Campbell's Stores Reuse

This proposal is contravenes the whole concept of preserving the Rocks as an invaluable historical precinct. The Stores are heritage listed, and should not be partly obscured by any proposed building. The historic streetscape should not be devalued by the proposed unsympathetic glass building. The land for the proposal is publicly-owned. It should be for public use and access to the harbour foreshores. The development proposal contravenes the Campbell's Stores Conservation Management Plan which was only endorsed by the Heritage Council in 2014. Long and hard-fought campaigns to preserve the heritage of the Rocks area should not be swept aside in the greed for "modern" development.

I object to the four-storey building included as part of the Campbell's Stores Development Application. I write as an experienced architect and developer, and also as a NSW taxpayer keen to see public assets used well. The grounds for my objection are:

* Campbell's Stores should be visible from all four sides and not partly obscured. This is a unique opportunity to achieve this.

* Having a building or any other structure between Campbell's Stores and the Park Hyatt Hotel is entirely inappropriate. It is publicly-owned land and should only be used for landscaping and foreshore access. The small commercial benefit attributable to this proposed building in my opinion is not adequate to compensate for the loss of public amenity.

* The design of the proposed building undermines and devalues The Rocks' heritage character. The proposed building interrupts the historic streetscape along this section of Hickson Rd and the Harbour foreshore

* The Conservation Management Plan states that the one-storey structure that exists on this land now should be removed (see 7.6.1). This would free up the land and it would be a pity to then construct a modern building on this space. I note the Conservation Management Plan in the Recommendations section refers to a possible new building here, but there is nothing I can see in the body of the Plan that supports that concept.

* A building like this is contrary to everything that people value about the 1960s and 70s campaign to save The Rocks.

* We need to correct address the problems created by past poor decision-making in The Rocks, NOT compound them

I have made no reportable or other political donations ever.

Arthur Katakalos
6/40 Bridge Street - Epping
NSW 2121


Re: Remediation, Renewal and Adaptive Re-Use of Campbell's Stores, The Rocks. SSD 7056

I strongly object to the four-storey building included as part of the Campbell's Stores Development Application. It is good to see some plans for the Stores' renewal but NOT if
the cost is the long-term loss of the heritage setting for this important heritage-listed building. The grounds for my objection are:

Campbell's Stores should be visible from all four sides and not partly obscured. This is a unique opportunity to achieve this.

Having a building or any other structure between Campbell's Stores and the Park Hyatt Hotel is entirely inappropriate. It is publicly-owned land and should only be used for landscaping and foreshore access.

The design of the proposed building undermines and devalues The Rocks' heritage character.

The proposed building interrupts the historic streetscape along this section of Hickson Rd and the Harbour foreshore

The proposed building contravenes the 2014 Campbell's Stores Conservation Management Plan which the Heritage Council endorsed (esp. 7.5.5). The plan clearly outlines the area that needs to be retained around Campbell's Stores. This includes the area now proposed for this completely unsympathetic glass building. Approving it would destroy Campbell's Stores historic setting.

The Conservation Management Plan states that the one-storey structure that exists on this land now should be removed (see 7.6.1). This was intended to free up the land NOT to create space for a building four times as high.

A building like this is contrary to everything that people value about the 1960s and 70s campaign to save The Rocks.

We need to correct address the problems created by past poor decision-making in The Rocks, NOT compound them

Re: Remediation, Renewal and Adaptive Re-Use of Campbell's Stores, The Rocks. SSD

7056

I strongly object to the four-storey building included as part of the Campbell's Stores

Development Application. It is good to see some plans for the Stores' renewal but NOT if

the cost is the long-term loss of the heritage setting for this important heritage-listed building.

The grounds for my objection are:

 Campbell's Stores should be visible from all four sides and not partly obscured. This is a

unique opportunity to achieve this.

 Having a building or any other structure between Campbell's Stores and the Park Hyatt

Hotel is entirely inappropriate. It is publicly-owned land and should only be used for

landscaping and foreshore access.

 The design of the proposed building undermines and devalues The Rocks' heritage

character.

