Pitt Street South Over Station Development Stage 2

The EPA has provided advice on these matters in previous correspondence. The EPA has no comments in relation to this matter and no further need to be involved in the assessment of this project.

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.

Relocation of the fire control room,substation entry chamber, OSD egress stairs and allow for ground floor retail spaces on the Pitt street side to enhance street activation.

Please find attached EES comments in response

A copy of the TfNSW response is attached.

The Department of Planning, Industry and Environment - Water have reviewed the EIS and have no comments.

Regarding the Pitt Street South Over Station Development Stage 2 (SSD-10376), 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.

Hi James

See attached

Regards
Amy-Grace Douglas
City of Sydney

The ADG requires a minimum of 24m separation between habitable rooms for developments over 25m in height. The plans proposed are for 12 meters separation not 24. This is what I object to. Princeton will have less sun, less privacy and less views.

To Whom It May Concern,
I moved into the Princeton building in 2006. I spent 10 amazing years living in the building until late in 2015 when my partner and I moved to a bigger place upon expecting our first child. I have continued to own my unit in the building with hopes of moving back in time, when our children grow up!
When I first learnt that Sydney Metro had compulsorily acquired the building next door for the Pitt St metro stop, I was thrilled! I am a firm believer of progress, infrastructure and public transport.
When I learnt that (unsurprisingly) they were going to build a large tower, I again was excited! This brings shops and restaurants and therefore people which extends the buzzing city vibe.
When I learnt that the tower would reduce my views, again I was not surprised and not concerned. For me, a “city view” means accepting and loving the towers all around.
However, when I learnt that my sun exposure would be severely limited during winter, this was when my attitude shifted. My apartment is at the back of the building with North – East facing windows and balconies. My apartment will be affected by the new development.
I want to repeat, I am not opposed to the development! It SHOULD go ahead. Having a tower block with units or offices directly above a significant metro hub should be encouraged – this is efficient town planning. I also firmly believe in local planning principles and guidelines.
Yet the design of this development is such that it severely reduces the sun access to residents living within the Princeton building, which violates the local planning guidelines. What is the point of having rules if they are not adhered to? We know it’s a crime to steal, with no exceptions. Is it not a crime to steal someone’s access to sunlight?
I think there is a misconception that living in the city is dirty and noisy and lacking clean air and green spaces. I totally disagree. My apartment was mid-level and all I ever heard was this constant hum of background noise which you got used to very quickly. (It was quieter living in the city compared to where I am now in Surry Hills!) I could easily access greenery or water views at Hyde Park, the Botanical Gardens, or Darling Harbour. Being able to walk to work, to the shops, to the many swimming pools, etc was an added bonus – I reduced my carbon footprint, got plenty of incidental exercise and didn’t require a car. And a big part of why I loved city living was my apartment which was absolutely covered in morning sun, all through winter. It kept my apartment warm and light and made it my home. The idea that this can be taken away and replaced by a dominating tower that will turn my apartment from a sunny and light winter paradise to a dark and cold dungeon is frankly, horrible. I think this would severely reduce enjoyment of living in the city. How would you feel if this happened at your house?
I implore you to please re-consider the design of this new development. Yes, it does have to go ahead. Yes, it will be great for Sydney and NSW as a whole. But please contemplate design changes to consider the 24 metre separation between habitable rooms and the solar access to my apartment.
I know that myself, and all the other Princeton owners would forever be grateful.

My objection is based on the following grounds:
1. It will limited solar access (a minimum of 2 hours each day during the winter) for the majority of Princeton apartments by more than 80%.
2. Proposed louvres along the southern facade of the building will create privacy concerns for residents of Princeton apartments.
3. It will obstruct view of St Mary's Cathedral.
4. It will result in shadowing of Hyde Park during the winter months.

The loss of solar access is a significant impact to Princeton Apartments. Many units in the apartments, especially those facing north, will lose sunlight during the winter time from the Pitt Street South OSD.
According to OSD's SSD10376 Shadow Analysis Report (Appendix E2) Page 19 table for existing and proposed solar access status of Princeton Apartments:
• 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%.

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.

To whom it may concern,
I would like to lodge my objection to how close the building next door, is proposed to be built next to the Princeton.
We live on the northern boundary of Princeton and we will be severely affected by way of reduced sunlight and privacy.
The further set back the building next door is from our northern boundary, the better these problems can be addressed. I am told it should be 24 meters and they want to build at 12 meters. I trust you will make the correct decision on where it is ultimately built.
Thank you for reading this

See attached.

Please see attachment

Objection to the proposed development as currently designed
Details in the attached letter

I apose this development because it will affect the amenity of neighbouring residents and impact on the public domain. Hyde park is where all residents go and rely on the sun in the colder months. The amount of sun that would be received between 9am - 3pm would drop from 46.6% to 5.2%.I hope you will reject this proposal.