Walsh Bay - Arts & Cultural Precinct

To whom it may concern,

While I am indifferent to the redevelopment of the area, I am appalled at the minimal amount of information which has been provided with regard to staging of the works and management of public pedestrian traffic. Given there are two wedding venues which will be directly impacted, and another which is indirectly impacted, it is important to couples who have already paid for their wedding receptions to know how they will be effected. When, for instance, will the 'Type B' hoarding be installed in along the eastern facing facade of Pier 2/3? If your construction program is to commence in July 2018, couples getting married in prime wedding season (Sept - Oct) in that location will all be impacted. Given wedding venues in Sydney book out generally a year or more in advance, I find it extremely disappointing and frustrating that your proposed development would commence works in July 2018, considering your application was only lodged in October this year. While I hope to be amongst those in attendance to your upcoming community consultation sessions, I request that you provide your proposed timeline for the works and photos of your proposed hoarding. I also request that you strongly consider staging your outdoor works outside of the peak wedding season (that is to say, in winter).

Dear Madam/Sir

I am writing to simply request that some very low cost space be made available in the redevelopment for artist studios, workshops and community art classes.

We are up to our ears in "commercial spaces to accommodate uses such as retail, cafes, restaurants and the like". It should be an arts centre not a function centre!

It would be a great pity if the development was to become just another State Government soulless commercial money making exercise.

Yours faithfully

Ian Higgins

An extension to submit is requested on the following basis:

Precinct Information only took place on Wednesday 15 November at which time we requested the parking requirement model used for the parking report by GTA Consultants;

The response received from Arts NSW did not include a parking model nor was the information comprehensive to allow us to make a thorough study;

The Walsh Bay Precinct members have concerns regarding additional parking requirements with the additional entertainment precincts;

This time of year, with the festive season fast approaching, does not allow proper interrogation of the documents submitted.

Whilst we support the arts precinct developments, we, however, seek an extension of eight (8) weeks to submit our independent findings

Dear Madam/Sir,

We are writing regarding the proposed works, specifically the interruption to the going concern of a hospitality business called View by Sydney once and if work begins. The business comprises both corporate and social (i.e. weddings) where daily transits of noise and interruption of site lines (the view) have the potential to disrupt the events/functions that are going on.

We respectfully ask that we are kept quite closely abreast of the management of the site works and the erection of hoardings and the cleanliness of the sites environs. all of these factors if not managed carefully will affect the capacity for our business to fully execute and meet the unhindered wants of our clients, hosts, customers and guests.

If there is a management committee being formed pending approval it would be good to get precise information regarding the management of the site and the proposed works.

Look forward to hearing from you,

Con Dedes
[email protected]

I am the owner of 13/13 Hickson road, a commercial office space situated within the building known
as Pier 2/3.
I strongly object to development SSD 17_8671 due to the excessive noise and vibration experienced during construction will make my commercial premises untenantable.

Further more the intended use for the space will create on going noise issues for my tenants and greatly reduce its commercial rental.

After many meetings, Arts advised owners that Shore 2/3 would be sound proofed as part of the redevelopment of Wharf 4/5 & Pier 2/3. However i do not see this as part of the DA.

This development has a history of lies and deception. I do not trust 'Arts'

Sound insulation of Shore 2/3 MUST to be part of the DA conditions of consent.

Sincerely,
Mat Humphrey
Owner 13/13 Hickson Road.

As a tenant of Studio 11, Pier 2/3 who's office is situated waterside between piers 2/3 and 4/5 we are very concerned about the noise impact of this development during construction. Having visited the onsite presentation last week in pier 2/3, we felt there were still lots of areas for concern.

Our business hours are 8am to 5pm and significant amounts of construction and vehicular noise will seriously impact our ability to do business. Soundproofing of the offices prior to construction at the cost of the applicant must be included in the DA and regular noise monitoring at the impacted offices is a pre-requisite. We also need to be able to negotiate any proposed significant noise periods to minimise disruption.
The DA didn't see to address how the redundant materials will be removed from the site - by road, by water? heavy traffic on the wharfs may create vibration within our office. Consultation and prior notification with us as tenants (and all the other tenants here) - Rules of Engagement - needs to be mandatory within the DA at every stage both pre and during construction.

I own Studio 11 and am concerned that the construction noise will negatively impact my tenant's ability to do business and they may decide to relocate during construction. Compensation for loss of rental needs to be made available should tenants be forced to move out during the construction period.
Post construction events on piers 2/3 and 4/5 may also negatively impact the sale value / rental value / ability to find tenants of Studio 11 if adequate traffic control and venue control (set up and take down noise as well as event noise) measures aren't put in place, all of which seem to be very vague in the current DA.

