The new Sydney Fish Market - Stage 2

A request to provide clarity as to what will be happening with the existing fish market upon completion of the new project.
Upon submission of the funding business case to NSW Treasury, will the project be funded from the potential sale of land encompassing the fish markets which is currently owned by Government Property, namely;
LOT 2/DO126720, LOT 1/DP74155, LOT 1/DP 835351, LOT 1/DP734622, LOT 2/827434 ( please refer to attached screenshot)
If so, I strongly object for any residential, hotel or any type future accommodation development to occur on the aforementioned lots.
My suggestion is for these lands be handed over City of Sydney Council and rezoned E2 or E3 as a Environmental protection or management zone.

I have three comments.

Surely, in spending so much money, to build something so beautiful, it ought to be possible to design a facility that does not need a temporary outdoor container storage area, especially one that blocks a view that is trumpeted throughout the rest of the document as one of the environmental benefits of the development. Human beings cannot see over a container and these objects are hardly things of beauty. The container storage area looks like a last-minute response by the design team to a belated change to the brief. Also, anything that is temporary has a nasty habit of becoming permanent, like the containers that litter the current fish markets, and so many other purportedly temporary facilities around the harbour.

My second comment concerns a missed opportunity to expand public parking facilities. It should be possible to extend the below-grade parking under the slip lanes and forecourt fronting Bridge Road. This could add another 50-100 spaces or even a temporary container storage area, if this really is needed. The current parking arrangements are acknowledged as inadequate and this is one way of improving the situation. Deficiencies in the current parking provisions place costs on residents (congestion, competition for spaces) and deter potential visitors. If this is too hard, a below-grade carpark under the northern end of Wentworth Park could be considered, providing it skirted the subterranean heritage items and tree roots.

My third comment relates to the shared pedestrian and cycle routes. This is well short of best practice. I am a cyclist and, with the best will in the world, cycling among pedestrians is dangerous for both parties, even at low speeds. The situation is made much, much worse when a large proportion of the pedestrians are from cultures that instinctively move to the right to avoid collisions. This situation is already dire near the current fish markets and the new arrangements and increased visitor numbers will make it worse. The development needs dedicated lanes, with directional arrows marked on the ground. Attention also needs to be paid to the point at which cyclists and pedestrians cross driveways.

Otherwise, I am very supportive of the development, which will create a second Danish-designed icon for the City and the Nation.

Fantastic design, hope it was within the original budget for construction.

I support the project, and would add an improvement be included to the design of the public wharf that a ramp access be included to allow sailing dinghies to be launched into the bay.

I represent the owners/residents of units 2-8, 83 Darghan street, and the owners and residents of 104 Darghan street.

We support the Development Application for a new Fish Market at Glebe in general.


However, the EIS fails to consider the impact of a loss of view and the consequential loss of asset value for the above residents.


In particular, the 'Western corridor view' does not consider the significant impact of the proposed development at a height of RL 25 on the much larger footprint of the new fish market building.


The EIS is misleading in portraying a 3 storey building when in fact the height of the proposed development is more typical of a 6-7 storey building.


It is also worth noting the LEP in this western region has a maximum height of 15m above ground level and this proposal exceeds the LEP in the western corner by almost 10m (recognising that the development is not strictly bound by the LEP but should still consider this).


We acknowledge that the existing Hanson concrete structure is RL 30 - but it is a very much smaller footprint than the much larger proposed fish market building.

