and approving this application with support and enable further corruption within the planning department. I do not know what private dealings have been made between the applicant and the planning department in respect of total apartment numbers built in Sydney or promised minimum GFAs for over station developments but it is clear this application has not been objectively assessed on its merits. Why else would the planning department expressly impose conditions of consent and then recommend approval when multiple conditions have not been met, even by the applicant’s admission? Myself along with my executive committee are generally pro development and welcome the addition of such developments as Greenland, renovation of Primus Hotel and The Castle to our neighbourhood. However when we are faced with unsustainable, unsightly, poor development we rightfully should speak out and point out its inherent weaknesses. The applicant sees these weaknesses too but blames its shortcomings on the nature of the site. There are plenty of other sites in Sydney, ones in much less prestigious locations where the applicant can test out the build to rent model on high rise slums full of tiny apartments for the protection of the Canadian pension funds it so righteously supports. I don’t think I have heard a more irrelevant, tone deaf argument in support of a development as this before. To get into specifics the applicant has spectacularly failed to me the following conditions: 1. Condition A24(b)(i) to maximize sunlight access and views for adjoining properties; 2. Condition A24(c)(i)(c) to articulate build forms to maximize solar access to living areas of Princeton; 3. Condition B3 (multiple parts) to minimise impacts to outlook and amenity of Princeton Apartments; 4. Condition B3(h) to comply with requirements of SEPP 65 and ADG; 5. SEAR; 6. Apartment Design Guide; 7. SEPP 65; 8. Sydney Metro Design guidelines; A single failure of any one of the above items should render the application non-compliant and lead to rejection however we have 8 to choose from. Each one of the 8 above failures is significant in nature. The failure that resonates most with me is that 48 families will lose their access to natural light. 48 families will be at risk of losing their amenity leading to a multitude of adverse effects including mental health issues at a time where this consideration should be paramount. Another huge failure that resonates with me is that only 50% of the proposed new apartments will get access to sufficient natural light. The ADG (and consequently the conditions of consent) requires this number to be at least 70%. Half of the residents living in the proposed new apartments will not have sufficient access to light. I struggle to see how this can even be a legitimate proposition in the current climate we live in. Again the mental health issues should be considered. Just because this is a build to rent model we should not disregard the amenity of these new residents (and who will want to live here?). Tiny dark apartments will not attract high quality tenants. A high rise building with tenants living in substandard conditions will lead to overcrowding as we have seen happen with poor quality residential living and this will lead to slum-like conditions and deterioration of the development. Precedent for this is well documented in this city as well as others. My entire family will be personally affected by this development if approved as it currently stands. I will lose all northern views, lose all northern solar access which means my heating bills will increase in winter and cooling bills will increase in summer. All year round this will create a less sustainable environment for my family will less amenity, privacy and mental wellbeing. I will be forced to consider selling my apartment and I foresee this is the first time in the building’s history that my apartment will lose its value. All because of the greed and corruption of our planning processes. There are multiple ways the applicant can improve their proposal to meet basic planning requirements. It can amend the design of the building by increasing separation, cutting the south east corner slightly to allow access to more natural light, angling the design to allow views to be preserved to St Mary’s Cathedral, adjusting the internal layout to increase amenity for its tenants, extending louvres to living areas to protect privacy, respecting heritage aspects but non of these have genuinely been considered by the applicant. Their attitude shows a callous lack of consideration and a reliance on the inherent bias of state significant development process. I urge the IPC to consider the matters above and act with independence and integrity in protecting our great city.

