Campbell's Stores Reuse

The attached submission is written on behalf of Park Hyatt Hotel Sydney. Should you have any questions on it, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards,

Jeremy Swan
Director
Hawes and Swan Planning Pty Ltd

Please see attachment

See attached submission.

Submission is attached as a PDF document

Refer letter attached

Refer my objection letter

I have also attached this submission as a PDF

Third Submission of objections SSD15_7056

Objection on the Grounds of Overdevelopment of the Site

The site of the proposed four-storey glass building, is the area of land bounded by the northern elevation of Campbell's Stores, Hickson Road, the southern edge of the pedestrian access adjacent to the Park Hyatt Hotel and an extension of the eastern elevation of Campbell's Stores. A space with dimensions of approximately 15m x 10m and an area of about 150m2 (it is difficult to be more exact as the plans submitted with the SSD are not dimensioned).

The priorities for what has to be achieved from this relatively small space are both obvious and simple:
* To protect, preserve and enhance the heritage significance of Campbell's Stores.
* To facilitate and enhance non-stair pedestrian access to the foreshore of Campbell's Cove.
* To enhance the visual connection and views between Hickson Road, the Harbour and the Opera House.
* To retain and protect the significant Hill's Fig located immediately to the east of the site.

The necessity to meet these site priorities has presented the architects with a difficult task in the design of a building that could be considered suitable for the site. The resultant design, compromised by the necessity to achieve a commercially viable floor area and meet these objectives, fails to meet any of the objectives. The result is that the proposed structure is unsuitable for the site.

The height and bulk of the building will dominate the Stores building and dramatically change its setting. The basement for the building effectively `buries' the ground floor of the Stores to a height of approximately 2m and visually screens the entire northern elevation of the Stores. The negative impacts on the heritage significance of the Stores has been raised in my previous submission.

Between Circular Quay and the northern end of the Park Hyatt Hotel, there are only two areas that provide pedestrians with non-stair access to the foreshore - Argyle St and the area between Campbell's Stores and the Park Hyatt Hotel.

The foreshore of west Circular Quay frequently accommodates hundreds of thousands of people during big events focused on the harbour. The need for additional stroller and wheelchair access is significant and obvious to anyone who has observed the bottleneck that currently occurs at the access adjacent to the Park Hyatt Hotel.

Due to restrictions to the pedestrian access on Argyle St., vehicular access to the Overseas Passenger Terminal and the curtilage and open space to Cadman's Cottage, there is only one option for improved foreshore access, the area that is the subject of this application, between the Stores and the Park Hyatt Hotel.

The basement for the proposed glass building requires raising the ground level by almost 2m. This will make it impossible to provide a non-stair access at this location. The proposed stair access is an unacceptable compromise that will not meet the significant access needs of the large numbers of people who have to use a stroller or wheelchair. The development will result in the permanent loss of the opportunity to provide this much needed access to all who might need it.

The visual connection to the harbour is reduced not enhanced as a consequence of the low height (2.5m) of the open undercroft to the building. The inappropriate pavilion building and the unsuitable species of tree next to it have to be removed regardless of this development proposal. The removal of these inappropriate elements will substantially enhance the visual connection from Hickson Road to the waterfront providing no new structure is erected there.

Substantial fig trees, such as this significant tree, are planted with plenty of space around them in areas such as the Botanic Gardens, Observatory Hill, Hyde Park and Bennelong Park. The proposed building will be located to the immediate west and slightly within its existing canopy. This will compromise the space needed to create an appropriate landscape setting for the tree.

The reality is that just too much is being asked of this relatively small space with the consequence that the most significant priorities of the site are irreparably compromised.

Objection on the Grounds that the Building is Out of Character with the Area.

The predominant architectural feature of buildings in The Rocks, regardless of the era when they were designed and built, is their strong connection to the ground. They have a solid architectural base that truly anchors the them to the land. The very name The Rocks', originating in the early days of European settlement, reflects the natural landform of the rocky outcrop on the western side of Circular Quay. Along with the predominance of 19th and early 20th century architecture, this is the architectural feature which gives the area its particular character.

In an attempt to meet the specific site priorities, of enhanced pedestrian access and visual connectivity to the foreshore, the architects had to elevate (if not levitate) the building above ground level by 2.5m.

The elevated, floating, building form is totally unsuitable to this location and results in a design that is dramatically out of character with the area. The building lacks any element of `local' character that integrates it into the urban fabric of The Rocks. While there is a very valid place for international style architecture within the busy urban centre of a city's CBD, and elsewhere, new buildings within conservation areas need to maintain a local character even within a modern architectural form.

The proposed building clearly does not do this.

What makes this even more unacceptable in this particular application is that the site priorities that have dictated the architectural form have not been satisfactorily meet. Not only is the building out of character but the consequent proposed access and visual connectivity are very poor.

The applicant and land owner are simply attempting to achieve too much out of a highly significant, highly sensitive site. The result is in an unsatisfactory building design and lost opportunities to enhance the clearly appropriate heritage, access and visual connectivity outcomes.

Submission attached

Submission attached

Submission attached

Submission has been uploaded below as a PDF

I have examined the 50 pages of the response report and its numerous attachments. Due to the extreme time restrictions placed on me by the inappropriate and inequitable time restrictions imposed by the Department, it has not been possible to read it as thoroughly as I would have wished.