 The proposed building interrupts the historic streetscape along this section of Hickson Rd

and also the heritage of Harbour foreshore

 The proposed building contravenes the 2014 Campbell's Stores Conservation

Management Plan which the Heritage Council endorsed (esp. 7.5.5). The plan clearly

outlines the area that needs to be retained around Campbell's Stores. This includes the

area now proposed for this completely unsympathetic glass building. Approving it would

destroy Campbell's Stores historic setting.

 The Conservation Management Plan states that the one-storey structure that exists on this

land now should be removed (see 7.6.1). This was intended to free up the land NOT to

create space for a building four times as high.

 A building like this is contrary to everything that people value about the 1960s and 70s

campaign to save The Rocks.

 We need to correct address the problems created by past poor decision-making in The

Rocks, NOT compound them by allowing the construction of this unsympathetic glass

building right next to one of The Rocks' most significant heritage buildings.

In 1968, the state government gave control of The Rocks to the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority, with the intention of demolishing all the original buildings, re-developing them as high-density residential dwellings.

After many years of protesting, in 1975 instead of demolishing The Rocks, renovations transformed the area into a commercial and tourist precinct. This is one of the few locations where visitors and local residents can look back in time and visualise what it was like living in Sydney in its early settlement days. My wife and I love visiting the Rocks, admiring all the old buildings and then look across Circular Quay to take in the splendour of modern architecture, the Opera House.

This proposal presents a building that is contrary to everything that people value about the 1960s and 70s campaign to save The Rocks.

We need to correctly address the problems created by past poor decision-making in The Rocks, NOT compound them by allowing the construction of this unsympathetic glass building right next to one of The Rocks' most significant heritage buildings.

I wish to object to the proposal. I have a particular heritage link. Nearby Cleland Bond was a business of my grandfather, great-uncles and father. The 'Box' seems totally inappropriate and incompatible with the precinct in heritage terms, in streets cape and vista terms and in architectural terms. The proposal in each term should be unacceptable.The precinct represents the essence of Sydney's maritime and bonded and free store heritage and should not be prejudiced.
I would have commented also in terms of the Campbell's Cove Stores Conservation Management Plan, asI would be surprised if the proposal is consistent with this but this site is down on the Government's website.

While I think "The Box" is intrinsically quite an attractive building, its position is totally unsuitable as it block the heritage Campbell's stores and closes in the Harbour foreshore. Yet again we seem to fail to capitalise on the beauty of our harbour and we put more structures near it instead of framing and presenting it as a thing of beauty. (vis the Cahill Expressway and all the buildings near the Opera House...)
Sydney needs to move back buildings rather than encroach on any land which might block the harbour views.
May I therefore suggest you reconsider the placement of this building.

The application should be refused on the grounds of the inadequate, inaccurate, inconsistent and misleading information it contains; the inconsistent information supplied to stakeholders and consultants; and its failure to meet the SEA Requirements.

Specifically the application is inadequate, inaccurate, inconsistent and misleading as follows:

1.0 The `Proposal Name' for the proposal fails to make any mention of the proposed new four-storey high structure within the heritage curtilage, arguably the most controversial aspect of the application. Failure to make any mention of this aspect of the proposal may have resulted in people who could be concerned remaining unaware of the proposal.

2.0 The application fails to comply with the following Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirements. The omission of this information significantly affects the assessment of the application.
2.1 General Requirements. Fails to consider the cumulative impacts of noise on 8 Hickson Road due to other development in the vicinity.
2.2 Requirement 2. Land Use and GFA. Failed to supply a table identifying the land uses for the building, including a floor by floor breakdown of GFA, total GFA and its site coverage
2.3 Requirement 2. Land Use and GFA. Application does not specify areas or locations allocated to restaurants, bars, small bars, cafes or function centre spaces, patron capacity or specific hours of operation for various uses. This information is critical for the residents of 8 Hickson Road and The Park Hyatt to assess the impact of the proposal particularly the proposed use of the new four-storey high building.
2.4 Requirement 6. Amenity. Failed to provide any details of the intended uses consequently various issues of amenity could not be assessed.
2.5 Requirement 6. Amenity. Details of the use of of the proposed new structure to the north of Campbell's Stores have not been supplied. Consequently, no attempt has been made to demonstrate that the use of this proposed building would be compatible with adjoining uses.