I own a unit in the immediately adjacent building at 308 Pitt Street and I look forward to the site next door being 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 a gross overdevelopment of the site without any regard to surrounding residents. 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 that there will be additional overshadowing to Hyde Park. 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. 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 0 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 which the applicant has been mandated to comply not only by the Sydney Metro design documents but also by the conditions of consent imposed at stage 1 of the development application. 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 (only if non-habitable rooms are on the southern boundary of the development) 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 0 - 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 apartments at Princeton. LOSS OF SUNLIGHT FOR OWNERS AND OCCUPIERS AT PRINCETON APARTMENTS The Shadow Analysis Report as shown in Appendix E.2 of the Environmental Impact Statement confirms: - CURRENT SITUATION - 54 of the 116 units (i.e. 46.6% of units) at Princeton Apartments currently receive the minimum 2 hours of solar access between 9am-3pm on June 21. It should be noted in stage 1 application this figure was higher therefore I question the accuracy of this report. - IF THE APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL GOES AHEAD – ONLY 6 out of 116 units (i.e. 5.2% 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. This is in clear breach of the ADG Design guidance which was set as a fundamental requirement that the applicant must address. The above breaches 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. 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 proposal to install louvres (which will potentially decrease the set back between Princeton when operated) in only the bedrooms is insufficient, and ignores the fact that the living areas in the development will be visible. Again this represents a half-thought through solution and additional non-compliance. The development will also completely block out Century Towers’ views to St. Mary Cathedral which was a requirement of the proposal. The applicant mentioned the Tenacity test in its application but then dismissed it as it purports to build within the concept envelope (despite the fact it is seeking to modify the consent as it is building outside the envelope). Tenacity refers to view sharing principles and places importance on any water or historic views. The development proposed to block out both Princeton’s northerly views to the water at Sydney Harbour (visible from living rooms and bedrooms) and Century Tower’s views to St. Mary Cathedral. This is disgraceful. The Applicant should do the following to have a better impact on Princeton as an adjoining building: 1. Shorten their proposed building 2. Increase the distance between the proposed building and Princeton 3. 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 strongly OBJECT to this development applications for the following reasons: • The new building will reduce solar access to living areas at Princeton apartments as at 21st June from 54 of 116 to 6 apartments out of 116. This is a clear breach of the SEPP 65 Apartment Design Guidelines. The SSD 8876 consent specifically said in condition 3B “ (h) for a residential scheme, achieve compliance with the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and the accompanying Apartment Design Guide” • The proposed building is only 11.5 metres away from the Princeton apartments northern boundary which is also another breach of the SEPP 65 Apartment Design Guideline. • The SSD 8876 MOD 2 wants the new building to exceed the maximum envelope previously approved so that they get more floor area. • The limited separation also will have impact of our privacy and again breaches the SEPP 65 and Apartment Design Guideline. • Further overshadowing to the Heritage listed Hyde Park. • The developer is in breach of multiple conditions of consent such as condition A24(b)(i) (maximize sunlight access and views for neighbours), B3 (minimize impacts to outlook and amenity of Princeton apartments and comply with SEPP65 and ADG), A24(d) (design must retain view of St Mary’s Cathedral from Century Tower). • ADG requirement that new developments must provide solar access to 70% of apartments. The applicant proposes 50% of new apartments have sufficient solar access. • Princeton will lose all light from north resulting in more artificial cooling in summer with less breezes and more artificial heating in summer with less solar access. This will lead to a huge reduction in sustainability. • Princeton will lose all views to north. • There have been 174 objections to date, not including objections made to the IPC. • Heritage aspects have also been ignored. I am not anti-development and support sustainable, sensible and compliant development. Other developers must abide by these rules so why is it any different for a state significant development. Surely it should be more stringent if it is significant for the state? The consent authority should either reject this application or seek substantial amendments so as to reduce the impacts to the owners and residents of the Princeton Apartments. We have approached the developer to propose a small removal from the south east corner but have not received any genuine engagement to date. This proposal would allow a significant amount of solar access to Princeton while only reducing a small (5.8%) area from the gross floor area. The application should be deferred while we explore this option otherwise the developer will continue to ignore our request for engagement.

