Skip to main content
Back to Main Project

SSD Modifications


MOD 2 - Inclusion of retail premises and protrusions beyond building envelope

City of Sydney

Current Status: Determination

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. Prepare Mod Report
  2. Exhibition
  3. Collate Submissions
  4. Response to Submissions
  5. Assessment
  6. Recommendation
  7. Determination

Proposed amendments to include 'retail premises' as a permitted land use and to allow for protrusion beyond the approved Building Envelope.

Attachments & Resources

Notice of Exhibition (1)

Notice of Exhibition_04062020_120007

Modification Application (11)

Appendix D_4.55 - Sustainability Report_
Modification Planning Report
Appendix C_4.55 - Built Form & Urban Design
Appendix I_4.55 - View and VIsual Impact
Appendix B_4.55 - Site Survey
Appendix J_4.55 - Pre-Consultation Report
Appendix E_4.55 - Statement of Heritage Impact
Appendix F_4.55 - Building Compliance_Fire
Appendix H_4.55 - Building Compliance_DDA
Appendix G_4.55 - Building Compliance_BCA
Appendix A_4.55 - Concept SSDA – SEARs

Response to Submissions (23)

Request RTS_08072020_093913
App E - Revised Transport Impact Assessment
App D - Supp Solar& Overshadowing Analysis
App G - Amended Design Integrity Report
App C - Supplementary Landscape Design Report
App B - Supplementary Design Report
App H - Natural Ventilation Technical Details
RTS Report
App J - Presentation and Minutes of DRP Meeting
App F - Vertical Transportation Additional Detail
App I - Response to Waste Management Feedback
App A - Amended Architectural Plans -Pt11
App A - Amended Architectural Plans -Pt1
App A - Amended Architectural Plans -Pt3
App A - Amended Architectural Plans -Pt2
App A - Amended Architectural Plans -Pt10
App A - Amended Architectural Plans -Pt9
App A - Amended Architectural Plans -Pt6
App A - Amended Architectural Plans -Pt8
App A - Amended Architectural Plans -Pt7
App A - Amended Architectural Plans -Pt4
App A - Amended Architectural Plans -Pt12
App A - Amended Architectural Plans -Pt5

Additional Information (13)

RFI Request for Additional Information
RFI Request for Additional Information_26112020
Pitt Street South OSD-Response to RFI Request
Appendix A - Supp Architectural Design Report
Appendix B - Supp Solar&Overshadowing Analysis
Appendix C - Amended Design Integrity Report lr
Appendix D - Revised Bicycle Parking Layouts
C - Revised Solar Access Report
E - Final BASIX Report & Stamped Plans
D - Projections from Envelope Plans
Cover Letter - Response to DPIE RFI #2
B - Supp Architectural Design Report - RFI #1
A - Proposed Architectural Plans

Recommendation (3)

Cover Letter
SSD Instrument of Modification
PSS OSD Assessment Report

Determination (2)

IPC Statement of Reasons
SSD-8876 MOD 2 Modification Instrument


Showing 1 - 20 of 25 submissions
Water Group
The Department of Planning, Industry and Environment - Water and the Natural Resources Access Regulator (NRAR) have reviewed the modification and have no comments.
Sydney , New South Wales
The EPA has no comments in relation to this matter and no further need to be involved in the assessment of this project.
Biodiversity and Conservation Division
PARRAMATTA , New South Wales
Please find attached EES comments
Sydney Airport Corporation
Mascot , New South Wales
Sydney Airport sought approval from the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development & Cities for this development to a height of 171m AHD, which was approved on 07/04/2018.

As the development is now lower, the original decision still stands.
Name Withheld
sydney , New South Wales
Relocation of the fire control room,substation entry chamber and the OSD only egress stairs, and allow for ground floor retail spaces on the Pitt street side. To enhance street activation.
Department of Transport
Chippendale , New South Wales
A copy of the TfNSW response letter is attached.
PARRAMATTA , New South Wales
See attached.
Police NSW
Sydney , New South Wales
Regarding the Pitt Street South Over Station Development (SSD-8876-Mod-2), Sydney City Police would request that the builders / developers consult with a private security company for assessment, and consider all relevant counter terrorism aspects for the building.
Phillip , Australian Capital Territory
Sydney Water
Parramatta , New South Wales
Thank you for notifying Sydney Water of the abovementioned SSD Modification.
We have reviewed the proposal based on the information supplied and have concluded this modification requires no comment from Sydney Water.
If you have any additional questions, please email [email protected]
Name Withheld
SYDNEY , New South Wales
As an apartment owner in Princeton, 308 Pitt Street, SYDNEY 2000, I have a number of concerns regarding the proposed Over Station Development (OSD) next door to our apartment building.

