This submission strongly objects to the following aspects of the proposed development:

1 May 2017 Ms Bridget McNamara Senior Planner City of Sydney Council GPO Box 1591 Sydney NSW 2001 Dear Ms McNamara, DA/2017/349 SUBMISSION FOR STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR STAGE 1 CONCEPT APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF A 50 STOREY (RL198.22) MIXED USE BUILDING 201-217 ELIZABETH STREET, SYDNEY (LOT 1 DP 868008) We refer to the State Significant Development Application (DA) DA/2017/349 made by DEXUS Funds Management Limited as Trustee for DOT Commercial Trust and Perron Investments Pty Ltd (DEXUS) seeking Development Consent for Stage 1 concept approval for the construction and use of a 50 storey (RL198.22) mixed use building providing hotel (within podium levels); lower ground, ground and mezzanine retail; tower with residential apartments; four levels of basement parking; and a pedestrian connection to Museum Station and potential connection to the future Pitt Street North Metro Station at 201-217 Elizabeth Street, Sydney (the site). Milestone (AUST) Pty Limited (Milestone) lodge this submission of objection on behalf of the Owners Corporation of Victoria Tower (SP 51487) located at 197 Castlereagh Street, Sydney (Lot 1 DP 854342). In addition to the significant overshadowing impacts caused by proposal onto Hyde Park, Victoria Tower is, in many respects, the property most directly affected by the proposed redevelopment of 201-217 Elizabeth Street, being located approximately 20m to the west. This submission strongly objects to the following aspects of the proposed development: 1. Concern with the Concept Plan. 2. Overshadowing to Hyde Park and the ANZAC Memorial. 3. The location of the proposed tower component on the northern portion of the site and the significant adverse impact of the proposal on iconic views to Sydney Harbour, North Head, Garden Island, Hyde Park and St Mary s Cathedral. 4. The building bulk and the associated environmental impacts on Castlereagh Street. 5. Lack of consideration of solar access impacts upon Victoria Tower. 6. Traffic impacts as a result of the proposed four levels of basement car parking. 7. Absence of community consultation with residents of Victoria Tower directly opposite the site. On the basis of the significant adverse environmental and significant adverse social impacts we request that the proposed development in its current form be refused. BACKGROUND Victoria Tower Victoria Tower is a 36-storey residential development and comprises commercial uses on the ground floor level along Castlereagh Street, parking from levels one to seven and a residential tower containing 258 apartments from level eight to 35. Milestone (Aust) Pty Limited 1

The Victoria Tower apartments have openable balconies linked to the main living rooms and bedrooms of the apartments. The eastern and northern elevation of the building have apartments which have significant views north east to Hyde Park and the St Mary s Cathedral, Sydney Harbour, Garden Island and North Head. From Level 8 upwards, east and north facing units enjoy views over Hyde Park and water views of Sydney Harbour (refer to Photos 2). The proposal will adversely impact on a minimum of 5-7 units per floor of the building with respect to view loss and a reduction of residential amenity. Park Regis Hotel Victoria Tower 197 Castlereagh Street, Sydney Church of Scientology Building Hyde Park Figure 1: Site Location Map Source: SIX Maps 2017 Proposed Development Site 201-217 Elizabeth Street, Sydney Approximate separation distance of 20m Proposed Development Site 201-217 Elizabeth Street, Sydney Victoria Tower 197 Castlereagh Street, Sydney Photo 1: Eastern Elevation of Victoria Tower, view from Park Street. Milestone (Aust) Pty Limited 2

SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Concern with Concept Plan We are concerned that the proposed Concept Plan will result in reduced meaningful input and safeguards being able to be provided in the planning assessment process to ensure that amenity including solar access is preserved to Hyde Park and that reasonable residential amenity is provided to the residents of Victoria Tower. The Concept Plan leaves so much detail for later in the planning process which is not considered acceptable for a significant and complex proposal which breaches both the FSR and solar access plane of LEP 2012. We request that the certainty and transparency necessary for matters relating to sunlight access, overshadowing, view analysis, streetscape impacts and design excellence requires more detail on both the Concept development drawings and within the supporting reports. Overshadowing to Hyde Park and ANZAC Memorial The proposed northern tower development exceeds the sun access plane and casts an unacceptable significant shadow on Hyde Park and the Anzac Memorial. There is no evidence in the supporting Shadow Analysis prepared by the proponent to confirm that there is a 50% reduction on the shadows in the extent of the total overshadowing within Hyde Park, which would require demonstration of the distance over Hyde Park, not the actual shadow footprint. There is also no certainty that the detailed design (to come later) with detailed elevation treatment and diversity in treatment will not result in further overshadowing. We do not support the location of the northern tower nor its overall height due to the fact that Hyde Park and the ANZAC Memorial will be significantly overshadowed by the proposal. The proposed development is therefore not in the public interest and should be refused. There is no evidence to suggest that the local community as well as residents and visitors to Sydney will benefit from the value captured by the proposed development through the proposed additional FSR (bonus) and the breach of the sun access plane when the proposed development has significant adverse overshadowing to Hyde Park. The public interest is only served by any redevelopment if there is no protusion into the sun access plane as well as significantly improved solar access to Hyde Park and no overshadowing to the ANZAC Memorial. To this end there are no planning or design merits to support the proposal with regard to the overshadowing impacts, which result in significant detrimental environmental and social impacts to the residents, workforce and visitors of Sydney. View Loss Both north and east facing apartments from levels 8 to 35 within Victoria Tower currently benefit from views of Hyde Park and St Mary s Cathedral with apartments from Level 21 and above having additional iconic views of Sydney Harbour, Garden Island and North Head. The photos below demonstrate the actual views currently enjoyed versus the view loss as a result of the development. Refer to Photos 2-4 below. Milestone (Aust) Pty Limited 3

Photo 2: Existing View from balcony of Apartment 2103 Victoria Tower Photo 3: View loss of the proposed development (shaded black area) Milestone (Aust) Pty Limited 4

Photo 4: This photo shows the actual view that will be lost as a result of the development Milestone (Aust) Pty Limited 5

Victoria Tower Iconic views loss of Sydney Harbour, North Head and parts of St Mary s Cathedral and Hyde Park Improved views towards Oxford Street and over Hyde Park (non-iconic) Figure 2: View loss analysis prepared by Milestone (estimate) A preliminary view analysis has been prepared by FJMT and included in the Design Report. Section 5.15.2 of the EIS prepared by JBA outlines the potential impacts to existing views from the area and with regards to the Victoria Tower building states: Although some properties may experience a reduction in views over Hyde Park, other properties will gain additional views to the east as a result of the relocation of the tower form northward. Generally, north-east views over the intersection of Park Street and Elizabeth Street are uninterrupted by the proposed building envelope. The above statement does not take into consideration the significant iconic view loss to Sydney Harbour, Hyde Park, St Mary s Cathedral, Garden Island and North Head from units on the eastern and northern elevation of Victoria Tower from the proposed height of the podium and northern orientation of the tower on the site. Importantly the additional views gained to the east from the positioning of the tower component of the development on the northern portion of the site are not iconic and are of minimal amenity value to residents of the Victoria Tower. The Proponent has not provided sufficient information with regards to the view loss tests contained within the Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140 Land and Environment Court judgement which requires assessment against the principles outlined within Table 1. Table 1: View Loss Planning Principles Planning Principle Court Ruling Comment Step 1. What views will be affected? The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg. of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, eg. a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obstructed. The views from the north and east facing residential units of Victoria Tower, from approximately Level 8 upwards, are of the iconic Hyde Park and St Mary s Cathedral, with views from Level 11 upwards of the iconic Sydney Harbour, Garden Island and North Head. The views include a land and water interface which is unobstructed. The proposed 50 storey (RL198.22) maximum height of the tower component at the north of the site will Milestone (Aust) Pty Limited 6