Inconsistencies between various consultants' reports and assessments persist and a number of significant issues which directly impact on our home have not been addressed or assessed for their impact. Recommendations made by some consultants have neither been commented upon or incorporated into the design. Significant design details have not been provided for assessment.

Where such situations occur, it is important that officers assessing the application on behalf of the Consent Authority assume a worst case scenario, being that of greatest negative impact on nearby residents, the local area and Campbell's Stores itself. It is not unreasonable to assume that with the mountain of reports and documents submitted in support of the application, if specific design details have been omitted or not assessed, it is because to do so would not support approval of the application.

The objections that I raised to the original application are still relevant and apply to the amended application. I make the following specific objections to the proponents' response:

Failure to respond to key issues

No response has been made in respect to:
1. The incorrect name of the application, which the applicants have submitted under Schedule 2 of the E, P & A Regulations 2000. This name fails to mention the proposal to erect a 4 storey building between Campbell's Stores and the Park Hyatt.
2. The failure to examine alternative development options as required by Section 1.3 of the EIS and specifically the failure to assess a no new building option.
3. The proposal to have a `open window' ventilation design and the consequent noise impact this will have on residents and guests of the Park Hyatt, by failing to contain amplified and other noise within the premises.
4. The applicants' undertaking to residents of 8 Hickson Road that the hours of operation would be restricted to the existing hours of operation of between 7.00am and 11.00pm with occasional operations until midnight.
5. The failure of the noise assessment report to assess the impact on residents at 8 Hickson Road and guests of the Park Hyatt of noise from the mechanical exhaust system proposed for the roof of Bay 11 and the `open window' ventilation design.
6. The potential visual impact of the proposed 4 storey building should the existing fig tree be removed in the future and, as a consequence, it no longer being available to screen what the visual impact statement suggested was the obtrusive nature of the proposed building.
7. The failure of the visual impact statement to examine the impact of the proposed mechanical exhaust system, on the roof of Bay 11, on the views from our apartment at level 3, 8 Hickson Road.
8. Conflicting information in various consultants' reports and the failure of some consultants to assess the impact of other consultants' recommendations.
9. The apparent illegality and unapproved status of the single storey structure that has been erected at the northern end of Campbell's Stores.

Specific objections to the Campbell's Stores component of the application

1. The proposed hours of operation from between 6.00am and 2.00am will result in noise impact, loss of amenity and substantial disturbance in the early hours of the morning. The noise impact will be from noise generated from within the premises, particularly amplified music, noise generated by patrons leaving the premises in the early hours of the morning and noise associated with cleaning and servicing operations before 7.00am.
The fact that the licence issued by the Liquor and Gaming Authority allows trading to 2am is irrelevant to the Consent Authority's responsibility and power to prevent noise impact and loss of amenity. The Consent Authority should impose more restrictive trading hours than those imposed by the Liquor licence.
Trading to 2am is a substantial increase of trading hours from those that have existed for many years and extend noise emissions into times that are most sensitive to nearby residents and likely to result in substantial disturbance.
The noise disturbance from noise generated from within the premises will be particularly significant as a consequence of the `open window' ventilation design that will fail to contain noise within the premises.
Extending the hours of operation is contrary to the advice given and undertakings made to residents by Chris Drivas on behalf of Tallawoladah Pty Ltd at a meeting with residents of 8 Hickson Road prior to the submission of the original development application. It is also contrary to the description of the development in the applicants' Request for DGRs for State Significant Development. This request explicitly states `as per existing trading hours' not as per hours contained on the Liquor licence.
The proposed passive ventilation design will require Campbell's Stores' windows and doors to be open for much of the year. The `open window' ventilation design will fail to contain noise within the premises, particularly amplified music, resulting in significant noise impact on the residents of 8 Hickson Road and the guests of the Park Hyatt.
Anyone with any experience of entertainment premises knows that negative noise impact is a consequence of failure to contain noise generated from within the premises. The proposal is effectively designed to fail to contain noise. Not only will this failure result in substantial impact on residents, it will also lead to ongoing enforcement issues for the City of Sydney and operational issues for the venue operators. Enforcement will be even more difficult as a consequence of the multiple tenancies proposed.
The existing operations of Campbell's Stores result in excessive noise disturbance to residents on occasions when the doors accessing Hickson Road are left open. The operation of the premises as proposed will substantially increase this negative impact and in fact, make it a permanent feature.