The proposed OSD will severely restrict solar access, reduce privacy and views will be lost as a consequence, both for my apartment and the building as a whole.

The ADG requires a minimum of 24 metres separation between habitable rooms for developments over 25 metres in height. I object as the plans proposed are for a 12 metre separation, not the required 24.

Due to the above, request the decision process be delegated to an independent panel.
City of Sydney
SYDNEY , New South Wales
Hi James

See attached

Kind regards

Amy-Grace Douglas
City of Sydney
Christine Allen
SURRY HILLS , New South Wales
I object to this protrusion because as with the development of the tower over Sydney Metro South Pitt St, it disregards planning rules which adversely affects residents and units within the Princeton building. The rules are there to ensure that existing residents / owners are protected. This also ensures that property values are not detrimentally affected by other developments. They should not be enforced at discretion - otherwise, what's the point?
I am not against this development, in fact, I am all for it. But the design of this new tower needs to be re-thought to accommodate the Princeton building.
Michael Calleja
PADDINGTON , New South Wales
I object to this application for the following reasons:
**Solar Access
** Separation, The proposed plans are for 12 meters, where I believe they should be 24 meters. The 12 meters will affected over shadowing, the Princeton will enjoy LESS sun and privacy and less views. Section 2F of the ADG requires a minimum of 24 meters sparation between habitable rooms for developments over 25 meters in height.
Name Withheld
SYDNEY , New South Wales
As an owner in the Princeton I strongly object to any approval, for any structure, be granted that is outside the approved building envelope.
The structures proposed, protrude some 500 mm, should be contained within the approval boundarys.
unit 112
Name Withheld
SYDNEY , New South Wales
Dear Sir/Madam,

RE: SSD 10376 Sydney Metro Pitt Street (South) Over the Station Development – Stage 2 and SSD 8876 MOD 2

I am writing to formally Object to the above 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 in relation to the Apartment Design Guidelines.

Conditions of Consent SSD-8876

• 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 DA to address the following built 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 emphasizing the importance of maximising solar access to the Princeton Apartments and complying with the ADG the 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 Apartment Design Guide (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. The ADG does not ‘single out’ the Sydney CBD as a special case so it must be assumed that the CBD is part of the Sydney metro area.

• With the introduction of the OSD, the 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 DA 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 has been lodged that completely contradicts the design plans lodged as part of SSD 10376. The SSD 8876 MOD 2 seeks approval to breach the approved envelop by up to 500mm on all facades. This will mean that 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.

The consent authority should not allow the developer to exceed the current approved envelope.

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 points:

• 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.
Name Withheld
SYDNEY , New South Wales
Dear Sir/Madam

RE: SSD 10376 Sydney Metro Pitt Street (South) Over the Station Development – Stage 2 and SSD 8876 MOD 2

I refer to the above Development Applications and Object to the new Over the Station Development.

I also objected to the Stage 1 DA given the impact that the new building would have in significantly reducing the solar access to Princeton apartments living area. Despite the Stage 1 DA consent being amended so as to direct the developer to Maximise Solar Access to Princeton Apartments they have just simply ignored the conditions of the consent and as such ignored the significant impacts to their neighbours.

The proposed building is set too close to the Princeton apartments at 12 metres on plans but with requested SSD 8876 MOD 2 will be actually less and closer to 11.5 metres which is in breach of the Apartment Design Guidelines (ADG) that stipulate separation at 24 metres when the building is over 25 metres in height and has habitable to habitable rooms facing each other as this does. This limited separation will have significant impact of privacy and solar access to Princeton apartments.

The solar access to Princeton Apartments will be significantly reduced with apartments receiving 2 hours of solar access to their living area between 9am and 3pm as at 21st June falling from 54 to 6 apartments from a total of 116 lots. This represents a 41.4% reduction for a building that did not meet the required 70% solar access initially, as such breaching the 20% maximum reduction under the ADG.