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 applicant has failed to comply with multiple planning controls and the requirements of the stage 1 consent. These are not mere guidelines that can be flaunted as the applicant proposes. The overshadowing effect 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 reports will cause 48 apartments in Princeton to lose the required amount of sun exposure. This in itself should be grounds for the application to be rejected. Can you image the huge effects this will have on 48 families? Mental health is also a very important human factor which needs to be taken into account when removing a person’s access to natural light, heat, view and privacy. In addition I understand the proposed development will add additional overshadowing to Hyde Park in the vicinity of the ANZAC memorial. The proposal should be reduced to remove any additional overshadowing of Hyde Park which is a precious inner city open space for residents and tourists. Again this raises mental health issues and access to light in the public domain at a time when this is of utmost importance. The applicant clearly understands and acknowledges that they require to comply with separation requirements but have elected not to do so while falsely alluding that Princeton is a non-complying development despite being approved from a planning perspective and built 20 years before the separation requirements came into force. I understand the minimum separation should be 24m above 9 storeys between habitable rooms. The applicant has proposed 12 m above 9 storeys which is woefully inadequate. Also on lower levels there is 0 separation which I understand is directly adjacent to apartments on the northern side of Princeton and our communal areas including the bbq area, outdoor recreational area and gym. This is wrong on a number of levels and again raises mental health issues arising from loss of amenity, acoustic impacts and vibrations. 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 address privacy concerns in a meaningful way. 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. The applicant’s proposed solution here is placing louvres on only the bedroom windows, completely ignoring living areas which will face Princeton apartments. Sustainability seems to be championed by the applicant but only at a surface level interpretation. No proper consideration has been made of the devastating impacts on the sustainability of Princeton apartments including overshadowing, increased reliance on artificial cooling in summer and heating in winter and increased reliance on artificial lighting. In addition the proposed development does not even meet basic sustainability requirements as half of the proposed apartments have insufficient access to natural light. This again will lead to increased reliance on artificial cooling and heating, along with mental health considerations. It seems like the application is flawed on both fonts - the affect on neighbours and the failure to provide basic amenity to its residents. Perhaps this is why they propose a tenant only model as no sensible person would invest into a sub-standard development. Heritage considerations have been simplified and dealt with insufficiently. 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. The only apparent attempt in this regard is copying the brick colour of Edinburgh Castle Hotel. The design in general appears to have copied a prison cell block with thick vertical bars running up the entire height of the building and metallic vertical balustrades blocking the already inadequate windows further blocking access to natural light. Not only will the new residents feel like they are in forced confinement with inadequate natural light (which is non-compliant with ADG) but they will appear as such from the outside looking in from the proposed design, and residents in Princeton will be faced with a view of vertical concrete and metallic bars right outside their windows. The applicant should be encouraging the flow of natural light as with modern developments in Sydney not restricting and blocking it. If the application is approved Century Tower will lose its St. Mary’s Cathedral views which the applicant was specifically directed to protect in the conditions of stage 1 consent. Also the applicant’s view analysis conveniently adopts positioning at Princeton which does not show the complete loss of Sydney Harbour water views to the north from north facing windows in living rooms and bedrooms of all north facing apartments at Princeton. The applicant makes a flippant comment about how important the Tenacity test is but somehow irrelevant for this application as stage 1 concept has already been approved notwithstanding the fact that this test was not adopted at stage 1. To completely remove 2 iconic views from neighbouring developments would surely be of vital importance when adopting the Tenacity test. Please consider my objection on these grounds. Planning regulations and requirements should be mandatory for all especially considering the state significance of the development and the massive impact this will have to the detriment of our building if approved. I was shocked to discover that the Sydney Metro’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 , heritage 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. The modification to the stage 1 envelope represents further non-compliance with planning controls due to reduced separation, loss of solar access and views. It should not be necessary to expand a development beyond the approved envelope for architectural embellishments. I am not aware of any accepted planning principle supporting the notion that only the core building structure needs to exist within an approval envelope with any design features able to protrude outside of the envelope. The entire proposal including the modification application highlights the inherent unsuitability of the site for a development of this nature. The build to rent model is untested in Sydney and the proposal to adopt this in a state significant development is ill-informed. I support growth and sustainable development in this part of the city and would welcome the opportunity to review a sensible and well-considered development application in line with planning requirements. I understand representatives from Princeton have made a proposed to the developer to reduce a small portion of the development on the south eastern corner which would achieve more solar access to the north side while only resulting in a minor reduction in GFA. At the very least this proposal needs to be discussed in more detail. If the application is granted we will lose this opportunity to improve the application for all parties. I fully support this proposal and urge the IPC to encourage the applicant to engage meaningfully with us by deferring the decision until such time as necessary to investigate this option.

I object to the proposed over station development at Pitt Street South. This is based on breaches of the following items: 1. Secretary's Environmental. Assessment Requirements; 2. City of Sydney Development Control Plan 2012; 3. Apartment Design Guide; 4. Sydney Metro Design Excellence Strategy and OSD Design Guideline; 5. Stage 1 development conditions of consent. There are multiple breaches of the above standards in relation to overshadowing, separation, privacy, loss of solar light, heritage, loss of view. The applicant’s attitude to these breaches is that we should expect bad planning and the removal of our amenity because we live in the city. Surely it is in the city where spaces is more scarce should planning regulations be most stringently enforced. This defies logic. It is clear that the applicant does not understand the way planning controls should be applied. Perhaps they have been allowed to flaunt planning controls in other countries where they operate but this should not be the case in Sydney, despite the best corrupt efforts of the planning department. This is precisely why the role of the IPC is so important and we are putting our faith in the IPC to carry out its duty. An example of the applicant’s incompetence is displayed in their references to the Apartment Design Guide while simultaneously referencing this in their guidelines as “requirements” they must abide by. They are clearly confused about the meaning of the word requirement and the fundamental nature of planning controls. The proposed development doesn’t even meet the standards for amenity for its own residents let alone the drastic effect it will have on its neighbours. Sustainability is quoted as being a key metric and is championed by the applicant without acknowledging its complete failure to develop a sustainable building. State significant applications with the potential to destroy families’ amenity need to be objectively assessed. The motives of the applicant appear to be to fit in the most amount of apartments into the smallest space at the cost of everyone’s amenity. This will no doubt cause numerous issues including increased reliance on artificial heating and lighting in winter and cooling in summer (sustainability), mental health issues affecting 48 families in Princeton who will lose their solar access, prevention of Princeton adopting planned installation of solar panels to reduce carbon footprint and loss of privacy to name a few. I note also that the modification application seeks to develop outside the stage 1 approved envelope and will further reduce separation between the development and Princeton by 45cm to 11.55m. This is obviously a further breach of the above standards. It also does not take into the account the operability of any windows/louvres on the southern side, which I presume will reduce separation even further. The applicant appears to have failed to even meet its own non-compliant metrics. I trust the objections raised to the application will be taken into account. The applicant must be accountable to the public if their actions have the potential to damage the amenity of the residents in Sydney.