2. The proposal to relocate all the mechanical exhaust system from the southern end of the building to the roof of Bay 11 will result in substantial impact on our amenity due to noise, vibration, smell and fumes emitted from the exhaust system and its close proximity to the windows of our apartment. It will also have a significant impact on other residents at 8 Hickson Road and the guests of the Park Hyatt.
That part of the existing exhaust system which already comes through Bay 11 of Campbell's Stores causes problems of smoke, smell and noise onto Hickson Road and specifically our apartment. The applicants' proposals will make this far worse and effectively direct these negative impacts to our residential building and to the Park Hyatt Hotel.
The very significant problems of smoke, smell, noise and fat dropping onto the footpath of Hickson Road from the recently installed exhaust system associated with the Ribs and Burgers restaurant located opposite Campbell's Stores clearly shows that even a modern, supposedly state of the art exhaust system fails to remove amenity impacts.
The operation of this particular system has necessitated the part closure of the western footpath on Hickson Road and Council prosecution. SHFA is also the owner of this property and has failed to exercise any control over the tenant or adjustment to the system to prevent the substantial amenity impacts of the exhaust system.
The proposed exhaust system at Bay 11 Campbell's Stores will result in similar amenity impacts on the residents of 8 Hickson Road. The system is proposed to operate all day and into the early hours of the morning. The impacts will be substantial and would prevent us opening the windows to our living room and bedroom.
The applicants' consultants have provided noise and mechanical ventilation reports. These both acknowledge that the roof of Bay 11 is the location of greatest sensitivity and likely to have the greatest amenity impact.
The location of the mechanical exhaust system within Bay 11 will not only result in substantial loss of amenity for residents but also ongoing enforcement issues for the Council of the City of Sydney and operational issues for the tenants.
The proposed multiple tenancy arrangement will make any enforcement slow and complex with the offending tenant difficult to identify.

3. The proposed risers and noise baffles for the mechanical exhaust system on the roof of Bay 11 will substantially and negatively impact on our views of the Sydney Opera House and Sydney Harbour from the living room and bedroom of our apartment on level 3, 8 Hickson Rd.
Even though the applicant has not submitted a detailed design for the mechanical exhaust system both the mechanical ventilation report and noise impact report state that in order to reduce smoke, smell and noise impacts of the system a riser of unspecified height and noise baffles will be required on the roof of Bay 11.
Any such structure located above the existing gable of Bay 11 will be unsightly and will have a substantial negative impact on our significant views of the Opera House and Harbour. As with other factors, there is clearly not enough information for the Consent Authority to asses.

Conditions essential to any approval

Good design should seek to minimise potential amenity impacts and avoid the necessity of compliance by enforcement. The application fails to do this. Should the Consent Authority approve the part of the application in respect to the existing Campbell's Stores building then the following conditions should be attached to the approval:

1. The hours of operation should be restricted to between 7.00am and midnight. No operations, including deliveries, waste collection, bottle collection, grease trap servicing, cleaning or garden maintenance should be carried out outside these hours.
2. Windows or doors opening onto Hickson Road should be kept closed at all times and windows should be fixed in a closed position. In respect to openings required for access to Hickson Road, air lock style automatic opening and closing doors need to be to be fitted and designed, installed and operated so that one of each pair of doors will always be in the closed position at any given time.
3. All of the mechanical exhaust system including machinery, flues, vents and baffles should be positioned at the southern end of Campbell's Stores so as to minimise noise, fumes and smell impacts on the residents of 8 Hickson Road, guests at the Park Hyatt hotel and people working in the offices buildings at 6 and 10 Hickson Road.
4. There should be no penetrations, structure or any plant, including flues, vents, plant or equipment located through or on the roof of Bay 11.

The proposed new building

In respect to the proposed four storey building to be located between Campbell's Stores and the Park Hyatt hotel, I make the following comments and objections:

1. The applicants' amendments to reduce the height of this building and other design modifications are minor and fail to address its unsympathetic nature; its dominating appearance on the streetscape and foreshore; its screening of the entire northern elevation of Campbell's Stores; and its effective `burial' of the ground floor of the Stores' northern elevation. The amendments fail to maintain the existing `stand alone' setting of Campbell's Stores, which enables it to be seen in the round.
2. Despite the minor reduction in the height of the proposed building, it will still clearly dominate Campbell's Stores. This is evident in Figure 13, p.35 of the `Response to Submissions' and in Figures 6.13, 6.15 and 6.16 of p.25 of the Appendix B1 Design Response Report, Part 3. If this structure was to be approved, conditions should limit its height to no greater than the gutter height of Bay 11 and reduce its width to no more than nine metres so as to be consistent with the built form of the bays within Campbell's Stores. The two metre reduction in width should be provided to increase the space between the building and Bay 11 to a width of 6 metres so as to also improve the visibility of Campbell's Stores' northern elevation.
3. I consider comments in the reports to the effect that Campbell's Stores historical context is one one of a continuous street façade to be inaccurate and misleading.
It is undisputed that, with the exception of the illegal single storey pavilion structure, the site of the proposed building has been unbuilt upon and the northern elevation of Campbell's Stores has been clearly visible from Hickson Rd. since the very early twentieth century, c. 1915. For more than 100 years and for the greater part of its existence, there has been no structure on the land immediately to the north of the Stores except for the illegal pavilion structure. Further, even in the time prior to c.1915, there was only a single storey cottage on this land not a multi-storey structure forming a continuous streetscape.
The continuous streetscape that did exist in 1870 comprised nineteenth century buildings of similar height and design. It no longer exists.
The 1987 SCRAS and the subsequent construction of the Park Hyatt Hotel clearly intended that Campbell's Stores be free-standing with the separation between the Bay 11 and the Park Hyatt reflecting that between Bay 1 and the ASN Co building at the southern end of the Stores. The applicants have not provided any argument to support the variation of this scheme. The area to the north of Bay 11 should be kept free. It is not an infill site.
4. The reports concerning the visual impact of the proposed building and the impact on visual linkage to the harbour and the Opera House are inaccurate, misleading and fail to assess its real impact.
The visual analysis is from street level and seeks to make the comparison between the proposed views after the erection of the four storey building and the `existing views'. The `existing' views are obstructed by what all the consultants and advocates for the proposal refer to as the inappropriate and intrusive structure and tree (not the fig tree) on the northern side of Campbell's Stores. I agree that the illegally constructed pavilion and this tree are intrusive and inappropriate and, in accordance with recommendations, both should be removed.
The building has been erected illegally during various tenancies, including the current tenancy and by gradual modifications over a number of years. It is totally inappropriate, and, in my view a bad and dangerous practice, to use an `existing' situation brought about by illegal work, as the base case for any comparison with what is proposed here.
The comparison for assessing visual impact and connectivity between Hickson Rd and the Harbour should be on the basis that this illegal structure and inappropriate tree do not exist. A comparison on this basis would show that the proposed four storey building would have a substantial visual impact, including obstruction of views of the Opera House and reduction in connectivity.
Any determination of the application without a visual impact analysis and connectivity assessment on the basis of no illegal structure and inappropriate tree will be flawed. An analysis on this basis, incorporating an impact assessment, needs to be carried out before any determination of the application.
5. No analysis has been made of the effect of night time light emissions from the proposed four storey' glass box' building. Due to the use of translucent building materials, the proposed building has the potential to act like a light bulb when internally illuminated at night. This would be totally out of character with the soft lighting used throughout The Rocks and could result in light spillage onto nearby properties including the Park Hyatt and 8 Hickson Road, once again with consequent loss of amenity.