3.0 In addition to the omission of the above required information the following information should be considered essential for the assessment of the application:
3.1 The SSD application includes "Subdivision-create separate strata and stratum lots". A proposed plan of subdivision has not been submitted as part of the application. As such the application can not be assessed.
3.2 The photomontage images viewed from the east, specifically images 1a, 1c, 2, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, and 4c all show the proposed new four-storey high building obscured by the existing fig tree. There are many reasons that could necessitate the removal of the tree including disease, storm damage and removal due to its impact on nearby property. It is unrealistic and potentially misleading to assume that this tree will exist in perpetuity. Photomontage images and the visual impact statement should be submitted showing and assessing the development without the tree obscuring its visual impact.

4.0 Information supplied to the residents of 8 Hickson Road during the required stakeholder consultation was incorrect and consequently misleading:
4.1 The proposed new-four storey high building will be used for `up-market' retailing. The application submitted does not request approval for retail uses but rather `use of existing and proposed building and reconfigured outdoor dinning area for restaurant, cafes and bars......'. The use of this building for restaurant and bars may have a significant amenity impact on the residents of 8 Hickson Road. No operational details have been submitted with the application. Details have not been submitted showing where these various uses will be located within the existing Campbell's Stores building and the proposed new four-storey high glass building. As a consequence, it is difficult to asses the impact of these uses.
4.2 The applicant advised that the various restaurants and bars within the Campbell's Stores would not operate beyond 11.00pm and occasionally midnight, which in fact are the hours that the current restaurants operate to. The applicant has applied for much later trading hours, to 2.00 am. Even if the noise within the premises and the outdoor eating areas can be controlled, the noise of patrons leaving the premises in the early hours of the morning will affect the amenity of residents at 8 Hickson Road and the guests at The Park Hyatt.

5.0 Issues raised at the stakeholders' meeting, and subsequently, that have not been addressed by the applicant:

5.1 Subsequent to an initial meeting with some residents at 8 Hickson Road, it was requested that additional photomontages be submitted with the application. The photomontages requested would show the views from the east without the view of the proposed building being obstructed by the existing fig tree. These photomontages are essential should the unfortunate but very possible circumstances arise that result in the removal of this tree.
5.2 Subsequent to a meeting with residents at 8 Hickson Rd, it was requested that details of the approvals of the single storey `inappropriate' building located to the north of Bay 11. Residents were advised that this was erected prior to the current tenancy and that the leaseholders/applicants have no knowledge of the approval. It would appear that in fact no approval exists for this inappropriate structure. Approval for an open pergola may have been included in a 1990s approval for Bay 11. However over a number of years, since 2002, this structure has been totally reconstructed with the inclusion a new and higher roof, the erection of decorative lattice screens, the installation of glass doors and walls behind the screens and the internal lining of the roof and glass doors. It appears that all of this work has been carried out without either development consent or building approval. This is very significant as the removal of this apparently unapproved structure is now being used as implied justification for a building four times larger and four times higher. The implications of using an unapproved addition to a heritage building to justify a new significantly larger structure within the curtilage of a heritage building should be a significant concern to anyone involved in the retention, conservation and preservation of heritage buildings.
5.3 Residents requested that the acoustic analysis submitted with the application include the cumulative noise impact on residents at 8 Hickson of other uses in the area. This is significant as the rear of 8 Hickson adjoins George St and noise from the Mercantile Hotel and the weekend assembly of The Rocks Markets currently impacts residents. The report fails to make any cumulative noise impact assessment.