The significant loss of sun light to our apartments will see an increase in heating costs and mental health issues as a result of long periods without sunlight.

Further, there will be overshadowing of Hype Park from this development. We do not have much open space in the city and as such treasure Hyde Park and the sun we get in winter months. To further overshadow this Heritage Park is not in the best interest of the public which should be always a priority.

This development should be refused in its current form. The developer needs to amend the design to ensure there are no impacts to the Princeton apartments, it’s neighbours and is in the best interest of the public.
Name Withheld
Sydney , New South Wales
This submission should be taken as an objection to both SSD-10376 and the modification SSD-8876 MOD 2. I am a tenant who has just signed up to a lease at Princeton Apartments, 308 Pitt Street, Sydney NSW 2000.

I will be living at Princeton Apartments for the next few years with my family and strongly OBJECT to the development application in its currrent format.

My living room and dining room will be severly adversely impacted by the the sheer size of the building next door which will completely overshadow our building.
The building at Princeton Apartments will be completely dwarfed if this development application is approved.

The Development application in its current format does not conform with minimum building separation distances for residential apartment developments (as required by Part 2F of the Apartment Design Guidelines).

The new building if approved will be a mere 3 metres away on the lower levels and 12 metres away on the higher levels from Princeton Apartments.
Take a look at Princeton Apartments and you will see that from level 9 to level 42 of our building that either a living room, dining room, winter garden or bedroom will directly look into the new proposed development. Princeton Tower is a residential tower not an office tower and so privacy is even more crucial to maintain.
The residents here at Princeton Apartments comprise mainly of professionals who live and work in the beautiful city. Our home is a place of relaxation with our family and loved ones.

Our enjoyment of the property will be completely diminished if the developer next door does not comply with minimum building separation distances which will compromise our privacy.

The Shadow Analysis Report which is attached to the Enviromental impact statement prepared for SSD-10376 further appalls and alarms me.
How can anyone with a reasonable mind think it’s ok to proceed with a development where the proportion of units in the neighbouring building who receive 2 hours of sun between 9am to 3pm will decreased from 46.6% to 5.2%. This is absolutely shocking!

Do you even realise how many lives you are affecting by taking away access to sun? The mental health implications of residents during these tough times also need to be considered. The sun is important for mental wellbeing and triggers the body’s production of vitamin D. This is a crucial ingredient for overall health; protects against inflammation, lowers high blood pressure, helps muscles, improves brain function and may even protect against cancer. You cannot approve a development which results in only 5.2% of Princeton apartments receiving more than 2 hours of sunshine and leave the other 94.8% in the dark.

How would YOU like it if you only received 2 hours of sun between 9am to 3pm?

In making your decision, please have empathy and care to those who have chosen live and build a home in the city.
Name Withheld
SYDNEY , New South Wales
I am a long-term resident of Princeton and object to the over station development next door.

I regularly enjoy sitting on my balcony to relax after a hard day’s work and enjoy the views of Hyde Park and the city of Sydney with a cup of coffee. I have a fantastic view of the ANZAC War Memorial from my apartment which is a beautiful tribute to look at. Building the over station development will drastically reduce the amount of sunlight hitting my apartment as well as Hyde Park and the ANZAC War Memorial.

Hyde Park is Australia’s oldest park. It’s also one of the most well-known. With just over 16 hectares of wide-open space in the heart of central Sydney, there is no shortage of lush grass if you want to claim a small piece of land for an impromptu picnic, or simply have a seat and take a breather. Many residents, workers and visitors frequent the park to sunbathe to soak up the sun’s rays.

The Development Application contains a Shadow Analysis Report which confirms significant overshadowing to Hyde Park throughout the year if the development proceeds.

Hyde Park is an influential public park and open space, much used, loved and copied in other urban spaces in Australian cities and towns. Hyde Park has to be protected and preserved because it is increasingly common for CBD Residential buildings to have no private common areas to relax.

The Development Application must not go ahead because it represents too much overshadowing to the park. The Development Application is also in contravention of the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 because it results in a significant detrimental impact on public amenity.