I maintain my objections to the proposed four storey structure for the reasons stated in my previous submissions.

The amendment of the application to nominate the use of the proposed building for retail purposes will reduce the operational impact on our amenity compared to the very substantial impacts that would be arise were the proposed building to be used for restaurants, bars and entertainment venues particularly in respect to hours of operation, noise and patron behaviour.
There have been occasions in the past where approval has been sought and granted for buildings with a proposed use that has a low impact on the amenity of nearby residents only to have a change of use approved subsequently to a high impact use once the building has been erected.
I remain strongly opposed to the erection of the proposed structure in this location. However, should the Consent Authority decide to approve the building, the development consent should require that the applicants submit evidence to the satisfaction of the Consent Authority, that binding agreements have been entered into for the use of the proposed building for retailing. This should be done prior to the issue of any construction certificate or approval for the erection of the building. Should such evidence not be submitted, or be considered unsatisfactory, then the consent for the proposed building should be void and a new development application be required to be submitted for the erection and use of the building.

John Sidoti

See attached

I strongly object to the approval of SSD 7056. Please see my three original submissions regarding the issues it poses. The applicants' recent responses (May 2016) show that they have done little to address these and worse still, that at least some of their consultants, have not considered them worthy of a response. The submission which follows is my specific response to this amended SSD application.

A. The process
From the beginning, affected residents and the public as a whole have been denied natural justice with regards to this DA. The current sixteen day time period for responding to the applicants' amended proposals falls far short of the time people need to adequately read, process and reply to the applicants' fifty page `response to submissions' and the fifteen related appendices containing consultants' `assessments' and other pertinent information - especially when the applicants have taken five months to prepare any amendments.

The applicants have no doubt spent considerable time and money formulating this SSD application and presumably did not expect to have to respond to unfavourable submissions from affected local residents and the public. The applicants seem to expect their efforts to be rewarded and this DA rubber stamped. I, and other members of the public, expect our voices to be heard as well. The application needs to be assessed on its merits not on the time and money the applicants have to throw at it, or indeed, on any premature or misguided assurances some officials may have made to the applicants along the way.

The applicants have formulated their submission in consultation with the now discredited and supposedly defunct SHFA and other Government authorities. Had that process been accompanied by community consultation from an early stage, a shared dialogue might have provided outcomes we could all support. We now find ourselves in a situation where the applicants expect approval, where interested members of the public have to participate in an inequitable fight to prevent our views being sidelined and where the political impetus seems to be to move the process on as quickly as possible within the context of a veneer of democracy.

Architects JPW's Executive Summary table of the Design Response (see p.4) showing to whom and what points they are responding, clearly indicates that JPW is only addressing comments from The Department of Planning, the Heritage Council (chaired by someone who works for Urbis, the company acting on behalf of the applicants) and the City of Sydney. Apparently, the remaining submissions from other stakeholders and expert consultants are not considered worthy of a response. JPW fails to even acknowledge the existence of them. This is unprofessional and potentially negligent, especially given the negative impacts of so many elements of its designs.

We expect more. Neither the tenant applicants (Tallawoladah Pty Ltd), nor their consultants, should be determining the framework for the use of this site. It is a prime site, on publicly-owned land and the public should have the opportunity and time to provide input into the nature of its adaptive re-use. The public's views deserve serious consideration.

B. The inaccurate title of the application
The amended application retains the same misleading title, `Remediation, Restoration and Adaptive Re-Use of Campbell's Stores'. It thus continues to hide the fact that a significant part of the proposal relates to a proposed new four-storey-high building in a space that earlier decision makers determined should be left vacant or, at the most, allow a sun protection structure. This means that people who might otherwise have lodged submissions have not done so.