6.0 Omissions from Consultants Reports that may lead to misunderstanding or difficulty in assessment:

6.1 Visual Impact Statement: The Visual Impact Statement has not adequately addressed the visual impact of the proposed new four storey high glass building should the existing fig tree be removed.
6.2 Photomontage images: The photomontage images fail to provide a view of the proposed new four-storey high glass building, from the east, unobstructed by the fig tree in the event that the tree is removed in the future.
6.3 Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment: The report does not include an assessment of cumulative impact of noise on the residents of 8 Hickson Rd and the guests of The Park Hyatt.
6.4 Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment: The report appears to fail to assess the noise impact of the intention to have the Campbell's Stores windows facing Hickson Road open for `much of the year' to provide passive/natural ventilation. This is particularly important considering the extended trading hours and the nature of the uses including amplified music.
6.5 Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment: The application proposes hours of operation until 2.00 am however no noise readings have been taken after midnight.
6.6 Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment: Bridge work is currently being carried out on the Harbour Bridge which over recent years has increased the background noise levels. This work is nearing completion however the noise assessment appears to fail to have been adjusted for the cessation of the bridge work and the consequent reduction in the night time background noise levels.
6.7 Statement of Heritage Impact: Section 2.7 of the report appears to be incorrect to the extent that it relates to the inappropriate glass pavilion. The building was not enclosed until after 2002. It would appear that this structure has never received approval. The report fails to trace the records and approvals for this structure. This is significant as part of the implied benefit in the erection of the new four-storey high glass building is justified by the removal of this unapproved structure, much of which has been erected in the last decade. This argument has serious consequences in the preservation of heritage buildings any where in NSW as it potentially rewards unapproved additions to heritage buildings.
6.8 Statement of Heritage Impact: The report fails to give details of the previous buildings on the land to the north of Bay 11, the site of the proposed new four-storey high glass building. This is significant as, with the exception of the unapproved inappropriate glass pavilion, this part of the site appears not to have been built upon since about 1902. For more than a century, Campbell's Stores has been viewed in relative isolation from other structures and seen as a whole, not as elements in a mixed streetscape. Even prior to 1900, this part of the site appears to have been occupied by only relatively low scale buildings. These are important issues that should be addressed in the statement of heritage impact.
6.9 Statement of Heritage Impact: Section 5.1.5 under `New Works' the report refers to "The construction of a new glass block clad retail building to the north of the Stores'. The application does not apply for the retail use of this building despite the fact that stakeholders, and clearly at least some of the consultants, have been advised that it is proposed to be used for retail purposes. The impact of the proposed new four-storey high glass building on the heritage value of Campbell's Stores and on the amenity of the residents of 8 Hickson Road and guests at The Park Hyatt can not be adequately assessed without details of the proposed use of this high impact structure, including proposed operational details.
6.10 Environmental Impact Statement: Section 1.3 of the EIS is required to address alternative development options for the property. The residents of 8 Hickson Rd requested that a `no new building option' be considered. No attempt has been made to consider this development option. Section 1.3 of EIS states 'Option 2: Alternative Proposals: The alternative proposals were deemed not to be appropriate for various reasons, including amenity impacts on surrounding properties.' A `no new building' option will clearly have no amenity impacts on surrounding properties. The EIS has failed to address this development option. Assessment of the application should not proceed until a serious and considered `no new building' option is explored and that assessment included in the EIS for consideration by the Department, stakeholders and the public generally.

The application should be refused on the grounds of the inadequate, inaccurate, inconsistent and misleading information it contains; the inconsistent information supplied to stakeholders and consultants; and its failure to meet the SEA Requirements.

Specifically the application is inadequate, inaccurate, inconsistent and misleading as follows:

1.0 The `Proposal Name' for the proposal fails to make any mention of the proposed new four-storey high structure within the heritage curtilage, arguably the most controversial aspect of the application. Failure to make any mention of this aspect of the proposal may have resulted in people who could be concerned remaining unaware of the proposal.

2.0 The application fails to comply with the following Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirements. The omission of this information significantly affects the assessment of the application.
2.1 General Requirements. Fails to consider the cumulative impacts of noise on 8 Hickson Road due to other development in the vicinity.
2.2 Requirement 2. Land Use and GFA. Failed to supply a table identifying the land uses for the building, including a floor by floor breakdown of GFA, total GFA and its site coverage
2.3 Requirement 2. Land Use and GFA. Application does not specify areas or locations allocated to restaurants, bars, small bars, cafes or function centre spaces, patron capacity or specific hours of operation for various uses. This information is critical for the residents of 8 Hickson Road and The Park Hyatt to assess the impact of the proposal particularly the proposed use of the new four-storey high building.
2.4 Requirement 6. Amenity. Failed to provide any details of the intended uses consequently various issues of amenity could not be assessed.
2.5 Requirement 6. Amenity. Details of the use of of the proposed new structure to the north of Campbell's Stores have not been supplied. Consequently, no attempt has been made to demonstrate that the use of this proposed building would be compatible with adjoining uses.

