Skip to main content

State Significant Development

Determination

Pitt Street South Over Station Development Stage 2

City of Sydney

Current Status: Determination

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination

Pitt Street South Over Station Development - Stage 2 Detailed Design and Construction

Consolidated Consent

Pitt Street South - MOD 2 Consolidated

Archive

Notice of Exhibition (1)

Request for SEARs (12)

SEARs (2)

EIS (39)

Response to Submissions (23)

Agency Advice (7)

Additional Information (13)

Recommendation (3)

Determination (5)

Approved Documents

Management Plans and Strategies (2)

Independent Reviews and Audits (3)

Notifications (2)

Other Documents (8)

Note: Only documents approved by the Department after November 2019 will be published above. Any documents approved before this time can be viewed on the Applicant's website.

Complaints

Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?

Make a Complaint

Enforcements

There are no enforcements for this project.

Inspections

28/09/2023

22/11/2023

Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.

Submissions

Filters
Showing 81 - 98 of 98 submissions
Name Withheld
Object
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Patrick Knight
Object
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
I am expressing my disgust at the careless attitude of the Gladys Berejiklian government in sidelining the existing residents living around the still-to-be-built Pitt st station. In particular, the current plan allows developers to violate existing rules and regulations such as the following:

1. The current rule requires 24 m separation between two buildings. But the proposed development has less half of the standard separation. The failure of the government to comply with their own rules is decrease of north facing sunlight for my apartment. Consequently, residents of my apartment, mainly me will receive 25% less sunlight during the day. It is an established fact that sunlight is the primary contributor of vitamin D that is necessary in fighting disease. The Berejiklian Government is now proposing to erect a structure that would potentially cause me illness. I am asking her whether she would take up the responsibility of my future medical expenses?

2. The allowable height of the new development will cast shadow over much of the Hyde park during the day. Let me remind the Berejiklian Government that Hyde Park is the lung of Sydney where thousand of city residents as well as people working in the city use it for the brief relaxation during their busy days. Providing people living and working exposure to sunlight which I previously mention will contribute to good health. Removing the footprint of sunlight to visitors to Hyde Park is definitely not a smart idea if a government cares for the health of her people living in the city. In particular if this is done in the name of money.

I am a tax paying residents of NSW living in Pitt st over 15 years. Just on stamp duty alone, I have contributed over $200,000 to the state coffer over the last 15 years and surely my concerns listed above deserves genuine consideration by the Berejiklian’s government
Ahmed Berro
Object
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Georgia Uzabeaga
Object
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Claudia Uzabeaga
Object
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
SYDNEY , New South Wales
Message
I am writing to you as an owner in the Princeton Apartments and to object to the OSD in its current form.

My concerns relate to overdevelopment of the site and non-compliance with ADG and conditions of consent for the development.

Separation: minimum separation particularly along the southern boundary as required by AGD is not complied with. It is imperative to have compliance so there is amelioration in problems relating to overshadowing, privacy, amenity, solar access, loss of views, acoustic impacts, sustainability, and mental health.

Solar access: the design reduces by a massive 41% the number of apartments getting the minimum required hours of sunlight per day. There is no compliance with ADG or the conditions of consent. This will adversely affect sustainability of the apartments and also adversely affect the mental health of residents.

Hyde Park: rare and precious public space in the CBD must be protected from increased overshadowing. The solar access plane must not be impinged.

Loss of views: there are various loss of views – from the Princeton Apartments, from Century Tower, from Greenland Centre. The scale of the development and its height should be reduced in line with and in sympathy with the heritage Edinburgh Hotel which will reduce the overall impact of loss of views for so many surrounding residents.

Mental health: the reduction in solar access and the location of plant and machinery rooms up against the apartments in Princeton run the real risk of causing mental and psychological problems for residents, particularly those living in the lower level apartments of Princeton. Adversely affecting the mental health and well being of residents is a huge issue for this proposed development.

Plant rooms: the location of the plant and machinery rooms next to the living rooms and bedrooms of Princeton residents is outrageous. Residents will be adversely affected by noise, smells, vibration, electromagnetic waves and interference. The plant and machinery rooms should be relocated away from the living areas and bedrooms of residents. It is for health and sanity reasons.

Given the serious impacts of the proposal as set out above and the non-compliance of ADG and the consent conditions in a number of areas, the OSD proposal must be rejected in its current form.

Thank you.
Jorge Uzabeaga
Object
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
HERITAGE COUNCIL OF NSW
Comment
Parramatta , New South Wales
Message
Please find attached the Delegated submission from the Heritage Council of NSW.
Hendry Wan
Senior Heritage Officer - Major Projects
Heritage NSW | Community Engagement | Department of Premier and Cabinet
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
I am an owner and resident on the North side of the Princeton Apartments immediately adjacent to the development site.

Even cursory examination of the planned development, demonstrates that I will be severely affected, should it proceed according to current plans.

Not only would there be a gross reduction in direct sunlight, but loss of indirect light scatter from the Northern direction will force use of artificial light throughout daylight hours. Similarly, loss of light will appreciably cool my apartment through winter, requiring greatly increased heating. In addition, the unjustifiably close building plan, will very much reduce ventilation to levels that may be unhealthy.

I make no objection whatsoever to the inconvenience and noise pollution that I and other residents must suffer, for the sake of improving public transport in the Metro development. However, I very much object to the amenity of my private home, being sacrificed for the private financial benefit of the site developer, and perhaps also the NSW Government.

As a citizen of this State, I believe that I should enjoy the reasonable protection of Government, in ensuring that developments impacting on my private home, are not unduly damaging. This development does not satisfy that duty owed to me by my Government, and this too, I object to.

That the development is unreasonable, is underscored by the fact that a light easement was in place and enforced on the North side of the Princeton Apartments, at the time of building. How and why that easement may have been lost, is unknown to me, but I do know that reasonable people at the time my home was built, understood the necessary importance of adequate light and ventilation.

My understanding is that environmental protections have improved since that time, but this development is completely out of keeping with progressive shifts towards a more environmentally enlightened norm.

Finally, I am astonished at the manner in which the very foundations of my home have been exposed and undermined during the current development. That the site developers feel so emboldened as to actually dig to expose supporting peers and the walls of the Princeton underground car-park, suggests at the very least, a cavalier disregard for the outcomes of any objections residents of this tower might have.

I do believe that the current plans for over-station development require not only reconsideration, but a complete abandonment and redrafting to a more environmentally appropriate, equitable and just design.

With thanks for your time considering this objection, and with very best regards

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSD-10376
Assessment Type
State Significant Development
Development Type
Residential & Commercial
Local Government Areas
City of Sydney
Decision
Approved
Determination Date
Decider
IPC-N
Last Modified By
SSD-10376-Mod-2
Last Modified On
08/03/2023

Contact Planner

Name
James Groundwater