Pitt Street South Over Station Development Stage 2

I believe the Princeton will be adversely affected by the solar access and separation proposed. My view is that there should be a minimum of 24 m separation. I . I also use Hyde Park and would not like to see it in further shadow. Finally I would not like to see the War Memorial in shadow.

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.

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.

I am writing to object to the height, scale, and bulk of the proposed building.

I am an owner of an apartment in Princeton, situated at a lower level of the building, with north and northeast views from the living areas.

I will be severely impacted by the large scale of the development unless there are proper setbacks and building separations. There is non-compliance with the conditions of consent in this regard.

Currently I receive almost 6 hours of sunshine from the north during the winter months. Unless the setback from the south and east boundaries and from the southeast corner are increased, I will suffer a drastic cut in the amount of sunshine and light from the north. The apartment will be non-compliant with ADG Design Guidance.

There will also be a complete loss of views to the north judging by the scale of the development and a loss of privacy. Building separation is therefore an important issue as it affects the amount of sun and privacy for a lower level resident. I urge that the regulations and guidelines for building separation be adhered to for the protection and mental health of residents.

As a lower level occupant of the building, I am concerned about increased noise from the Metro Station development and location of the plant rooms right up against the living areas and bedrooms of the apartments. What about noise, vibrations, emissions, radiation and the like from the plant rooms affecting the health of the residents of Princeton? The plant rooms should be located (1) away for the living areas of the apartments, and (2) at a level below the level where the apartments/residents are living.

All these loss of amenity aspects need to be addressed constructively and satisfactorily by the proposal.

Separately, I am concerned about increased street shadowing caused by such large buildings along Pitt St and Bathurst Streets.

I urge Planning to ensure that this area of Sydney continues to be liveable and in keeping with what a wonderful city Sydney is.

Apart from compliance with the conditions of consent and the interests of the residents of Princeton, the development should be sympathetic to the area, its surrounds and with the interest of residents, workers and commuters in mind.

Please do not destroy Sydney. Thank you.

I wish to object to the proposal as a resident of the neighbouring Princeton Apartment. I have grave concerns that the new apartment complex will adversely affect the mental health of residents and is environmentally unsustainable.

The construction of the new apartment block will dramatically reduce the amount of natural light available in the lower floor apartments. Natural light, especially in the winter months when daylight is significantly reduced, is essential for the health and wellbeing of residents. Reducing the access to daylight can lead to increased seasonal depression. The apartment design needs to be revised to allow for increased solar access for residents.

The development will also lead to overshadowing Hyde Park. Many residents of surrounding high-rise apartments and members of the public rely on Hyde Park as the sole recreational space in the area. The development will significantly reduce the sunlight in Hyde Park, leaving majority of the park in the shadow for most of the day. Inability to access open space with ample sunlight will affect the mental health and wellbeing of not only the Princeton Apartment residents but also many who rely on Hyde Park as their sole recreational space. I ask that the proposal be revised to allow for more sunlight to reach Hyde Park.

Finally, the construction will have a negative impact upon the environment. Inadequate separation between the buildings will lead to increased usage of electricity. During colder months, the reduction of sunlight in the Princeton apartments will force residents to consumer more electricity. They will have to use electricity to brighten and warm their apartments to compensate for the lack of sunlight reaching their apartments. In the summer, the insufficient separation between the buildings will hinder the breeze from reaching the apartments, leading to increased usage of electricity to cool down living spaces.

As outlined above, the construction of the new apartments will have a negative effect on the residents’ quality of life and on the environment. I request that the proposal for the new apartments be reviewed and amended to account for the major concerns I have highlighted.

I am writing to object to the proposed development.

I am an owner of an apartment in Princeton. I will be severely impacted by the large scale of the development unless there are setbacks and building separations complying with the conditions of consent. As far as I am aware, there is non-compliance with the conditions of consent in this regard (condition 3B and A24 of the consent conditions).

Currently I receive almost 8 hours of sunshine from the north during the winter months. Unless the setback from the south and east boundaries and from the southeast corner are increased or there is greater building separation in compliance with the conditions, there will be a massive cut in the amount of sunshine and light from the north. The apartment will be non-compliant with ADG Design Guidance.