The title inaccurately perpetuates the impression that the applicant's prime focus is on heritage when, in fact, its `remediation, restoration and adaptive re-use' involves a good deal of destruction of Campbell's Stores unique heritage structure and value and seeks to further intrude on, rather than restore, the Stores' heritage curtilage' as identified in the Campbell's Stores Conservation Management Plan (CMP).

The 'remediation' and `restoration' proposed largely addresses maintenance issues that have emerged during the applicants' existing tenancies - rising damp, stormwater infrastructure problems, sandstone deterioration and the need to replace roof tiles.

The proposed `adaptive re-use' of Campbell's Stores, includes the intrusion of a new, unsympathetic building into the heritage streetscape, hiding the northern end of Campbell's Stores and impinging significantly on the Stores' western facade, the only original facade still visible. While it is appealing to have the tenant applicants provide essential maintenance work, the new building should not be seen as a `reward' the consent authority has to provide. With rent returns and recent sales of public-owned housing in The Rocks, there are alternative sources of maintenance revenue.

C. Heritage issues
That the applicants feel they need to destroy so much of Campbell's Stores' heritage value so as to expand their restaurant businesses begs the question, `Given Campbell's Stores' `exceptional' heritage value, is a restaurant complex the most appropriate adaptive re-use for it?' In the 1970s, politicians determined that it was. We're now in 2016, a time when people have a greater appreciation for their past and a heightened awareness of what little remains of Sydney's 19th century built heritage and streetscapes. Perhaps it's time for a re-think.

Any `adaptive re-use' of this building should focus on revealing more of its heritage features and facilitating people's understanding of the Stores' historic role and significance in relation to the Hickson Road streetscape on the Stores' western side, and the foreshore on the Stores' eastern side. Tallawoladah's proposals cut up the western facade and hide its eastern side behind 1.8 m high wind screens, stand-alone canopies with perforated precast concrete roofs, and an expanded outdoor dining area. The proposal to insert a four storey high building at the northern end of the Stores will hide and partially `bury' this elevation and destroy the chance to restore the Stores' intended place as the centrepiece of the space between the Park Hyatt Hotel to the north and the ASN Co building to the south.

C (i) The unsuitability of the `Glass Box'
The `glass box' is the worst of the applicants' proposals and the amended SSD application does little to address criticisms of it. Effectively a bulky glass box on stilts, the proposed new building, even with its reduced height, would still dominate the Hickson Rd streetscape and the Campbell's Cove foreshore. It would have no visual or aesthetic relationship with Campbell's Stores on one side of it or the sympathetic, modern lines of the Park Hyatt Hotel on the other. It would look like it had been parachuted in and create a sense of crowding and over-development in what was intended as open space. The applicants' images misleadingly depict the building as transparent; in reality you wouldn't be able to see through it at all.

The glass box would contribute nothing to people's appreciation of the heritage features of Campbell's Stores. Instead it would encroach on a significant part of Stores' heritage curtilage as designated in the CMP - in particular the area between Bay 11 and the Park Hyatt. There is already a one-storey illegally constructed structure here that has been tacked on at the end of Bay 11. The CMP labels it `intrusive' and recommends its removal. It did not envisage its replacement with a glass building four times as high that would hide, rather than open up, the Stores' northern facade. The proposal to raise the ground level here by two metres would `bury' the northern elevation of the Stores' ground floor (see Figure 43, p. 60 of the Visual Impact Assessment).

The glass box would be a dominant, unattractive addition to the heritage foreshore. This is clearly shown in Figure 13, p.35 of the `Response to Submissions' and in Figures 6.13, 6.15 and 6.16 of p.25 of the Appendix B1 Design Response Report, Part 3. The box would create an impression of density and scale out of keeping with The Rocks' character and a sense of overdevelopment by restricting the rhythm of space to built form along both the foreshore and the Hickson Rd streetscape. To accommodate this rhythm, it should be no higher than the gutter level of Bay 11 and two metres narrower, but even then it would be out of place here.

The applicant's consultants describe the building as having a `high to moderate magnitude of [visual] impact when viewed from the northern end (see Figure 42, Viewpoint 18, p. 60 of the Visual Impact Assessment). As they state in relation to `Magnitude of Impact, Viewpoint 17, p. 57 of the Visual Impact Assessment, they are fully aware of the issues of bulk and dominance it creates:

`While the visual bulk and scale of the building at Bay 12 appears slightly greater than that of Campbell's Stores, it is as a result of lifting the building to provide a higher degree of physical and visual connectivity from Hickson Road to the Harbour ... The use of semi-translucent building material helps to mitigate the perceived bulk and scale.'

C (ii) Assessment on the basis of a fig tree
The applicants' consultants rely on the existence of a fig tree as camouflage to negate the impact of the proposed building. The consultants use the fig tree in this way in more than half of nineteen locations used to assess the visual impact of the proposed building. For example:

`The proposed new building is almost completely obscured by the existing Fig tree. As a result, it is anticipated that the magnitude of impact from this viewpoint [the terrace of the Opera House Concert Hall] will be negligible.' (see Visual Impact Statement, `Magnitude of Impact to the Visual Setting' p.32).

The building should be assessed on its merits not on the existence of a fig tree, which could be struck by lightning, harmed during the construction phase or removed because of the damage its root system has already caused to the Park Hyatt Hotel. Despite numerous requests to do so, the applicants have not provided any assessment of the proposed building's visual impact should the tree no longer be there to hide behind.