In summary we request:
1. That the development take into account the significant loss of view on the western corridor imposed on a number of residents.
2. The final building proposal eliminates any loss of view from the residents in the western corridor

Dear Honourable Decision Makers,
As a long time local resident in the Ultimo-Pyrmont Precinct, I have seen the local area evolving over the last three decades. I am reasonably in favour of this wonderful major initiative - The New Sydney Fish Market. To minimise any forth coming less positive projected 10/30 years traffic growth scenarios of congestions concerns in the local area, including its proposed frontage roads, and other local roads such as Wattle / Jones St / Wentworth Rd / William Henry St / Bay St, objectively, it would be highly encouraging for a condition in the proposed development approval ( Stages 1 & 2 ) to ensure a suitably qualified Traffic Impacts Assessment Report, covering SIDRA traffic modelling of selected local road intersections are carried out, with realistic population/traffic growth projections of 10 or more years, to minimise any potential traffic congestion/s in the local area - in particular, access and road safety matters. During peak periods, Bridge Rd / Wattle / Wentworth Rd / William Henry St / Bay Street, Pyrmont-Ultimo, are routinely congested - bumper to bumper, and with appropriate local intersections upgrades, it would likely achieve reasonable positive outcomes, et al. Thank you in anticipation. Good work !

The new Sydney Fish Market is an outstanding development proposal. Not only will it provide an opportunity to revitalise the NSW seafood industry's showpiece facility. It will also significantly increase the community's access to view the seafood industry's supply chain in real time, and to enjoy the experience of eating world class seafood in a world class facility.

I fully support this proposal.

I am writing to object to the proposed new Sydney Fish Market for the reasons below.

Overshadowing will change the amenity of Wentworth Park - Overshadowing by the three story building will significantly change the amenity of Wentworth Park. Although shadows will be similar in length to those cast by the existing fig trees, the solid shading created by a building is colder, darker and more intrusive than the dappled shadow cast by a row of fig trees.

Odours will offend local residents - Although there will be a comprehensive exhaust ventilation system, the concentration of odours will be blown southward from Blackwattle Bay, adversely affecting residents to the south of the new Sydney Fish Market.

Transport on Bridge Road will be congested - Bridge Road is already at capacity. With the increase in the number of restaurants, there will undoubtedly be increased traffic congestion in the area - even though there is a plan to add traffic lights on Bridge Road.

Parking will be inadequate - As the new Sydney Fish Market increases the number of restaurants, there will be more cars than at the current fish market, and they will park for longer periods due to a restaurant visit taking longer than a shopping visit. The increased cost of parking will cause people to park in the surrounding area, and drivers will compete with local residents, who at times already have difficulties in finding parking close to their homes. The DA underestimates the number of people who will drive to the new Sydney Fish Market. People arriving by tram will have a slightly longer walk than to the current fish market, which increases the likelihood of them driving instead of catching public transport.

Suggestion
All of these issues can be avoided if only there were not so many restaurants and bars included in the new Sydney Fish Market:
- The development should be only two levels above ground, not three, avoiding excessive overshadowing.
- Fewer restaurants would reduce odours.
- Fewer restaurants would reduce traffic levels in the area.
- Fewer restaurants would reduce the need for so many cars contributing to parking stress in the area.

This project is yet another of the state governments blatant ignorance of local concerns and consultation. This size of a development for Sydney is not needed - especially in this already over developed region. Restructure and work on the already existing fish markets!
This is harmful and damaging to the already decimated populations of Sydney residents. The state government consistently makes no effort to actually value citizens of the state and continuously push and price lower socio-economic groups/families/impoverished peoples out of the city of Sydney i.e. the citizens of Millers Point. The long term impacts of this project will be felt for generations and this is yet another example of why I am ashamed to say I live in a country that does not care for the needs of its citizens.

29/10/2019
I have been to and spoken to the workers at St. Barbies re the new development at Sydney Fish Markets.
Very impressive.
I have a couple of concerns.
1. The turpentine (wood) that is used at the present markets , I would like to see it incorporated into the design. Maybe tables or just one classy sculpture.
2. At present we can sit out on the seating on the promenade and be close to the bay. I would like this to happen. Umbrellas should be incorporated as it gets bloody hot down there.
3. Does it have to be white???
The heat and reflection from the bay would kill a black dog. The colour of Sydney is 'Sandstone' can we please TRY to tone it into the colour of this city's heritage.
I would like confirmation on receipt.