This will have an adverse impact on sustainability of the building resulting in greater energy bills for residents in winter.

There will be a complete loss of views to the north and a loss of privacy. Building separation is an important issue as it affects the amount of sun and privacy for residents. I urge that the regulations and guidelines for building separation be adhered to for the protection and mental health of residents.

I am concerned about increased noise from the Metro Station development and location of the plant rooms right up against the living areas and bedrooms of the apartments. There will be noise, vibrations, emissions, radiation from the plant rooms affecting the health of the residents of Princeton. The plant rooms should be located away for the living areas of the apartments, and at a level below the level where the apartments/residents are living.

There is increased shadowing of Hyde Park which is so wrong. It is rare public space which must be protected. There is the solar access plane which must be adhered to.

In summary: lower height, greater building separation, removal of the plant rooms, greater solar access is required for the good health of the residents of Princeton including their mental health.

Thank you.

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.

Please refer to the attached pdf which outlines my submission.

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.

I have major concerns about the proposal due to the lack of separation between Princeton and the proposed development. The proposal does not comply with the minimum separation under the Apartment Design Guide.

The current development proposal poses a safety risk for residents. The proximity of the two apartments means that there is a higher risk of fires spreading from one tower to another. Considering the number of residents that inhabit in Princeton apartments, this is a major concern that needs to be considered to avoid putting lives at risk.

The lack of separation also leads to a significant invasion of privacy. In the current proposal, the louvres do not extend past the living room windows. The proximity of the proposed development would mean that Princeton residents would lose privacy in their own homes.

Finally, the proposed development does not consider the adverse impact of the plant and equipment floor on Princeton apartments. Currently, the proposal does not have enough separation between the plant and equipment floors and Princeton. This directly affects numerous Princeton residents in lower floors. In addition, it also affects the Princeton communal areas, such as the outdoor BBQ and gym, which are located on a lower floor.

I ask that the proposal be redesigned to allow increased separation between the buildings for the safety and privacy of Princeton residents.

Dear Review Board,

I am writing to object to the Pitt Street South Over-Station Development.

I have 3 key reasons for this objection, and request that this project proposal be rejected.

1. Reduced Solar Access Impacting the Well-Being of the Residents of Princeton Apartments

By not complying with section 3B of the Apartment Design Guide (despite this being a requirement), this new development will reduce the solar access of 48 residents in the Princeton building. The analysis has shown that only 5.2% of apartments will have the required access to direct sunlight, down from 46.6%.

This is of serious concern to me, given that my parents are residents of Princeton building and this reduction in sunlight will have grave impacts on their health - both physically and mentally. Having direct exposure to sunlight has proven to have impact on mental health, with specific mental disorders like Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) directly linking mental health to sunlight exposure. I object to the development for this reason, and request that it complies with section 3B of the Apartment Design Guide to reduce its impact on solar access for Princeton Residents.

2. Sustainability

Climate change is a fundamental and existential threat to humanity - and we should be leaders in addressing this issue.

The loss of solar access will increase the need for additional & unnecessary electricity use in the form of lighting & heating needs. This development would lead to increased use of electricity. which makes up more than 30% of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.

Regardless of any claims made about the energy efficiency of the new development - the fact of the matter is that the best approach to environmental sustainability comes from reducing the demand for energy - not from increasing efficiency.

3. Enjoyment of Public Land - Hyde Park

This new development will lead to new overshadowing of Hyde Park in mid-winter.

The recent COVID-19 shutdown has only proven how vital the enjoyment of public land is to the whole community - it is used by residents, visitors and workers alike to escape from the hustle & bustle of the city and find a space to recharge. It is such a rare space in the city that impact on its enjoyment should be carefully considered.

The fact that this development will restrict and limit such enjoyment is ridiculous - in the winter, where sunlight is already scarce, it would be highly unconscionable to further limit the community's access to sunlight in Hyde Park is unacceptable and this development should be rejected.


Having considered the three points above, I ask you to protect our community's well-being and our environment by rejecting this proposal.

Yours Sincerely,
City of Sydney Resident

Please see attached pdf which outlines my objection.

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.