C (iii) The need to assess a `no new building option'
The applicant would like to reduce the visual gap between Campbell's Stores and the Park Hyatt hotel from by more than 50% - from approximately 27 metres to 12 metres. Since 1915, the land at the northern end of the Stores was vacant. When the Park Hyatt was approved in the late 1980s, its approval was partly based on there being both a physical and a visual gap between it and Campbell's Stores.

The impact of the proposed new building needs to be assessed in comparison to the building envelope for the Park Hyatt determined in 1987. This provided for maintenance of a space at this northern end of Campbell's Stores that would match the approximately 27 metre gap between the Stores and the ASN Co building at the southern end. The intention was that the Stores could be viewed as a whole and within a context that would emphasise and protect its heritage value. Nothing has changed to make this gap no longer necessary.

In other words, a `no new building' option is an essential component of any valid assessment of the impact of what is proposed. While the applicants have refused to incorporate such an assessment into their reports, the images shown in Figure 13, p.35 of the `Response to Submissions', and Figure 6.21, p.28 and Figure 6.4, p. 1 of Appendix B1 Design Response Report, Part 3 help provide a sense of how this might look.

Lack of enforcement has partly compromised the space at the Stores' northern end. There is now a single storey building there. This was erected and modified illegally during various tenancies, including the current tenancy, and over a number of years since c.1990. Heritage consultants see this structure as `intrusive' and advocate its removal. The applicants seek to remove the building and a tree of inappropriate species that is falling across it. I agree.

The applicants provide a visual analysis from Hickson Road and seek to make the comparison between the proposed views after the erection of the four storey building and the `existing views'. It is totally inappropriate to use an `existing' situation brought about by illegal work, as the base case for any comparison with a proposed new use of the same space. Any proposed new development option can only fairly be assessed in comparison with the space minus its illegally constructed one storey `pavilion' and minus the tree of inappropriate
species (not the fig tree) that is falling across it.

This is the baseline that would provide a valid comparison in assessing the impact of the proposed new building.

C (iv) Issues regarding connectivity between Hickson Road and the foreshore
The applicants claim their glass box improves connectivity between Hickson Road and Sydney Harbour foreshore. If you look at Figure 43, on p.60 of the Visual Impact Assessment, you can imagine the connection to the foreshore that a `no new building' option would provide - including views of the entire Opera House thus respecting obligations under the Opera House's 2005 Management Plan which requires any development within the buffer zone to maintain, protect and enhance views to The Opera House. In addition, this option would help give the Campbell's Stores building the recognition and space it deserves.

Then, compare this imagined view to the one the applicants provide in Figure 43, p. 60 of the Visual Impact Assessment. Here, all people could see of the World Heritage listed Opera House would be its base. I know which of the two most people would prefer and which of the two would have the greater impact on tourists' and Sydneysiders' appreciation of Sydney's heritage.

The proposed new building would obstruct views of the foreshore (and the Opera House) and access to it. The planned demolition of the illegal structure will provide a unique opportunity to further open up the space between Bay 11 and the Park Hyatt - an important means of public access to the foreshore. The intrusion of the glass box would create a visual and physical barrier between Hickson Road and the foreshore. Its undercroft would feel oppressive and tunnel-like; its design would serve as physical barrier to foreshore access; the two metre higher ground level beneath it would necessitate a staircase where currently the land slopes down to the water.

D. Amenity issues
Consent authorities, especially the Department of Planning, and the yet to be formulated Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) have insufficient information to assess the amenity impacts of SSD 7056. The applicants have failed to provide this information and in some areas what consultants have put forward as `assessment' is little more than `advocacy'. It seems that they are refusing to supply detail that would undermine the case for approval.

D (i) The Loss of Views and Visual Amenity
The applicants have now employed drones to ascertain the visual impact of their proposals on the residents at 8 Hickson Road.

The drone images shown in Figure 13-16 are misleading as representations of views from specific individual apartments within 8 Hickson Road. The actual view is not as panoramic and some apartment views do not include either the Opera House or the Harbour Bridge.

The real view from our apartment (apartment 3) is more `front on' with regards to Campbell's Stores and not from the very odd angle depicted in Figure 15. The direct streetscape view from our living area would approximate a view panning from the Park Hyatt to Bay 9 and incorporating the space between The Park Hyatt and Campbells's Stores. We allowed the applicants' architect to take photos from our front windows so it's hard to understand why the inaccurate depictions provided by the drone images were used instead.

The captions for these drone images emphasise, largely correctly, that the proposed new building will not obstruct Hickson Road residents' current views of Kirribilli, the Sydney Opera House and the Harbour Bridge. Tellingly, there is no consideration of the proposed new building's impact on our views of Campbell's Stores.

What the drone images do demonstrate is the extent to which the proposed new building is at odds with Hickson Road's heritage streetscape and colour palate. The glass box would not be transparent as shown. It would be bulky and dominate the Stores' building. This is in marked contrast to the view of Campbell's Stores I now enjoy, where what predominates is its gabled bays, saw-toothed roofline, repetition of door and window openings and its simple, warehouse functional, 19th century architecture.

If you look at Figure 46 on p.65 of the Visual Impact Assessment, you can imagine the views that could be opened up - to anyone looking out onto Hickson Road or walking along it - without a new building to intrude on this space. This would be a magic and highly appreciated view that all visitors to The Rocks could enjoy.