Most of the recent developments around Sydney Harbour have been welcome additions to the harbour side for both tourists & residents and the proposed development which will not only add another arts space to the existing Arts precincts around the harbour but at the same time preserve one of Sydney's few remaining historic sites should be applauded. However it is important not to neglect the following: pedestrian access to the waterside; traffic management which provides access for deliveries and local residents and amenity for pedestrians together with adequate public transport for visitors (perhaps more water transport). At the moment, Walsh Bay is a calm refuge from the crowds and craziness of Circular Quay and the city, and no doubt residents will be disadvantaged during the construction phase, but it is to be hoped that those in charge of each stage of the development will consult and engage locals so that they can feel optimistic about the completed project.
.

i am the owner of suite 1 2/3 13 hickson road and have under contract suite 2
my tenant Stephenson Mansell of which i am also a major shareholder has operated from these premises for 10 year - we operate high end exec coaching . which requires both privacy and limited noise .
i am very concerned about access and noise , screw piling will still produce noise - i am informed there is no decibel lowering .
your own report states that percussion will have to be used once rock is hit.
the truck movement report does not address the sheer volume
in short unless these issue are addressed we will have to temporary vacate and seek costs - i am aware a deal has been done with simmer on the bay - we are right above Simmer

This submission relates to the Development Application by Infrastructure NSW concerning the Walsh Bay Arts & Cultural Precinct.
Scott & Linda Evans
22 Pottinger St
Dawes Point NSW 2000

To whom it may concern,

We are aware that the Walsh Bay Precinct Association is lodging a formal submission dealing with matters which impact the Association and its members. We are a member of Walsh Bay Precinct Association and support and adopt the submission lodged by the Precinct Association.
Supplemental to that submission we raise the following matters:
1. Noise
We express concern as to excessive noise during the construction and post-construction phases.
The noise and vibration impact assessment of Arup Pty Limited is deficient in a number of respects including:
(a) None of the noise sensitive receptors are located within the area which is to be the subject of the construction and post-construction use.
(b) Paragraph 3.5.1 asserts that a list of proposed construction activities was prepared in consultation with Cadence Australia. The paragraph then says that the construction activities and appliances are indicative and provided for information only. If the activities and appliances are for information only then there can be no reliance placed on them for the purposes of determining the construction noise.
(c) Paragraph 3.5.1 also asserts that a large proportion of the work is internal demolition and fitout work attenuated by the existing building envelope. The activities set out in Table 13 call into question this assertion. Included in this table is roof sheeting, insulation and sarking, external lifts, raising of roof of Pier 2/3, raising of roof of workshop and raising of roof of Wharf 1. Structural works include concrete slabs, new steel portal frames and new gantries. None of these activities can be regarded as being internal demolition and fitout.
(d) Also of concern is the statement at the top of page 19 of the report which provides that some internal works have not been modelled.
(e) Page 22 sets out noise levels projected for the construction phase. As indicated above none of these receptors are within the immediate area of the construction.
(f) Clause 3.7 addresses construction traffic and it is anticipated that 80 trucks per day during four months and thereafter 30 trucks per day. The report blithely calls this "insignificant additional contribution to the ambient noise environment". Eighty trucks per day can hardly be classified as insignificant.
In relation to post-construction noise we raise the following:
(i) Paragraph 27 states that the noise outside Precinct wide events will largely be inaudible at nearby receivers. This is little wonder given that the receivers are not within the area in which events will be taking place.
(ii) This paragraph ignores significant noise which will come from Precinct wide events. The Development Application provides that the Precinct will be used for art festivals, events and pop up cafes. There is no detail in the Application or any report concerning the number of these events, number of people, timing or any controls surrounding them. This is a substantial defect in the Application.
(iii) The modelling patron number set out in Appendix E1 shows outdoor patron numbers which, in our submission, would clearly be exceeded and as a result the noise modelling is flawed.
We request that a new noise report be commissioned at the Applicant's expense to address the concerns raised in this submission and other submissions.
2. Traffic
We have reviewed the traffic report of GTA Consultants.
Our major concern is that the traffic report deals only with traffic during the construction and post-construction phases directly impacted by use in Walsh Bay. There is no account taken for the significant Barangaroo construction which will continue until 2024 and construction in the Circular Quay/Alfred Street area. In particular:
(a) trucks from Barangaroo construction are already using Hickson Road as a parking lot;
(b) the Barangaroo construction and the light rail will not be completed until 2024;
(c) there is only one lane of traffic which flows from Hickson Road under the Harbour Bridge.
The report does not address the construction impact on traffic. In particular, how will the 80 trucks per day be managed in addition to the existing traffic volumes?
Clause 5.1 of the report addresses public transport and asserts the site is broadly accessible by public transport. This is despite the facts that:
(i) Barangaroo Sydney Metro will not be operational until 2024;
(ii) the light rail comes no closer than Circular Quay;
(iii) the Barangaroo Ferry is a significant distance from Walsh Bay.
The report asserts that Hickson Road is a dual carriageway of three lanes in each direction. There is in fact a single lane of traffic in each direction.
It is our submission that a whole of area traffic report should be commissioned at the expense of the Applicant.
3. Building attenuation
Despite assurances from the Applicant, the Development Application does not cover attenuating the owners and occupiers of Shore 2/3 during construction and post construction.
4. Operational plan of management
This operational plan merely sets out vague guidelines which do not address any of the specific issues of concerns to the objectors. There are no specifics in any of the document which only contains vague statements on issues which may or may not be addressed. The report also does not address the Applicant's proposal to use the area for art festivals, events and pop-up cafes.
The objector welcomes an opportunity to discuss these matters in detail with the Consent Authority and the Applicant.
Look forward to receiving your earliest reply to our concerns.
Yours sincerely