3.0 In addition to the omission of the above required information the following information should be considered essential for the assessment of the application:
3.1 The SSD application includes "Subdivision-create separate strata and stratum lots". A proposed plan of subdivision has not been submitted as part of the application. As such the application can not be assessed.
3.2 The photomontage images viewed from the east, specifically images 1a, 1c, 2, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, and 4c all show the proposed new four-storey high building obscured by the existing fig tree. There are many reasons that could necessitate the removal of the tree including disease, storm damage and removal due to its impact on nearby property. It is unrealistic and potentially misleading to assume that this tree will exist in perpetuity. Photomontage images and the visual impact statement should be submitted showing and assessing the development without the tree obscuring its visual impact.

4.0 Information supplied to the residents of 8 Hickson Road during the required stakeholder consultation was incorrect and consequently misleading:
4.1 The proposed new-four storey high building will be used for `up-market' retailing. The application submitted does not request approval for retail uses but rather `use of existing and proposed building and reconfigured outdoor dinning area for restaurant, cafes and bars......'. The use of this building for restaurant and bars may have a significant amenity impact on the residents of 8 Hickson Road. No operational details have been submitted with the application. Details have not been submitted showing where these various uses will be located within the existing Campbell's Stores building and the proposed new four-storey high glass building. As a consequence, it is difficult to asses the impact of these uses.
4.2 The applicant advised that the various restaurants and bars within the Campbell's Stores would not operate beyond 11.00pm and occasionally midnight, which in fact are the hours that the current restaurants operate to. The applicant has applied for much later trading hours, to 2.00 am. Even if the noise within the premises and the outdoor eating areas can be controlled, the noise of patrons leaving the premises in the early hours of the morning will affect the amenity of residents at 8 Hickson Road and the guests at The Park Hyatt.

5.0 Issues raised at the stakeholders' meeting, and subsequently, that have not been addressed by the applicant:

5.1 Subsequent to an initial meeting with some residents at 8 Hickson Road, it was requested that additional photomontages be submitted with the application. The photomontages requested would show the views from the east without the view of the proposed building being obstructed by the existing fig tree. These photomontages are essential should the unfortunate but very possible circumstances arise that result in the removal of this tree.
5.2 Subsequent to a meeting with residents at 8 Hickson Rd, it was requested that details of the approvals of the single storey `inappropriate' building located to the north of Bay 11. Residents were advised that this was erected prior to the current tenancy and that the leaseholders/applicants have no knowledge of the approval. It would appear that in fact no approval exists for this inappropriate structure. Approval for an open pergola may have been included in a 1990s approval for Bay 11. However over a number of years, since 2002, this structure has been totally reconstructed with the inclusion a new and higher roof, the erection of decorative lattice screens, the installation of glass doors and walls behind the screens and the internal lining of the roof and glass doors. It appears that all of this work has been carried out without either development consent or building approval. This is very significant as the removal of this apparently unapproved structure is now being used as implied justification for a building four times larger and four times higher. The implications of using an unapproved addition to a heritage building to justify a new significantly larger structure within the curtilage of a heritage building should be a significant concern to anyone involved in the retention, conservation and preservation of heritage buildings.
5.3 Residents requested that the acoustic analysis submitted with the application include the cumulative noise impact on residents at 8 Hickson of other uses in the area. This is significant as the rear of 8 Hickson adjoins George St and noise from the Mercantile Hotel and the weekend assembly of The Rocks Markets currently impacts residents. The report fails to make any cumulative noise impact assessment.