Governor Macquarie declared Hyde Park a common in 1810, officially setting it aside as a place for people to meet, talk and contemplate. Any remaining access to sunlight must be protected so people can continue to enjoy their lifestyle. Public amenity spaces are supposed to get better not worse through the passage of time. We should be seeking to improve the beauty of public amenity spaces not detract from them.

If you continue to keep approving ugly ultra-tall CBD buildings which casts darkness and shadows across historically important public amenity spaces such as Hyde Park, Anzac War Memorial and the Obelisk, there will be no beauty left in Sydney.

Furthermore, the overshadowing caused by the proposed plans to the ANZAC War Memorial and the Obelisk is incredibly disrespectful to our military who fought and died for this country.
Name Withheld
SYDNEY , New South Wales
To whom it may concern

I have lived in the city for the last 10 years and have owned an apartment at Princeton, 308 Pitt Street, Sydney for about 8 years.

I am saddened and angry with the Pitt Street South Over Station Development. In all my years at Princeton, I have been able to look out of the window of my living room and 3rd bedroom to see the patch of water at Woolloomooloo and the clouds high above it. It really brings me joy to own my own home here in one of the world’s most beautiful cities. It has always been a dream of mine.

This development will impact my living amenity through the loss of privacy and solar light with substantial overshadowing of my living area. The large majority of other owners in this building will also suffer the same fate.

I object to the Pitt Street South Over Station Development in its current format for the following reasons:

1. The design of the development is ugly. The colour is ugly. The space it takes up is ugly.

2. Why are we marketing to international students when we should be taking care of local residents and ensuring they have the opportunity to buy apartments in the city if they wish. Given the current covid-19 pandemic, it is risky to have so many overseas people in one concentrated area.’

3. The developer has admitted it will not comply with section 3B of the Apartment Design Guide despite being a requirement. This results in a huge unacceptable overshadowing effect on Princeton, Hyde Park and neighbouring properties. The practical consequence of overshadowing means that there will be increased artificial heating and lighting costs for all residents in the building which will increase our carbon footprint and reduce sustainability.

4. The application does not comply with ADG and consent condition A24(c) that design must seek to maximise retention of solar access to living room of Princeton apartments between 9am - 3pm at midwinter.

5. The developer has been incredibly sneaky and underhand because it has tried to make a separate application to modify the concept consent to allow 45cm projections on the southern façade which effectively means proposed separation will be 11.55m therefore not even achieving the 12m separation claimed throughout this application. What a joke!

6. Half the building at Princeton which has 41 levels lose all views to northern aspect and instead be faced by a window within spitting distance filled with a lot of international students. This impacts an awful lot of people and will definitely detrimentally affect the way I sleep in my bedroom, relax in my living room, read on my balcony and cook in my kitchen.

7. The lack of privacy in me enjoying my only home which I have saved hard to buy is intolerable

8. My building at Princeton communal includes an outdoor bbq area and gym on level 7 which has floor to ceiling windows. This will be negatively affected by being immediately adjacent to plant and equipment floors of development;

9. I am also concerned with the potential loss in value of my property because if the application proceeds as is then I will lose the view and suffer privacy issues which were not in existence previously from one entire window of my living room, two balconies (one facing Castlereagh and one facing pitt st) and one entire window of my bedroom.

For the above reasons I strongly OBJECT. The applicant should consider the following issues:

1. Reducing development in size to address the above concerns

2. Increase the building separation to reduce the significant impact on the amenity of Princeton apartments (including loss of sunlight and privacy) along with any required measures to avoid overshadowing of Hyde Park.

The residents of Princeton request:

1. A suitable, sustainable development in accordance with ADG and all applicable planning controls;

2. The Sydney Metro Pitt Street South Over Station Development Design Guidelines and Sydney Metro Design Excellence Strategy to be followed;

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

4. All requirements to be followed including separation limits, protection of solar access, privacy and amenity to be properly respected, no overshadowing of Hyde Park; and a

5. Sensible approach to inner city planning to protect our beautiful city, sustainability in development and the protection of rare public open spaces.


Project Details

Application Number
Main Project
Assessment Type
SSD Modifications
Development Type
Rail transport facilities
Local Government Areas
City of Sydney
Determination Date

Contact Planner

James Groundwater