Step 2. Where views are obtained The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example, the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. obstruct this uninterrupted view. The podium and tower element will adversely affect views currently afforded by Victoria Tower residents. The view of Hyde Park, St Mary s Cathedral and Sydney Harbour from apartments on Levels 8-14 will be completely obliterated. From Level 15, 70% of the iconic view of Sydney Harbour, Hyde Park and St Mary s Cathedral will be lost. The proposed location of the tower element to the north of the site will result in the loss of significant iconic views from Victoria Tower. The views lost are exchanged for views of Hyde Park and Oxford Street that cannot be considered iconic. The iconic views are obtained from residents from Level 8 upwards of The Victoria Tower building. The views are obtained from the northern and eastern or primary façade of the building facing Castlereagh Street. The iconic views are obtained from living rooms and balconies from a standing position. Step 3. Extent of the impact Step 4. Reasonableness of the impact. The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating. The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more than reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of noncompliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same Apartments on Levels 8 to 14 are considered the worst impacted apartments. The view of Hyde Park and St Mary s Cathedral is completely lost. Apartments on Level 35 are the least impacted apartments. 30% of the view of Hyde Park is lost along with the spires of St Mary s Cathedral. At least 50% of the Sydney Harbour view is lost including land and water interface. It is acknowledged that some views will be gained of Hyde Park and Oxford Street to the south however these views are not iconic and do not provide the same amenity to Victoria Tower as existing. The proposed development is considered unreasonable in this regard. The severe and devastating loss of uninterrupted northern and eastern views for the benefit of residents of the proposed development is totally unreasonable and unnecessary. The reasonableness of the loss of iconic views has not been considered Milestone (Aust) Pty Limited 7

development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable. fully and the possibility for view sharing has not been captured in the proposed design of the podium and tower elements. The proposed cumulative effect to existing uninterrupted views is considered unreasonable and will result in little more than slot views to the east. It could not be said that the principle of view sharing has been applied. We request that Council consider the significant devastating view loss that will result from the proposed location of the tower component on the northern portion of the site and the 45m height of the podium component. Further, detailed analysis is required from the Proponent as the view loss has not been acknowledged or addressed within the application. We seek further detailed assessment from the proponent with regards to the View Loss Planning Principles, as outlined above, specifically for Victoria Tower apartments. The visual connection of the lower level apartments to Hyde Park provides a relief from the otherwise urban outlook. The loss of views from these apartments to the open space, whilst not iconic, will have a devastating impact on the amenity of affected residents. Photo 5: Approximate View Loss from the balcony of Level 8-14 Photo 6: Approximate View Loss from the balcony of Level 35 The below image provided by the proponent does not show the existing views afforded by the northern and eastern facing apartments on Level 21 or 32. Milestone (Aust) Pty Limited 8

Figure 3: View Analysis by FJMT Bulk and Scale/Streetscape Impact The proposed envelope consists of two elements: a podium built to the street wall alignment with a height of 45 metres and a tower form in the north with a height of 50 storeys RL 198.22. The proposed podium component of the development is built to the boundary and creates a bulk and scale along Castlereagh Street that will result in a sense of enclosure of Castlereagh Street which is only 20 metres wide. No existing or proposed future streetscape analysis of Castlereagh Street has been provided with this Development Application. The average setback along Castlereagh Street is 8.8m. The proposal will result in around 15% of the building exceeding the average setbacks along Castlereagh Street with the built to boundary podium component. This results in an unacceptable sense of enclosure for pedestrians on Castlereagh Street and apartments on lower levels. Figure 4: Castlereagh Street View Source: Design Report Milestone (Aust) Pty Limited 9

