Pitt Street South Over Station Development Stage 2

There are several grounds for a strong objection for the proposal. A requirement is that the buildings be separated by a minimum of 24 metres, and yet the proposal allows for only half of this at 12 metres. This should simply not be allowed under any circumstances.

The proposed building will destroy the enjoyment of their property for scores of tenants in the Princeton building. They will no longer have their current privacy and will have significantly reduced sunlight. This will be detrimental to their well being and may have flow on health effects. This, combined with years of construction noise and loss of views, will degrade their quality of life significantly. This is unconscionable.

I urge you to reconsider this proposal as there are many negative issues surrounding it that have not been full investigated.

I would therefore like to submit an objection to the proposed development on the following grounds:
1. The height of the proposed building will greatly reduce the amount of sunlight I receive in my apartment. Sunlight is very important both for a person's health and their wellbeing. I strongly object to this loss of sunlight. There should be more concern for the wellbeing of inner city residents.
2. I understand that there is going to only be 12 metres separation between habitable apartments over 25m, which is in breach of the ADG 24 metre minimum. Again, this is outrageous. What is the point of having standards if they are then not applied? I strongly object to this on the grounds of the reduced privacy that this will result in.

I understand and appreciate the efforts being made to improve the city's infrastructure but I do not see why this needs to then also have a giant tower built on top of it in such close proximity to existing apartments. Building infrastructure is one thing. Rampant, non-compliant development is another. Existing residents' rights should not be being trampled over by developers. This is especially disappointing given that this is a NSW Government project.

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.

Submission attached

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.

My principal concern is that the proposed development will have a significant detrimental impact on the apartments on the northern side of the building. In particular the access to light and sunlight will be massively reduced for most of the apartments with windows along the northern side of the building. Similarly with respect to privacy. Any outlook that those apartments currently have will also be significantly affected. The proposed separation of the buildings, at only 12 metres, contributes in a most detrimental way to these impacts.
Plus we have the prospect of years more of construction noise in the building of the proposed tower.
I urge you to reconsider this proposal as there are many negative issues surrounding it that have not been fully investigated.

May I object in the strongest possible terms, to the above development.
The proposed plan is for 12 metres separation from the Princeton building. The acceptable distance is 24 metres (Condition A24 (c) (i)
(c) requirement). Not only does it restrict solar access (between 9 am and 3pm in the winter), but will reduce privacy to apartments, not to mention loss of views. This is unacceptable also for health reasons.
The ADG requires 70% of apartments to receive 2 hours of solar access between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter for new developments in the Sydney Metro area. There is a serious breach of regulations - (condition 3B (h)).
I ask that you seriously consider the situation as soon as possible. We don't want Sydney to become a slum like city as seen in such places as New York and other large cities of the world.

1. While I do not object to the concept of development of the site with a high rise apartment tower, I have read in detail the Shadow Analysis Report prepared for the developer. Initially my interest was in respect of Hyde Park overshadowing.
I feel that the analysis of the Hyde Park overshadowing is too limited – it just considers isolated points in time. In the afternoons, after shadowing first reaches the Park there is no mention of how much the proposed tower will subsequently increase areas of shadow on the Park.
2. Then I noticed the conclusions with respect of the Princeton Apartments. Here I found some very dubious logic.
As a qualified civil engineer, I am familiar reading with subconsultant reports. Sometimes they rely on judgment (referred to as ‘considered opinion’) to give recommendations – which is reasonable up to a point. However this report seems to have done everything (and more) to end up with a favourable conclusion.
According to the report, the ADG guidelines have been manipulated to achieve a favourable answer. Habitable areas, ie bedrooms, have been added to living space areas to make the percentage loss of sunlight seem less. The sunlight assessment period has been changed from 9 to 3 to 8 to 4 by the adoption of unspecified criteria. Again to include more sunlight in bedrooms which further reduces the calculated loss of sunlight amenity.
3. I therefore object to the development proposal as currently presented. The potential overshadowing of Hyde Park, particularly in winter afternoons when people may be seeking out areas of sunlight in the city, should be more comprehensively described. As well, the Apartment Design Guidelines should not be at the discretion of developers to modify so significantly.
I request that an independent consultant, and employed by the State Government, be asked to review the conclusions the Shadow Analysis Report in detail. If this second opinion fully validates the current report, so be it.
However, if not, surely some adjustments to the bulk of the tower, will reduce its impact sufficiently.

