Skip to main content
Back to Main Project

SSD Modifications

Determination

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)

Modification Application (11)

Response to Submissions (23)

Additional Information (13)

Recommendation (3)

Determination (2)

Submissions

Filters
Showing 21 - 25 of 25 submissions
Name Withheld
Object
SYDNEY , New South Wales
Message
I object to the OSD.

The OSD will restrict solar access and reduce privacy to the Princeton Apartments due to non-compliance with the conditions of consent.

The ADG requires a minimum of 24m separation between habitable rooms for developments over 25M in height. The proposed plans are only 12M separation.

Protection of privacy is also insufficient: views into the living rooms of residents.

The protection of the Hyde Park solar access plane must be upheld.

No plant rooms adjacent or close to the living areas or bedrooms of residents.

Greater solar access for the better metal health of residents is a must, not less. It is non-complying to deprive residents of Princeton of so much solar access. So wrong.

Please modify the plans by reducing the height, increasing the separation, increasing solar access, and moving the plant rooms elsewhere.
Name Withheld
Object
BONDI BEACH , New South Wales
Message
As a unit owner of Princeton, 308 Pitt Street, SYDNEY, I am writing to strongly object to the DA for the Over Station Development (OSD) in Pitt Street. This development is directly north of my unit in the Princeton building.

Due to the lack of suitable separation between the buildings, my unit and lots of units within Princeton, will have restricted solar access and reduced privacy. Views will be impacted negatively. In short, there will be NO advantage to Princeton units.
Articulation of the OSD on the Pitt street side will do little to enhance sunlight to our building – our building is south of the OSD and this is the side requiring planning to provide access to sunlight! I note that the ADG requires a minimum of 24 metres separation for these buildings, 12 metres is ridiculous.

Dictionary: Minimum = the least or smallest amount possible or required – not even 23.9m is acceptable!!!

The proposed OSD reduces the solar access too much to too many units in the Princeton apartments.

The lack of adequate separation will strongly negatively impact on the Princeton apartment’s visual and acoustic privacy, natural ventilation (eg summer NE breezes) and daylight access and outlook.

I sincerely hope the review committee for this DA have the backbone to resist the Developers attempts to whittle away the ADG guidelines of minimum standards to the detriment of the amenity of the occupants of both buildings.
Sydney Metro
Comment
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
SYDNEY , New South Wales
Message
I am an owner and resident of Princeton Apartments and want to strongly OBJECT to the Over the Station Development for Pitt Street South.

The developer has not taken into consideration Stage 1 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:

B3 (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.

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

Despite the above conditions the application shows substantial loss of solar access to the Princeton Apartments. 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.

• With the new developemnt, the solar access to Princeton Apartments will reduce to 5.2% (6 apartments out of a total of 116 will meet 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%.



Breaching Approved Envelope

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 500mm reducing the southern boundary to 11.5 metre separation. The current separation of 12 metres is already too narrow and is contributing to the loss of sun light and privacy for residents of the Princeton Apartments.



Apartment design Guidelines – Non Compliance

Building Separation – Section 2F of ADG

The ADG requires a minimum of 24m separation between habitable rooms for developments over 25m in height.

The proposed new building does not comply with this separation and is therefore in breach of Section 2F of ADG and condition B3(h) of Stage 1 DA.

Privacy – Non Compliance

The new building will have windows facing south directly opposite windows on the northern façade of the Princeton. 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.

Solar Access for New Apartments in Development 4A-1 of ADG – Non Compliance

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 new building does not comply 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.

Over Shadowing Hyde Park

New development will cast additional shadows over the Heritage Listed Hyde Park, which already suffers too much overshadowing. The new development should not be permitted to cast any additional shadows on to this significant park.


It is clear the developer has not even tried to minimise the impact to the Princeton Apartments and as such the current application should be refused.
HERITAGE COUNCIL OF NSW
Comment
Parramatta , New South Wales
Message
Please find attached the delegated advice from the Heritage Council of NSW.
Hendry Wan
Senior Heritage Officer - Major Projects
Heritage NSW | Community Engagement | Department of Premier and Cabinet
Attachments

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSD-8876-Mod-2
Main Project
SSD-8876
Assessment Type
SSD Modifications
Development Type
Rail transport facilities
Local Government Areas
City of Sydney
Decision
Approved
Determination Date
Decider
IPC-N

Contact Planner

Name
James Groundwater