6.0 Omissions from Consultants Reports that may lead to misunderstanding or difficulty in assessment:

6.1 Visual Impact Statement: The Visual Impact Statement has not adequately addressed the visual impact of the proposed new four storey high glass building should the existing fig tree be removed.
6.2 Photomontage images: The photomontage images fail to provide a view of the proposed new four-storey high glass building, from the east, unobstructed by the fig tree in the event that the tree is removed in the future.
6.3 Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment: The report does not include an assessment of cumulative impact of noise on the residents of 8 Hickson Rd and the guests of The Park Hyatt.
6.4 Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment: The report appears to fail to assess the noise impact of the intention to have the Campbell's Stores windows facing Hickson Road open for `much of the year' to provide passive/natural ventilation. This is particularly important considering the extended trading hours and the nature of the uses including amplified music.
6.5 Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment: The application proposes hours of operation until 2.00 am however no noise readings have been taken after midnight.
6.6 Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment: Bridge work is currently being carried out on the Harbour Bridge which over recent years has increased the background noise levels. This work is nearing completion however the noise assessment appears to fail to have been adjusted for the cessation of the bridge work and the consequent reduction in the night time background noise levels.
6.7 Statement of Heritage Impact: Section 2.7 of the report appears to be incorrect to the extent that it relates to the inappropriate glass pavilion. The building was not enclosed until after 2002. It would appear that this structure has never received approval. The report fails to trace the records and approvals for this structure. This is significant as part of the implied benefit in the erection of the new four-storey high glass building is justified by the removal of this unapproved structure, much of which has been erected in the last decade. This argument has serious consequences in the preservation of heritage buildings any where in NSW as it potentially rewards unapproved additions to heritage buildings.
6.8 Statement of Heritage Impact: The report fails to give details of the previous buildings on the land to the north of Bay 11, the site of the proposed new four-storey high glass building. This is significant as, with the exception of the unapproved inappropriate glass pavilion, this part of the site appears not to have been built upon since about 1902. For more than a century, Campbell's Stores has been viewed in relative isolation from other structures and seen as a whole, not as elements in a mixed streetscape. Even prior to 1900, this part of the site appears to have been occupied by only relatively low scale buildings. These are important issues that should be addressed in the statement of heritage impact.
6.9 Statement of Heritage Impact: Section 5.1.5 under `New Works' the report refers to "The construction of a new glass block clad retail building to the north of the Stores'. The application does not apply for the retail use of this building despite the fact that stakeholders, and clearly at least some of the consultants, have been advised that it is proposed to be used for retail purposes. The impact of the proposed new four-storey high glass building on the heritage value of Campbell's Stores and on the amenity of the residents of 8 Hickson Road and guests at The Park Hyatt can not be adequately assessed without details of the proposed use of this high impact structure, including proposed operational details.
6.10 Environmental Impact Statement: Section 1.3 of the EIS is required to address alternative development options for the property. The residents of 8 Hickson Rd requested that a `no new building option' be considered. No attempt has been made to consider this development option. Section 1.3 of EIS states 'Option 2: Alternative Proposals: The alternative proposals were deemed not to be appropriate for various reasons, including amenity impacts on surrounding properties.' A `no new building' option will clearly have no amenity impacts on surrounding properties. The EIS has failed to address this development option. Assessment of the application should not proceed until a serious and considered `no new building' option is explored and that assessment included in the EIS for consideration by the Department, stakeholders and the public generally.

Re: Remediation, Renewal and Adaptive Re-Use of Campbell's Stores, The Rocks. SSD 7056

I strongly object to the four-storey building included as part of the Campbell's Stores Development Application. It is good to see some plans for the Stores' renewal but NOT if
the cost is the long-term loss of the heritage setting for this important heritage-listed building. The grounds for my objection are:

* Campbell's Stores should be visible from all four sides and not partly obscured. This is a unique opportunity to achieve this.

* Having a building or any other structure between Campbell's Stores and the Park Hyatt Hotel is entirely inappropriate. It is publicly-owned land and should only be used for landscaping and foreshore access.

* The design of the proposed building undermines and devalues The Rocks' heritage character.