The proponents seem to employ a limited concept of what constitutes a `view', assuming that all views are at eye level. Some apartments at 8 Hickson Road have windows which direct people's views upwards. For these, the new building might effectively block out both existing views and light. Apartments on the upper levels of 8 Hickson Road might find their views towards the street marred by lift overruns on the proposed new building and its general roof treatment and by the mechanical exhaust system yet to be designed for Bay 11.

The applicants have still not provided either details of the mechanical exhaust system proposed for Bay 11 or any assessment of its visual impact. Equally, they fail to depict it as a `virtual idea' superimposed on their drone photos. Their consultants must know the kinds of systems required for the planned restaurant operations in Campbell's Stores. The applicants provide no information about the nature of these or their appearance. One can only assume that the reason for this is that it would reflect negatively on the applicants' DA.

D (ii) Mechanical ventilation issues
Air quality impact assessment
There appears to have been no revision of SLR Consulting's 2015 Air Quality Impact Statement. SLR remains ignorant of the existence of residents immediately across the road from Campbell's Stores and significantly, directly opposite the Bay (11) designated to accommodate the kitchen exhaust system for the building's proposed thirteen restaurants.

Kitchen exhaust is likely to have a significant negative impact on these residents yet the only report the SLR provides dealing with these impacts identifies `the nearest residential area ... [as] Miller's Point, located beyond the Bradfield Highway and Cahill Expressway'.

The assessment describes systems that could be applied to disperse odours, but provides no assessment of their noise or visual impacts (see Air Quality Impact Statement, Section 9.21)

D (iii) Hours of operation and noise issues
The proposed hours of operation are excessive. The consultants say that applicants currently have licences to trade until 2 am. That does not mean that planning/consent authorities have to accept these hours. They can and should vary them. These are NOT the current trading hours for the site. Consent authorities have a responsibility to protect residents' rights in this regard.

Campbell's Stores restaurants currently don't open before around 10 am and close by midnight. This seems reasonable as long as the noise they generate is contained within the building. Chris Drivas, one of the applicants, assured us that this would not change.

The applicants now want to increase their hours by a minimum of 6 hours/day Monday to Saturday and a minimum of 4 hours/day on Sundays. Restaurants opening at 6 am seven days/week and not closing until 2 am six days/week, would have an unreasonable negative impact on the residents living immediately across the road and guests staying at the 5 star Park Hyatt Hotel next door.

Their peace and quiet would be threatened by noise disturbance with noise, including amplified music, speeches and announcements, emitted from the premises, and the noise of boisterous patrons departing in the early hours of the morning. They would also have to suffer noise from rubbish removal, leaf blowing, bottle sorting and collection and the pumping out of grease traps at all hours of the day and night. Any approvals issued should incorporate enforceable conditions to protect residents and hotel guests from such disturbances at least between the hours of 12 am and 7 am.

There has been no assessment of the noise impact of outdoor dining. Given the vastly increased outdoor dining area (double the existing), this may well generate unacceptable levels of noise, especially at night time. We need to be able to open our windows without being confronted by excessive restaurant noise of any kind. We can do that now and should not be denied that right in the future. Any approval of outdoor dining at night should either limit its extent to the south-eastern section of Campbell's Stores or limit its hours of operation to before 6 pm.

For the same reason there should be no outdoor trading or functions permitted at the northern section of the Stores or along their western façade after 6 p.m.

The applicants requested `flexibility to periodically provide for cocktail party capacity and dinner gala space for 2,000 guests' (original Architectural Design Statement, Section 3.1.2, p.31). `Periodically' was not defined, nor was it clear whether the 2000 guests would be indoors or outdoors. Both need to be clarified before this application can be determined and their impacts need to be assessed.
Neither the Noise and Vibration Impact Statement nor the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) appear to have assessed the impact on residents at 8 Hickson and guests at the Park Hyatt Hotel of noise emanating from restaurants and bars, as a consequence of the proposed `open window' ventilation design.
The applicant provides no response to the problems posed by the ventilation design for Campbell's Stores, in particular the proposal that this largely be treated by leaving restaurant windows open. This design would necessitate restaurants windows facing Hickson Road being left open for much of the year and so generate a significant and negative noise impact on nearby residents and on locals and others who just want to enjoy a stroll along the harbour foreshore. We currently experience such noise levels only occasionally when restaurant patrons at Campbell's Stores leave open doors that front Hickson Road.

This form of restaurant ventilation is unacceptable to residents and would equally prevent visitors to The Rocks enjoying the tranquillity it currently provides.