Solar Access The proposal provides no consideration to the amenity currently afforded by the occupants of Victoria Tower in relation to solar access. The EIS prepared by JBA states that solar access analysis to neighbouring residential properties has been completed by Francis-Jones Morehen Thorp (FJMT) and is held in the Design Report. However the Design Report comprises shadow diagrams which only show the potential impact on Hyde Park. No shadow diagrams have been provided which show the impacts to solar access on the residential apartments of Victoria Tower from the 45m high podium component of the development. The proponent has provided inadequate analysis on this matter and therefore the application is incomplete. Vehicle Access Vehicle access to the proposed 4,900m² retail, 353 room hotel and 262 residential apartments is proposed from Castlereagh Street. Castlereagh Street is a four lane street which is one way in a southbound direction comprising two traffic lanes, a bus lane and a parking lane. There is an existing bus stop located directly adjacent to the site which serves as a major public transport stop along Castlereagh Street. A report entitled Transport Report for Proposed Mixed Use Development has been prepared by Colston Budd Rogers and Kafes Pty Ltd and has been submitted with the EIS by the Proponent. The Transport Report notes that a two-way driveway will be provided at the southern end of the site for vehicle access along with a separate set-down and pick-up area for the hotel component on Castlereagh Street. Point 8 of the Secretary s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) state that the EIS must provide the following: an assessment of the operation of existing and future transport networks including the light rail, ferry and bus networks and their ability to accommodate the trips generated by the development; The Proponent has not made mention of the potential impacts of the proposed access points along Castlereagh on bus services or made mention of the existing bus stop adjacent to the development or any requirement for this to be relocated. The proponent has not adequately addressed point 8 of the SEARS. At present, residents and visitors of the Victoria Tower have vehicle access to the existing undercover car parking area from Castlereagh Street from a combined driveway which is located directly opposite the subject site. The proposed setdown and pick-up area for the hotel and access arrangements to the site will result in queuing along Castlereagh Street, congestion and unnecessarily onerous travel conditions on the Victoria Tower residents. The analysis provided by the proponent of the potential traffic impacts along Castlereagh Street is inadequate and does not provide any certainty to the residents that the proposal will not result in significant disturbance and inconvenience to the Victoria Tower residents entering and leaving the existing basement car parking area. CONCERN WITH COMMUNITY CONSULTATION The Consultation Outcomes Report prepared by JBA on behalf of DEXUS notes that letters were provided to 500 surrounding landowners and residents on 25 November 2016 notifying occupants of the proposal and invited those interested to attend a community information session on the project. However, of the 83 owner occupied residential apartments in Victoria Tower, 80 residents advised that they did not receive any notification of the proposal by the Proponent. The Victoria Tower is incorrectly identified throughout the EIS as 201 Castlereagh Street, Sydney and it is understood that letters were sent to this address rather than to 197 Castlereagh Street. Hence, the proponent did not provide the Victoria Tower residents with sufficient opportunity for consultation. To this end the consultation process that was undertaken is not in accordance with the consultation requirements of the SEARS. CONCLUSION For the reasons contained in this submission the Development Application results in significant adverse environmental and social impacts. In addition, there has been inadequate analysis undertaken by the proponent in relation to overshadowing of Hyde Park and adjacent properties, view loss to Victoria Towers and other residential properties and view sharing. There is no justification on design and planning terms that would warrant the overshadowing extending beyond the sun access plane to Hyde Park and the ANZAC Memorial. Therefore there is no benefit to the community from the value captured in the proposed development which results in additional FSR and the additional height breaching the sun access plane. On this basis the proposal should be refused. Milestone (Aust) Pty Limited 10

Further, the community consultation process failed to include Victoria Tower, arguably the worst affected residential property. Residents were not notified and as a result were denied the opportunity to participate in the process. Furthermore the SEARS consultation requirements were not fulfilled and therefore the process did not include all key stakeholders. This process must be recommenced. We invite Council Officers to visit the apartments in Victoria Tower affected by view loss. Please contact the undersigned to arrange an inspection. We request Milestone is kept informed of the progress of this application. Should you require clarification of this matter please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours sincerely Milestone (AUST) Pty Limited Melissah Osland Senior Planner Lisa Bella Esposito Director Milestone (Aust) Pty Limited 11