I would like to start by pointing out a recent glaring error in the developer's approach to this application. The developer had agreed to provide us with modelling on the option to chamfer the building at the IPC public meeting on 22 March. The developer posted their response on 26 March, one business day before the IPC submission deadline. In their response they have failed again on multiple fronts. Firstly, they have modelled their diagram on a chamfer applied to the boundary of their development not to the actual building. This shows a complete lack of competency and even common sense. It is obvious that a chamfer to the ground levels and landscaped area is not what is being proposed. It is obvious this would have zero affect on solar access to north facing apartments. Secondly, in the developer's modelling the Telstra Tower is incorrectly sited over the lot boundary which distorts the benefit of the chamfer. They don't even have the base competency to use an accurate diagram of the buildings in question. I am not surprised as the application is litters with similar deficiencies. I support good development and want the very best for our neighbourhood. We have experienced an influx of development on our street in recent times and I am impressed in general with improvements these new developments bring. This development however stands out as a huge failure in comparison. It has non of the architectural merits of The Castle or Greenland and has wholly unnecessarily negative effects on the amenity of its neighbours. Princeton is a residential building and the proposed development is also residential. This should mean that amenity concerns, overshadowing and privacy should be paramount considerations. The developer has not even attempted to address these concerns and has simply concluded that they will not comply because it is too difficult. They seem to be relying on corrupt and bias practices inherent in state significant applications to have this approved. It is quite alarming that the developer would not even comply with its own conditions of consent and the planning department would recommend approval on this basis. The developer has not maximised sunlight access and views for adjoining properties as required by the conditions of consent. The developer has not minimised impacts to outlook and amenity of Princeton Apartments as required by the conditions of consent. The developer has not sufficiently set back the development by 24m as required by ADG and the conditions of consent. The developer has not provided 70% of new apartments with sufficient solar access as required by ADG and the conditions of consent. The developer has not maintained Century Tower's views to St Mary's Cathedral as required by the conditions of consent. The developer proposes to remove 48 family homes solar access in Princeton. 48 families will be affected including children and the elderly. The developer has not shown any regard for the mental health of these residents. The developer is in breach of ADG and the conditions of consent in not doing so. The developer seeks sympathy for its complete failure as it wishes to protect the interests of Canadian pension funds. I known a number of Canadian pensioners who would be disgusted by the actions of the developer. I will lose solar access and will be forced to rely on artificial lighting, heating and cooling in the winter and summer months. I will lose all my northern views. This will affect my mental health and wellbeing considerably. I hope the IPC will consider ALL objections lodged to date for this application. There have been 174 in total for stages 1 and 2. There will be many more for the IPC stage taking the total way over 200. Please listen to the voices of these people. I fully support the proposal to chamfer the south east corner of the proposed development. I understand a reduction of a 6m by 16m corner would increase solar access considerably and only result in 5.8% GFA reduction for the development. This proposal would be an acceptable first step to actually considering the conditions of consent and planning controls. It is quite telling that we have had to approach the developer to do its own job in this regard but I remain hopeful that we can achieve a significant improvement if our input is considered and we work together with the developer. I thank you for considering my views and hope the application can be deferred so that we have the opportunity to assist the developer achieve a compliant development for the benefit of all concerned, and for the benefit of our wonderful city.

Pitt Street South Over Station Development - SSD 10376 and SSD 8876 MOD 2

Planning Officer

Current status of project:

Venue

Contact Information

Meeting Documents

Venue

Contact Information

Meeting Documents

Venue

Contact Information

Meeting Documents

Venue

Contact Information

Meeting Documents

Statement from the Commission

Referral from the Department of Planning Industry and Environment

Conflict of Interest Declaration

Site Inspection

Correspondence

Applicant

Department

Public Submissions

General Public Submissions

Comments on Additional Material

Public Submissions