Scott & Linda Evans

Business Extinguishment.

I am the party most directly affected by this Application.

My business goodwill is generated in large part by the amenity of the location which is a quiet, waterfront location.

My business will be extinguished because of the noise and traffic disruption during construction.
I object to this DA on these grounds

This submission relates to the Development Application by Infrastructure NSW concerning the Walsh Bay Arts & Cultural Precinct.
As residents of Towns Place Millers Point Peter & Beryl Hourigan we are aware that the Walsh Bay Precinct Association is lodging a formal submission dealing with matters which impact the Association and its members.
Supplemental to that submission we raise the following matters:
1. Noise
We express concern as to excessive noise during the construction and post-construction phases.
The noise and vibration impact assessment of Arup Pty Limited is deficient in a number of respects including:
(a) None of the noise sensitive receptors are located within the area which is to be the subject of the construction and post-construction use.
(b) Paragraph 3.5.1 asserts that a list of proposed construction activities was prepared in consultation with Cadence Australia. The paragraph then says that the construction activities and appliances are indicative and provided for information only. If the activities and appliances are for information only then there can be no reliance placed on them for the purposes of determining the construction noise.
(c) Paragraph 3.5.1 also asserts that a large proportion of the work is internal demolition and fitout work attenuated by the existing building envelope. The activities set out in Table 13 call into question this assertion. Included in this table is roof sheeting, insulation and sarking, external lifts, raising of roof of Pier 2/3, raising of roof of workshop and raising of roof of Wharf 1. Structural works include concrete slabs, new steel portal frames and new gantries. None of these activities can be regarded as being internal demolition and fitout.
(d) Also of concern is the statement at the top of page 19 of the report which provides that some internal works have not been modelled.
(e) Page 22 sets out noise levels projected for the construction phase. As indicated above none of these receptors are within the immediate area of the construction.
(f) Clause 3.7 addresses construction traffic and it is anticipated that 80 trucks per day during four months and thereafter 30 trucks per day. The report blithely calls this "insignificant additional contribution to the ambient noise environment". Eighty trucks per day can hardly be classified as insignificant.
In relation to post-construction noise we raise the following:
(i) Paragraph 27 states that the noise outside Precinct wide events will largely be inaudible at nearby receivers. This is little wonder given that the receivers are not within the area in which events will be taking place.
(ii) This paragraph ignores significant noise which will come from Precinct wide events. The Development Application provides that the Precinct will be used for art festivals, events and pop up cafes. There is no detail in the Application or any report concerning the number of these events, number of people, timing or any controls surrounding them. This is a substantial defect in the Application.
(iii) The modelling patron number set out in Appendix E1 shows outdoor patron numbers which, in our submission, would clearly be exceeded and as a result the noise modelling is flawed.
We request that a new noise report be commissioned at the Applicant's expense to address the concerns raised in this submission and other submissions.
2. Traffic
We have reviewed the traffic report of GTA Consultants.
Our major concern is that the traffic report deals only with traffic during the construction and post-construction phases directly impacted by use in Walsh Bay. There is no account taken for the significant Barangaroo construction which will continue until 2024 and construction in the Circular Quay/Alfred Street area. In particular:
(a) trucks from Barangaroo construction are already using Hickson Road as a parking lot;
(b) the Barangaroo construction and the light rail will not be completed until 2024;
(c) there is only one lane of traffic which flows from Hickson Road under the Harbour Bridge.
The report does not address the construction impact on traffic. In particular, how will the 80 trucks per day be managed in addition to the existing traffic volumes?
Clause 5.1 of the report addresses public transport and asserts the site is broadly accessible by public transport. This is despite the facts that:
(i) Barangaroo Sydney Metro will not be operational until 2024;
(ii) the light rail comes no closer than Circular Quay;
(iii) the Barangaroo Ferry is a significant distance from Walsh Bay.
The report asserts that Hickson Road is a dual carriageway of three lanes in each direction. There is in fact a single lane of traffic in each direction.
It is our submission that a whole of area traffic report should be commissioned at the expense of the Applicant.
3. Building attenuation
Despite assurances from the Applicant, the Development Application does not cover attenuating the owners and occupiers of Shore 2/3 during construction and post construction.
4. Operational plan of management
This operational plan merely sets out vague guidelines which do not address any of the specific issues of concerns to the objectors. There are no specifics in any of the document which only contains vague statements on issues which may or may not be addressed. The report also does not address the Applicant's proposal to use the area for art festivals, events and pop-up cafes.
I fully concur with Walsh Bay Precinct Association submission.
Peter & Beryl Hourigan
15/5 Towns Place Millers Point 2000
[email protected]