From outlines given to me, the over development will be blocking part of my balcony view, and overshadowing sunlight to my apartment. I have concerns of great devaluation of my apartment and quality of living for my unit from this development.

I am writing to express my concern and the impact the over station development at the Pitt st station will have on the quality of living in my apartment.
There will be significant loss of solar access to my apartment which will impact heating bills in winter and overall power bills for lighting.
Also the proposed gap between Princeton and the new development is significantly less than 25 metres which does not comply with apartment design guidelines.
This will lead to loss of privacy, ventilation and also outlook.
Please consider my objections to the development as it stands at present and make necessary compliance changes.

As a former Princeton resident, I object to the current design of the over the station development over Pitt St Metro.

Apart from the obvious loss of sunlight and privacy to the Princeton units, the overshadowing to Hyde Park will be detrimental to the flora and environment within the park. As an analogy, I have a small garden in my current dwelling, that despite the north facing aspect is significantly overshadowed during the winter months by buildings on the northern and western side. By contrast, during summer all the plants receive a large quantity of sunlight. Needless to say, these solar extremes wreck havoc on the plants in the garden. The same fate is in store for the plants and trees in Hyde Park if this development were to proceed as planned.

Hyde Park is also one of the few green spaces in the Sydney CBD and should be preserved in its current state wherever possible.

I am in full agreement with all of the objections listed in the enclosed letter by DFP Planning Consultants, and would add my own comments and objections as follows:
(1) I worked at a senior level for five UK Planning Authorities over a 45 year period, and in my considered view it is vitally important to maintain consistency and integrity in planning advice and guidance. Without this continuity the planning system is open to delays and appeals.
In this instance the development site and the project brief was promoted by a NSW Government Agency, and so the associated land disposal proceeds are seen to be supporting the very commendable Sydney Metro Project. It is therefore essential that the planning process in this case should be seen to be fair, open and transparent.
(2) The adjacent Princetown Apartments Building is entirely residential, and it has a high proportion of frontage which is glazed, and has multiple balconies which will be very close to the proposed development. The departure from the original project brief makes the development onerous to affected residents.
(3) As a chartered Landscape Architect and Local Economic Development Practitioner I am of the view that Princetown Apartments is a building of architectural merit, and that its immediate setting is worthy of protection. Of all of the Central Business Area building, in my view, this is one of the most attractive.
(4) I was involved for many years in urban regeneration in Glasgow (Scotland), and can testify that overdevelopment of high rise residential areas will inevitably result in the creation of areas of multiple deprivation, particularly at inner city centre locations. You can see this process in action at some of the high rise city centre districts of Hong Kong, where lack of privacy between high rise residential blocks is a key issue. In Glasgow as you may know, many of the high rise residential blocks have now been demolished.
These issues would be mitigated if the developer adheres to the approved planning brief, and so allows more space between the buildings. If the planning application is modified in this way I will withdraw my objection.

I am writing to object to the development in its current form.

- It does not comply with Condition B3 and Condition A24 of the conditions of consent - solar access, building separation, and also does not comply with ADG 4A-1 relating to solar access.
- It is detrimental to sustainability for Princeton apartments and contrary to the intent of ADG.
- Plant Rooms – next door and abutting the lower apartments in Princeton. Apart from lack of solar access, there is the issue of noise/acoustic impacts, vibrations, harmful emissions, radiation and others coming from plant and machinery into the living areas and bedrooms of residents in Princeton. This can cause serious health problems including mental health issues.
- The separation between buildings should begin at the level below the living areas of the residents in Princeton. No plant rooms should be located in the vicinity of the living areas of residents.
- There will be additional overshadowing of Hyde Park and a breach of the access plane . This should not be allowed.

The proposal needs to be modified to comply with the conditions of consent, ADG and access plane controls.

Thank you.

I am writing on behalf of the residents of Princeton Apartments who object to this proposal.

The details of our submission on behalf of SP51077 are included in the attached letter.

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 Environmental 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.