Yours faithfully.
Mrs. Joan Gee
Unit B/7 Henry Ave
Ultimo N.S.W. 2007
Sent from my HTC

I strongly support the new fish market project. I was however interested to receive a pro-forma letter of objection prepared by the not-so-progressive Glebe Society. No doubt you will receive plenty of these objections.My thoughts on the objection heads are:
1) Environmental. The contamination issue in the bays is well known and sediment disturbance is unfortunate but unavoidable. I would encourage the NSW government to think big picture on this one, considering opening up the bays by demolishing the old Glebe Island bridge and it's surrounds. This I understand will help to flush the bays and do more than anything else to encourage healthy marine life in the bays.
2)Traffic Congestion. I've read the transport plan and strongly support the broadening of transport modes, particularly the much improved cycle access. But I saw no reference to ferries. Did I miss something? Right now there is a test of an on-demand ferry in Blackwattle Bay including the fish market. It won't go well because the fare is crazy(and not integrated with Opal) and the on-demand phone app isn't working. But it's a great idea and a ferry service in the bays must come. There's a wharf in the plans. But I missed any reference to ferries in the section on public transport. The reference to the White Bay metro station does not consider how far it is away-very far. The potential metro stop at Pyrmont is much more relevant. A bus service from Glebe to the city, passing the fish market, as opposed to the existing services down Glebe Point Road and Broadway could also be considered.
3)Parking in Glebe residential streets. That's life. Put meters in the area with exemption for Glebe resident parking stickers.
4)Mobility Impairment discrimination.I couldn't quite follow this. It seems you have allowed for lift access but perhaps not convenient enough to be regarded as equitable. I encourage you to be considerate on this issue.
5)Loss of Amenity. This is a complete nonsense when you think of what is being replaced along Bridge Road. A complete mess. And the new market is a much better use of the area than more foreshore walk (which we have plenty of already with more to come elsewhere).
So I look forward to a fantastic new fish market, a great development for Sydney. And for Glebe residents.
Ian Hunter
Glebe

Re: SSD – 8924 – The New Sydney Fish Market concept and Stage 1
SSD – 8925 – The New Sydney Fish Market Stage 2

I am a Glebe resident and I object to both DAs on the following grounds:

1. OUT OF KEEPING WITH A TRADITIONAL MARKET AND NOT COMPLEMENTARY TO LOCAL AREA The size and bulk of the development is way out of scale and character with the surrounding inner-suburban streets. The opportunity to deliver bay-wide views of Blackwattle Bay from Wentworth Park has been reduced to two slivers either side of a multistorey shopping mall. What a shame! And how can this huge shopping mall provide an authentic market atmosphere?
2. LOSS OF TRUE PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE WATERFRONT Public access to the waterfront, is restricted to a ‘harbour promenade’ through a shopping mall that forces foreshore walkers to climb stairs, with those in wheelchairs having to find a lift within the building. This is hardly ‘returning inaccessible parts of the Harbour foreshore to the community’.
3. TRAFFIC CONGESTION The government’s own modelling puts an additional 400 cars entering the car park from Bridge road in the peak period between 4 pm and 7 pm. At present Bridge road is usually a car park itself at that time. It is proposed that Bridge Road will be widened and upgraded, but the light rail bridge means that the road there can be only one lane in either direction. This, combined with the massive redevelopment proposed for the current fish market site, means there will also be huge pressure on public transport.
4. PARKING PRESSURE ON NEARBY RESIDENTIAL STREETS The projected extra visitor (and fish market employees) vehicle traffic will overflow into the surrounding streets. As a resident, I know our street is already at capacity, and despite having timed parking, with many users non-residents. We pay for our parking permits, and even now find difficulty parking in our street.
5. NOISE We already have noise from the existing cement works, but this is restricted to daytime working hours. Noise from the loading dock, based on the modelled levels is expected to exceed acceptable levels.