I am concerned about the impacts of the construction phase and the operations phase of this development.
The residents of Lower Fort Street immediately above Hickson Road and this development will be affected by the noise of construction because noise along the section of Hickson Road is reflected upwards to this neighbourhood. If trucks are permitted to arrive earlier than 7am it is likely they will sit with engines running and distrurb sleep of residents. Please ensure trucks are not to enter the precinct before 7am.
The commercial zones greatly outweigh the cultural zones in this development, and there are insufficient restrictions on them. Already one of the small commercial operations at Walsh Bay causes ongoing disruption in this neighbourhood. Restrictions need to be greater and some commitment to ensuring these are met is also required.
Transport for the many additional visitors is a great concern. The bus zones near the junction of Pottinger Street and Hickson Road have only recently been extended. There has been some effort taken to reduce the noise of idling buses but they remain disruptive. Increasing the number of buses to accommodate the additional visitors expect will result in more noise in this neighbourhood and we object to this.

To Whom It May Concern,

I write as a resident of Walsh Bay. I have lived in the Walsh Bay area for nearly 10 years.

I write to you in relation to the Walsh Bay Arts & Culture Precinct State Significant Development Application (Application no. SSD 8671).

Of particular concern are the follow traffic and transport issues in the area, which I believe may be exacerbated by the proposed development.

Current large-scale developments
* Light Rail Project (and its subsequent long-term road closures, affecting accessibility both to and from the City and Walsh Bay).
* Sydney Metro Project (and the impending noise and traffic impacts, both at a construction level and an operational level).
* Gold Fields House redevelopment (and its impacts on traffic in conjunction with the Light Rail project).
* Crown Casino development (and the impending noise and traffic impacts, both at a construction level and an operational level).
* Ongoing development of Barangaroo (and the impending noise and traffic impacts, both at a construction level and an operational level).
Other current issues
* Hickson Road repairs and maintenance (causing traffic disruption and an increase in truck movements throughout Walsh Bay at various hours of the day and night).
* Trucks servicing the overseas passenger terminal and above developments (travelling through Walsh Bay at various hours of the day and night, as well as drivers parking illegally and - at times - leaving the trucks running on the side of Hickson Road while they get lunch nearby, often without purchasing a parking ticket).
Upcoming developments
* Walsh Bay Arts Precinct redevelopment (impacts on traffic and parking as a result of the revised proposal for this development - at both a construction level and operational level - are likely to be unprecedented in Walsh Bay).
* Proposed Circular Quay Ferry Terminal redevelopment (increased pressure on public transport, cumulative impacts on traffic and parking due to road closures, and an increase in trucks in the area are of key concern).
In addition to the usual impact on traffic and parking that results from:
* Patrons attending the theatres and other local functions at peak times in Walsh Bay.
* Road closures and clearways due to fun runs, marathons, New Years' Eve, etc (often rendering it impossible to get in/out of residential and commercial car parks).
* A lack of sufficient public transport services such as buses, ferries and rail services.

The cumulative impact of any number of the concerns listed above have the potential to severely impact on the quality of living for residents.