* The proposed building interrupts the historic streetscape along this section of Hickson Rd and also the heritage of Harbour foreshore

* The proposed building contravenes the 2014 Campbell's Stores Conservation Management Plan which the Heritage Council endorsed (esp. 7.5.5). The plan clearly outlines the area that needs to be retained around Campbell's Stores. This includes the area now proposed for this completely unsympathetic glass building. Approving it would destroy Campbell's Stores historic setting.

* The Conservation Management Plan states that the one-storey structure that exists on this land now should be removed (see 7.6.1). This was intended to free up the land NOT to create space for a building four times as high.

* A building like this is contrary to everything that people value about the 1960s and 70s campaign to save The Rocks.

* We need to correct address the problems created by past poor decision-making in The Rocks, NOT compound them by allowing the construction of this unsympathetic glass building right next to one of The Rocks' most significant heritage buildings.

My objection is in relation to the proposed glass building on the small area of public land between the Grand Hyatt Hotel and the original waterfront buildings. I am usually in favour of intelligent integration of contemporary architecture, but in this case I believe it would be a serious mistake to build anything at all in this space, which not only enables a view across the harbour, but also separates the modern hotel from the old buildings.

I am also concerned that this proposal appears to have had so little public exposure.

The Rocks is Sydney's most historic area and was almost lost in the 1960's. I believe that the proposed glass box which appears to be entirely devoid of any architectural merit is totally inappropriate to the area and will greatly detract from its 19th century ambiance. Sydney has too many glass facades and the rocks is one of the few areas where original architecture may be enjoyed. If the proposal goes ahead in its current format I believe that it will be seen as a mistake equivalent in scale to the mono rail.

My specific objections, apart from my personal opinion, are as below:
* Campbell's Stores should be visible from all four sides and not partly obscured. This is a unique opportunity to achieve this.
* Having a building or any other structure between Campbell's Stores and the Park Hyatt Hotel is entirely inappropriate. It is publicly-owned land and should only be used for landscaping and foreshore access.
* The design of the proposed building undermines and devalues The Rocks' heritage character.
* The proposed building interrupts the historic streetscape along this section of Hickson Rd and also the heritage of the Campbell's Cove foreshore
* The proposed building contravenes the 2014 Campbell's Stores Conservation Management Plan which the Heritage Council endorsed (esp. 7.5.5). The plan clearly outlines the area that needs to be retained around Campbell's Stores. This includes the area now proposed for this completely unsympathetic glass building. Approving it would destroy Campbell's Stores historic setting.
* The Conservation Management Plan states that the one-storey structure that exists on this land now should be removed (see 7.6.1). This was intended to free up the land NOT to create space for a building four times as high.
* A building like this is contrary to everything that people value about the 1960s and 70s campaign to save The Rocks.
* We need to correctly address the problems created by past poor decision-making in The Rocks, NOT compound them by allowing the construction of this unsympathetic glass building right next to one of The Rocks' most significant heritage buildings.

Re: Remediation, Renewal and Adaptive Re-Use of Campbell's Stores, The Rocks. SSD 7056

Being a former resident of The Rocks and in fact living opposite the site of the proposed development I strongly object to the four-storey building included as part of the Campbell's Stores Development Application.

The grounds for my objection are:

Campbell's Stores should be visible from all four sides and not partly obscured. This is a unique opportunity to achieve this.

The Rocks is already an area that has been subjected to an increase in density and modern development. The area needs to remain a great example of retaining it's heritage character and this new building will weaken the character already under threat.

Living across the harbour from The Rocks I have seen the heritage character eroded and destroyed by the new developments at Barangaroo. These buildings and the proposed casino development have already and will have further impact on this historically sensitive area.

Having a building or any other structure between Campbell's Stores and the Park Hyatt Hotel is entirely inappropriate. It is publicly-owned land and should only be used for landscaping and foreshore access.

The design of the proposed building undermines and devalues The Rocks' heritage character.

The proposed building interrupts the historic streetscape along this section of Hickson Rd and also the heritage of Harbour foreshore

The proposed building contravenes the 2014 Campbell's Stores Conservation Management Plan which the Heritage Council endorsed (esp. 7.5.5). The plan clearly outlines the area that needs to be retained around Campbell's Stores. This includes the area now proposed for this completely unsympathetic glass building. Approving it would destroy Campbell's Stores historic setting.