My hope is that the fish market can be upgraded on its present site, retaining its traditional market feel, that sightlines from Wentworth Park to Blackwattle Bay can be restored and that full public access to the waterfront is delivered.

I object to Government plans to build up to 2,750 new apartments on the site of the current Fish Markets.

Size and scale of the development
The proposed number of new dwellings will insert thousands of new residents into a relatively small footprint, on foreshore land, creating a new benchmark for building heights on the foreshore of Blackwattle bay. The majority of the bay is currently 2 stories (4-5 stories for a very limited number of apartments and the high school). This height restriction is a key element in the charm (and tourist appeal) of the area.

Public transport, community facilities, traffic, congestion
The proposed size of the development will require much more resident parking, traffic management, retail and community facilities for the area. Current traffic congestion in Bank street (from residents. commuters and market visitors) already creates blocked roads throughout Pyrmont and Glebe streets. The space available in the current Bank street Market location is much less than the Harold Park location, but the plans show that much higher numbers of residential dwellings are planned that for Harold Park. Public transport is already inadequate in this area - which is why so many commuters to Pyrmont use their own vehicles. The number of new residents will create even worse traffic jams under the motorway support structures.

Greenspace & Built Height
What plans are there for greenspace on the development site? Harold Park has integrated greenspace - but it's a much larger area. The volume of dwellings proposed suggest a multi-stored development totally out of keeping with a foreshore development in this precinct, especially if greenspace is included in the footprint of this development site.

Loss of amenity
The amenity of Glebe and Pyrmont (for residents and commuters into the areas) is reliant on close access to greenspace, foreshore access and access to adjacent parklands for people and their animals. If this development removes access to the foreshore walk (from the Bays Precinct to Woolloomooloo) this city will be much poorer.

Really glad to see this project finally getting off the ground.
Excellent design and looking forward to seeing more details around the next stage, in particular the integration into the existing Fish Market site.

Supportive but:
1) require a separate cycleway rather than on the shared zone. A shared zone never works nor is it a safe.
2) requires a future metro station
This is a long term project, don't cut corners on cost.

The new Fish Market should be accessible by people on bikes from surrounding suburbs and the CBD in at least a 5 km radius. Existing bicycle paths and roads need upgrading to allow safer and direct access. There appears to be no discussion of this in the EIS, which is an omission. A bicycle plan and Active Transport Strategy should be prepared, showing access routes and required improvements.

It is disappointing that only a shared path is shown outside the Fish Market on Bridge Rd. A separated bike path in both directions, connecting with the City and Glebe is possible and would greatly improve general access to Pyrmont and the City as well. A bicycle path along the western end of Pyrmont Bridge Rd is included in the Parramatta Rd Urban Amenity scheme, and should be extended the length of Pyrmont Bridge Rd through to the Fish Market. A bicycle path along Wattle St should be provided. An overbridge from Wentworth Park would provide a great way to access the Fish Market and foreshore.

The addition of traffic lights to the intersection with Wentworth Park is welcome, as this will (assuming bicycle lights are included) allow cyclists to cross Bridge Rd from Wentworth Park Rd to the Fish Market and to the Blackwattle Bay path. Wentworth Park Rd should have Bicycle lanes or a shared path at least. The Blackwattle Bay path will likely become busier in the future and may need widening and upgrading. A tightening of the turns into Wentworth Park Rd from Bridge Rd will also improve safety of cyclists.

Bike paths on Banks St connecting the Fish Market to the old Glebe Island Bridge and Pyrmont foreshore are needed, as well as improved links to Miller and Saunders St.

Amenities and facilities at the Fish Market such as bicycle parking for staff and customers and staff showers and storage etc should be easily accessed and visible, to encourage sustainable travel. Space for bicycle repair and free air and water should be provided.