Yours sincerely

SP 70335 & SP 69906
Redevelopment of Pier 2/3 & Wharf 4/5

This submission relates to the Development Application by Infrastructure NSW concerning the Walsh Bay Arts & Cultural Precinct.
We are aware that the Walsh Bay Precinct Association is lodging a formal submission dealing with matters which impact the Association and its members. We are a member of Walsh Bay Precinct Association and support and adopt the submission lodged by the Precinct Association.
Supplemental to that submission we raise the following matters:
1. Noise
We express concern as to excessive noise during the construction and post-construction phases.
The noise and vibration impact assessment of Arup Pty Limited is deficient in a number of respects including:
(a) None of the noise sensitive receptors are located within the area which is to be the subject of the construction and post-construction use.
(b) Paragraph 3.5.1 asserts that a list of proposed construction activities was prepared in consultation with Cadence Australia. The paragraph then says that the construction activities and appliances are indicative and provided for information only. If the activities and appliances are for information only then there can be no reliance placed on them for the purposes of determining the construction noise.
(c) Paragraph 3.5.1 also asserts that a large proportion of the work is internal demolition and fitout work attenuated by the existing building envelope. The activities set out in Table 13 call into question this assertion. Included in this table is roof sheeting, insulation and sarking, external lifts, raising of roof of Pier 2/3, raising of roof of workshop and raising of roof of Wharf 1. Structural works include concrete slabs, new steel portal frames and new gantries. None of these activities can be regarded as being internal demolition and fitout.
(d) Also of concern is the statement at the top of page 19 of the report which provides that some internal works have not been modelled.
(e) Page 22 sets out noise levels projected for the construction phase. As indicated above none of these receptors are within the immediate area of the construction.
(f) Clause 3.7 addresses construction traffic and it is anticipated that 80 trucks per day during four months and thereafter 30 trucks per day. The report blithely calls this "insignificant additional contribution to the ambient noise environment". Eighty trucks per day can hardly be classified as insignificant.
In relation to post-construction noise we raise the following:
(i) Paragraph 27 states that the noise outside Precinct wide events will largely be inaudible at nearby receivers. This is little wonder given that the receivers are not within the area in which events will be taking place.
(ii) This paragraph ignores significant noise which will come from Precinct wide events. The Development Application provides that the Precinct will be used for art festivals, events and pop up cafes. There is no detail in the Application or any report concerning the number of these events, number of people, timing or any controls surrounding them. This is a substantial defect in the Application.
(iii) The modelling patron number set out in Appendix E1 shows outdoor patron numbers which, in our submission, would clearly be exceeded and as a result the noise modelling is flawed.
We request that a new noise report be commissioned at the Applicant's expense to address the concerns raised in this submission and other submissions.
2. Traffic
We have reviewed the traffic report of GTA Consultants.
Our major concern is that the traffic report deals only with traffic during the construction and post-construction phases directly impacted by use in Walsh Bay. There is no account taken for the significant Barangaroo construction which will continue until 2024 and construction in the Circular Quay/Alfred Street area. In particular:
(a) trucks from Barangaroo construction are already using Hickson Road as a parking lot;
(b) the Barangaroo construction and the light rail will not be completed until 2024;
(c) there is only one lane of traffic which flows from Hickson Road under the Harbour Bridge.
The report does not address the construction impact on traffic. In particular, how will the 80 trucks per day be managed in addition to the existing traffic volumes?
Clause 5.1 of the report addresses public transport and asserts the site is broadly accessible by public transport. This is despite the facts that:
(i) Barangaroo Sydney Metro will not be operational until 2024;
(ii) the light rail comes no closer than Circular Quay;
(iii) the Barangaroo Ferry is a significant distance from Walsh Bay.
The report asserts that Hickson Road is a dual carriageway of three lanes in each direction. There is in fact a single lane of traffic in each direction.
It is our submission that a whole of area traffic report should be commissioned at the expense of the Applicant.
3. Building attenuation
Despite assurances from the Applicant, the Development Application does not cover attenuating the owners and occupiers of Shore 2/3 during construction and post construction.
4. Operational plan of management
This operational plan merely sets out vague guidelines which do not address any of the specific issues of concerns to the objectors. There are no specifics in any of the document which only contains vague statements on issues which may or may not be addressed. The report also does not address the Applicant's proposal to use the area for art festivals, events and pop-up cafes.
The objector welcomes an opportunity to discuss these matters in detail with the Consent Authority and the Applicant.

We as residents who live in the Walsh Bay Precinct are concerned about the increased levels of traffic congestion & noise pollution that wlll inevitably arise during the proposed
re-development of Piers 2/3 & Piers 4/5 in the Walsh Bay Arts Precinct. Our main access route in & out of our Precinct ,
Hickson Rd is already reduced to 1 lane in each direction & will continue to be so for the next few years while the large scale development & construction that is currently underway in Barangaroo of the Crown Casino., commercial office tower & residential apartments as well as the Barangaroo Metro station Further concurrent re development of the Walsh Bay Arts precinct add further to traffic congestion & delays that is already endured by Walsh Bay Precinct residents when they have to drive in & out of the area .
The alternative access route along George Street & surrounding roads in the Northern CBD is also compromised by traffic congestion & delays by the construction of the Light Rail in George Street & Circular Quay .
PLEASE TAKE this into CONSIDERATION.