The Conservation Management Plan states that the one-storey structure that exists on this land now should be removed (see 7.6.1). This was intended to free up the land NOT to create space for a building four times as high.

A building like this is contrary to everything that people value about the 1960s and 70s campaign to save The Rocks.

We need to correct address the problems created by past poor decision-making in The Rocks, NOT compound them by allowing the construction of this unsympathetic glass building right next to one of The Rocks' most significant heritage buildings.

Re: Remediation, Renewal and Adaptive Re-Use of Campbell's Stores, The Rocks. SSD 7056

Being a former resident of The Rocks and in fact living opposite the site of the proposed development I strongly object to the four-storey building included as part of the Campbell's Stores Development Application.

The grounds for my objection are:

Campbell's Stores should be visible from all four sides and not partly obscured. This is a unique opportunity to achieve this.

The Rocks is already an area that has been subjected to an increase in density and modern development. The area needs to remain a great example of retaining it's heritage character and this new building will weaken the character already under threat.

Living across the harbour from The Rocks I have seen the heritage character eroded and destroyed by the new developments at Barangaroo. These buildings and the proposed casino development have already and will have further impact on this historically sensitive area.

Having a building or any other structure between Campbell's Stores and the Park Hyatt Hotel is entirely inappropriate. It is publicly-owned land and should only be used for landscaping and foreshore access.

The design of the proposed building undermines and devalues The Rocks' heritage character.

The proposed building interrupts the historic streetscape along this section of Hickson Rd and also the heritage of Harbour foreshore

The proposed building contravenes the 2014 Campbell's Stores Conservation Management Plan which the Heritage Council endorsed (esp. 7.5.5). The plan clearly outlines the area that needs to be retained around Campbell's Stores. This includes the area now proposed for this completely unsympathetic glass building. Approving it would destroy Campbell's Stores historic setting.

The Conservation Management Plan states that the one-storey structure that exists on this land now should be removed (see 7.6.1). This was intended to free up the land NOT to create space for a building four times as high.

A building like this is contrary to everything that people value about the 1960s and 70s campaign to save The Rocks.

We need to correct address the problems created by past poor decision-making in The Rocks, NOT compound them by allowing the construction of this unsympathetic glass building right next to one of The Rocks' most significant heritage buildings.

I write as a frequent visitor to Sydney and a citizen who is committed to preserving Australia's history. We look back now and are grateful for the 'green bans' that saved the Rocks from complete destruction in the 1970s.

This is a similar situation. A glass tower on that site will destroy the historical value of the streetscape. The Rocks are a precious, irreplaceable part of Australia's colonial history and it is insanity to even consider compromising that.

Please do not allow this development to go ahead.

I object strongly to this proposal
The ultra modern design is in total conflict with the traditional and heritage nature of the Rocks buildings It is ugly and would be an eyesore. It is contrary to everything so valued about the heritage Rocks precinct
The location would block the access and sightlines from Hickson Rd to the foreshore and ruin the historic streetscape . This is public land and should remain open for foreshore access.
It would have an adverse impact on the adjoining residential
apartments in Hickson Rd

I strongly object to the scarce public land in this area being given to developers. Any addtional building construction in this area will detract from the existing historical architecture & crowd the vista.
This development could easily be located in another part of the CBD where modern architecture prevails. No further development should take place close to our the waterfront to detract from the splendid vista of Sydney harbour & its immediate foreshores.

This will be an ugly unwanted addition to this heritage area. Don't allow it.

I strongly object to the proposed four-story building as part of the Campbell's Stores development application.
I base my objection on the grounds that the proposed building will stand in close proximity to Campbell's Stores not only obscuring the northern elevation in part but also occupying land that that is essential to preserving the heritage nature of the streetscape and a successful transition between the this historic building and the more modern architecture of Park Hyatt Hotel.

I welcome the restoration and upgrading of the Campbell Cove area In a sympathetic manner that respects its historical nature and maintains the building envelope as it is currently. I strongly object to any ' additions' being approved or expansion of the building. This would destroy the heritage value of the site and degrade the overall historical ambiance of the Rocks in general