New South Wales
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).
• 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.