This submission relates to the Development Application by Infrastructure NSW concerning the Walsh Bay Arts & Cultural Precinct and is submitted by:

Ruth and Colagiuri
Owners - 703/21A Hickson Rd, Millers Point 2000.

GENERAL COMMENTS
We welcome the idea of upgrading the existing Arts and Culture Hub at Walsh Bay to bring it into the 21st Century. Well designed and appropriately fitted and furbished infrastructure for the performing arts companies and organisations located at Walsh Bay, and for the people who attend their performances, is critical to enhancing both the performer and audience experience as well as Sydney's cultural life and reputation overall. However, great care and meticulous planning must be taken to ensure that the development of the public area is consistent with the heritage aura and natural beauty of the area, and enhances rather than impacts negatively on the area's livability for its many and diverse residents.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS
1. Noise
The re-development will generate considerable noise both during the construction and operational phases. As residents of Walsh Bay we have had first-hand experience of this. However this will be a considerably worse for us all but especially for those closest to the development area.

This has not been adequately addressed in the application and the details. None of the noise sensitive receptors are located within the area which is to be the subject of the construction and post-construction use. Also there are no details of noise attenuation plans.

2. Congestion
Construction traffic is anticipated as 80 trucks per day during four months and thereafter 30 trucks per day. This will have a considerable impact on local traffic yet the application dismisses this as insignificant. At the very least, alternate means of construction related traffic should be considered, as was used during the development of Headland Park. Nor is the issue of ongoing congestion with routine services such as delivery trucks, waste removal etc dealt with adequately in the proposal.

3. Transport
This remains a major concern and is not adequately addressed in the Transport Impact Statement which does not adequately reflect the current traffic and transport situation at Walsh Bay. Even now, the current level of traffic flow is not easily accommodated with the limited number of performances and the most minor works along Hickson Rd result in extensive traffic delays. In addition, there is no consideration of the significant other developments planned for the area eg Barangaroo station and precinct and the concomitant arge increase in transport vehicles including buses, taxis, cars etc.

4. Parking
There are no plans for additional parking in Walsh Bay which already struggles to meet current demands without having to cope with the additional parking needs generated as a result of this development both during the lengthy construction phase and once the area is opened to the public. It is also totally unrealistic to expect elderly visitors to the planned area to walk from Circular Quay.
 
5. Public Domain
We note that the current proposal, unlike the initial proposal, does not include a public outdoor area (previously referred to as "Waterfront Square") between Piers 2/3 and 4/5. This is very welcome as this was a very contentious proposal. However we are concerned that this proposal may be resurrected if the SSDA is approved. We wish to foreshadow that we remain strongly opposed to this concept.

I am a director and manager of the Investment trust that owns unit 12 in the commercial offices at shore 2/3, on the site.
Despite assurances from the Applicant, the Development Application does not
cover attenuating the owners and occupiers of Shore 2/3 during construction and especially at post-construction.!!!!

There was a promise made and no sign of it in the application.

The noise and traffic issues will be huge as outlined in the submission by the Precinct Association. Im appalled by the poor application on these fronts.

In addition We are aware that the Walsh Bay Precinct Association is lodging a formal submission
dealing with matters which impact the Association and its members. We are a member of
Walsh Bay Precinct Association and support and adopt the submission lodged by the
Precinct Association.
Supplemental to that submission we raise the following matters:
1. Noise
We express concern as to excessive noise during the construction and post-
construction phases.
The noise and vibration impact assessment of Arup Pty Limited is deficient in a
number of respects including:
(a) None of the noise sensitive receptors are located within the area which is to
be the subject of the construction and post-construction use.
(b) Paragraph 3.5.1 asserts that a list of proposed construction activities was
prepared in consultation with Cadence Australia. The paragraph then says
that the construction activities and appliances are indicative and provided
for information only. If the activities and appliances are for information only
then there can be no reliance placed on them for the purposes of
determining the construction noise.
(c) Paragraph 3.5.1 also asserts that a large proportion of the work is internal
demolition and fitout work attenuated by the existing building envelope.
The activities set out in Table 13 call into question this assertion. Included
in this table is roof sheeting, insulation and sarking, external lifts, raising of
roof of Pier 2/3, raising of roof of workshop and raising of roof of Wharf 1.
Structural works include concrete slabs, new steel portal frames and new
gantries. None of these activities can be regarded as being internal
demolition and fitout.
(d) Also of concern is the statement at the top of page 19 of the report which
provides that some internal works have not been modelled.
(e) Page 22 sets out noise levels projected for the construction phase. As
indicated above none of these receptors are within the immediate area of
the construction.
(f) Clause 3.7 addresses construction traffic and it is anticipated that 80 trucks
per day during four months and thereafter 30 trucks per day. The report
blithely calls this "insignificant additional contribution to the ambient noise
environment". Eighty trucks per day can hardly be classified as
insignificant.
In relation to post-construction noise we raise the following:

- 2 -

PRC-212686- 2-4- V1
(i) Paragraph 27 states that the noise outside Precinct wide events will largely
be inaudible at nearby receivers. This is little wonder given that the
receivers are not within the area in which events will be taking place.
(ii) This paragraph ignores significant noise which will come from Precinct wide
events. The Development Application provides that the Precinct will be
used for art festivals, events and popup cafes. There is no detail in the
Application or any report concerning the number of these events, number of
people, timing or any controls surrounding them. This is a substantial
defect in the Application.
(iii) The modelling patron number set out in Appendix E1 shows outdoor patron
numbers which, in our submission, would clearly be exceeded and as a
result the noise modelling is flawed.
We request that a new noise report be commissioned at the Applicant's expense to
address the concerns raised in this submission and other submissions.
2. Traffic
We have reviewed the traffic report of GTA Consultants.
Our major concern is that the traffic report deals only with traffic during the
construction and post-construction phases directly impacted by use in Walsh Bay.
There is no account taken for the significant Barangaroo construction which will
continue until 2024 and construction in the Circular Quay/Alfred Street area. In
particular:
(a) trucks from Barangaroo construction are already using Hickson Road as a
parking lot;
(b) the Barangaroo construction and the light rail will not be completed until
2024;
(c) there is only one lane of traffic which flows from Hickson Road under the
Harbour Bridge.
The report does not address the construction impact on traffic. In particular, how
will the 80 trucks per day be managed in addition to the existing traffic volumes?
Clause 5.1 of the report addresses public transport and asserts the site is broadly
accessible by public transport. This is despite the facts that:
(i) Barangaroo Sydney Metro will not be operational until 2024;
(ii) the light rail comes no closer than Circular Quay;
(iii) the Barangaroo Ferry is a significant distance from Walsh Bay.
The report asserts that Hickson Road is a dual carriageway of three lanes in each
direction. There is in fact a single lane of traffic in each direction.
It is our submission that a whole of area traffic report should be commissioned at
the expense of the Applicant.
3. Building attenuation

- 3 -

PRC-212686- 2-4- V1
Despite assurances from the Applicant, the Development Application does not
cover attenuating the owners and occupiers of Shore 2/3 during construction and
postconstruction.
4. Operational plan of management
This operational plan merely sets out vague guidelines which do not address any
of the specific issues of concerns to the objectors. There are no specifics in any of
the document which only contains vague statements on issues which may or may
not be addressed. The report also does not address the Applicant's proposal to
use the area for art festivals, events and pop-up cafes.
The objector welcomes an opportunity to discuss these matters in detail with the
Consent Authority and the Applicant.

Sydney Philharmonia Choirs has been a resident company at the Walsh Bay Arts Precinct since 1994. We have seen the precinct grow to accommodate other arts companies and we now have a thriving arts community in the heart of Sydney.
The proposed upgrades to Pier 2/3, Wharf 4/5 and the shore sheds are long overdue. The last meaningful renovations were carried out in the 1990's and the facilities are now in dire need of upgrading to allow a safer, more accessible and creative workspace for the tenants and visitors to the site.
As a destination there is poor wayfinding, inadequate signage and no recreational space. The proposed upgrades will alleviate the confusion and uncertainty that visitors to the precinct experience. The renovations will make Walsh Bay a destination rather than a pathway to The Sydney Opera House or Barangaroo.
We are looking forward to moving back into the precinct when completed. Not only will we have a purpose built rehearsal space but we will also have new offices and facilities on site that will be second to none and put Walsh Bay on the map as a performing arts hub. The facilities of the theatres and dance studios will ensure that Sydney remains a place where art can be created and keeps the standard of performance in both Sydney and Australia at the highest level. With investment in the arts at its lowest for decades this investment by both the state and federal governments is very welcome and we hope will set the standard for how the arts can be nurtured and supported in the future.
We are a small non profit company, celebrating our Centenary in 2020, we will move back into Walsh Bay at the very start of our 100th year, a fitting way to celebrate our longevity and contribution to the arts in Australia. We wholeheartedly support this application and look forward to sharing the benefits of the investment with the people of Sydney and all visitors to Sydney.

This submission relates to the Development Application by Infrastructure NSW concerning the Walsh Bay Arts & Cultural Precinct.
[Lionel Goldberg, Part owner Unit 12, Shore 2/3
I am aware that the Walsh Bay Precinct Association is lodging a formal submission dealing with matters which impact the Association and its members. I am a member of Walsh Bay Precinct Association and support and adopt the submission lodged by the Precinct Association.
Supplemental to that submission we raise the following matters:
1. Noise
I express concern as to excessive noise during the construction and post-construction phases.
The noise and vibration impact assessment of Arup Pty Limited is deficient in a number of respects including:
(a) None of the noise sensitive receptors are located within the area which is to be the subject of the construction and post-construction use.
(b) Paragraph 3.5.1 asserts that a list of proposed construction activities was prepared in consultation with Cadence Australia. The paragraph then says that the construction activities and appliances are indicative and provided for information only. If the activities and appliances are for information only then there can be no reliance placed on them for the purposes of determining the construction noise.
(c) Paragraph 3.5.1 also asserts that a large proportion of the work is internal demolition and fitout work attenuated by the existing building envelope. The activities set out in Table 13 call into question this assertion. Included in this table is roof sheeting, insulation and sarking, external lifts, raising of roof of Pier 2/3, raising of roof of workshop and raising of roof of Wharf 1. Structural works include concrete slabs, new steel portal frames and new gantries. None of these activities can be regarded as being internal demolition and fitout.
(d) Also of concern is the statement at the top of page 19 of the report which provides that some internal works have not been modelled.
(e) Page 22 sets out noise levels projected for the construction phase. As indicated above none of these receptors are within the immediate area of the construction.
(f) Clause 3.7 addresses construction traffic and it is anticipated that 80 trucks per day during four months and thereafter 30 trucks per day. The report blithely calls this "insignificant additional contribution to the ambient noise environment". Eighty trucks per day can hardly be classified as insignificant.
In relation to post-construction noise I raise the following:
(i) Paragraph 27 states that the noise outside Precinct wide events will largely be inaudible at nearby receivers. This is little wonder given that the receivers are not within the area in which events will be taking place.
(ii) This paragraph ignores significant noise which will come from Precinct wide events. The Development Application provides that the Precinct will be used for art festivals, events and pop up cafes. There is no detail in the Application or any report concerning the number of these events, number of people, timing or any controls surrounding them. This is a substantial defect in the Application.
(iii) The modelling patron number set out in Appendix E1 shows outdoor patron numbers which, in our submission, would clearly be exceeded and as a result the noise modelling is flawed.
I request that a new noise report be commissioned at the Applicant's expense to address the concerns raised in this submission and other submissions.
2. Traffic
I have reviewed the traffic report of GTA Consultants.
Our major concern is that the traffic report deals only with traffic during the construction and post-construction phases directly impacted by use in Walsh Bay. There is no account taken for the significant Barangaroo construction which will continue until 2024 and construction in the Circular Quay/Alfred Street area. In particular:
(a) trucks from Barangaroo construction are already using Hickson Road as a parking lot;
(b) the Barangaroo construction and the light rail will not be completed until 2024;
(c) there is only one lane of traffic which flows from Hickson Road under the Harbour Bridge.
The report does not address the construction impact on traffic. In particular, how will the 80 trucks per day be managed in addition to the existing traffic volumes?
Clause 5.1 of the report addresses public transport and asserts the site is broadly accessible by public transport. This is despite the facts that:
(i) Barangaroo Sydney Metro will not be operational until 2024;
(ii) the light rail comes no closer than Circular Quay;
(iii) the Barangaroo Ferry is a significant distance from Walsh Bay.
The report asserts that Hickson Road is a dual carriageway of three lanes in each direction. There is in fact a single lane of traffic in each direction.
It is our submission that a whole of area traffic report should be commissioned at the expense of the Applicant.
3. Building attenuation
Despite assurances from the Applicant, the Development Application does not cover attenuating the owners and occupiers of Shore 2/3 during construction and post construction.
4. Operational plan of management
This operational plan merely sets out vague guidelines which do not address any of the specific issues of concerns to the objectors. There are no specifics in any of the document which only contains vague statements on issues which may or may not be addressed. The report also does not address the Applicant's proposal to use the area for art festivals, events and pop-up cafes.
The objector welcomes an opportunity to discuss these matters in detail with the Consent Authority and the Applicant.