D (iv) Mechanical ventilation issues
There has been no amendment to proposals to direct all kitchen exhaust through the roof of Bay 11. This is the location likely to have the greatest noise and fumes impact on occupants of both 8 Hickson Road and the Park Hyatt Hotel.
The existing kitchen exhaust system, which serves a smaller number of kitchens, already emits unpleasant fumes at all hours of the day and night. Theses affect people working in local businesses, people walking in the street and residents at 8 Hickson Road. This is especially a problem when the wind is blowing from the north-east. All kitchen exhaust should be directed to the southern end of the building where noise and fumes will have the least possible impact on residents and hotel guests.
Applicants need to clarify the proposed stack height and provide images showing what it would look like. This, along with sound barriers erected to mitigate noise and fumes of the kitchen exhaust are likely to substantially impact on our Opera House views and the enjoyment of our home.
We currently look out directly at the Opera House from both our living area and main bedroom. We are very lucky. This is a stunning, unique and highly prized view. The proposed noise and fume mitigation mechanisms will impact on the wonderful views currently enjoyed from our living area and main bedroom and would create a major, negative visual impact on our enjoyment of our home.
Conclusion
SSD 7056 should be rejected given the absence of reasonable opportunities for public input and the applicants' ongoing failure to address valid concerns about their proposals. The amended application has done little to mitigate negative impacts on the amenity of residents at 8 Hickson Rd and a number of consultants have not even assessed them.

The proposed new glass box the applicants seek to drop into our midst is especially inappropriate. Any comparison of a design solution for a 'no building' option and the applicants' proposals would clearly demonstrate that a 'no building' option is a far superior outcome for the people of Sydney. Once a building is erected within this space, the opportunity will be lost for generations to come.

The illegal pavilion at the end of Bay 11 should be removed and the area between Bay 11 and the Park Hyatt Hotel (`Bay 12') should be public open space. This would facilitate a passive recreation space and expand the existing public gathering space for events like Sydney's famed New Year's Eve and Vivid festivities. This is one of the few areas in The Rocks where people in wheelchairs and with strollers can easily access the foreshore and it is important that it be increased.

I am lucky enough to live in The Rocks and have done so for 14 years. I first got to know The Rocks in the 1970s as part of a group of young student teachers doing onsite research on the impact of the green bans on preserving The Rocks' heritage. Years later, I used to take groups of Year 9 students on optional Sunday afternoon walks through the area. The students loved investigating the history of the area through seeing its streetscapes and the physical remains of past eras, communities and working environments.

In more recent years, as a textbook writer, I've written about the heritage preservation. While I can provide plenty of examples in relation to world heritage, it's difficult to find them within The Rocks area.

Approval of a four storey glass box would have a very real risk of negatively impacting the `Exceptional Significant' heritage classification of Campbell's Stores. This cannot be justified for the trivial result of less than 300m² of high end retail space selling Gucci handbags and the like.

We need to see a greater focus on making our heritage meaningful and accessible. Restoring and landscaping the space to the northern side of Campbell's Stores would be a great start.

Maureen Sidoti

A PDF Copy of the Objection is attached.

I object to the proposed development, particularly the appropriateness and design of a new four-storey glass box to the north of Campbell's Stores. This is an intrusive and ill-conceived structure that will have negative visual impact, diminish the heritage significance of Campbell's Stores and result in the loss of the opportunity for improved public access and landscaping to the foreshore of Campbell's Cove.

The objection is on the grounds of:
* Non-compliance with existing development controls and heritage provisions that apply to the site.
* Detrimental impact on the Hickson Road streetscape and to the character of The Rocks
* Detrimental impact on the heritage significance of Campbell's Stores.
* Detrimental impact on the amenity of residents of 8 Hickson Road and guests of the Park Hyatt Hotel.

Objections on the grounds of non-compliance with existing planning and
development controls for Campbell's Stores:

* The proposed new glass building does not comply with the current height limit and the applicant has applied for a "spot rezoning" to increase the height along the waterfront by more than five times the current permissible height limit - from RL3.5 to RL18. Any review of planning or development controls for this historic and strategic site should be undertaken comprehensively and not in isolation. I object to any increase in the height restrictions as set out in the SCRAS document.
* The proposal exceeds the height restriction on the foreshore frontage by 14.5 m, more than 250%, and on the Hickson Road elevation, by 10.5 m, or 140%.
* As shown below, the proposal does not comply with a large number of conservation policies contained within the Campbell's Stores Conservation Management Plan (CMP), which SHFA commissioned and the Heritage Council endorsed in July 2014.

− Policy 11:
External alterations or additions should be discouraged; however, if required to meet approved interpretation, re-use or cultural tourism requirements, these should be of a minor nature, and subservient to the primary architectural features and composition of the existing structure. New works should not obscure significance.
− Policy 13:
An appropriate physical and visual setting should be maintained for Campbell's Stores by allowing no development within the setting that would adversely impact on the place or on views to and from the place.
− Policy 18
Any new development must respect the cultural significance of the property and its setting and not destroy or obscure historical associations. The introduction of new fabric should be undertaken in such a manner that it does not result in a lessening of the cultural significance of the place. New work should be identifiable as such and should, wherever possible, be capable of being removed without damage to significant fabric or space.

Objection on the grounds of detrimental Impact on Hickson Road streetscape and the heritage character of The Rocks due to the construction of the four-storey glass box.

* The eastern streetscape of Hickson Road is a very open streetscape, with significant gaps, 20m or more, between groups of buildings. These provide views to Campbell's Cove, Sydney Cove, the Opera House and the harbour generally. Infilling the gap between Campbell's Stores and the Park Hyatt Hotel is not appropriate to either the existing or historic Hickson Road streetscape. The land to the north of Campbell's Stores should be unbuilt upon. The existing unapproved glass structure should be removed and the space used for public access to the waterfront and landscaping.
* The dominant elements in this section of Campbell's Cove foreshore are, and should remain, Campbell's Stores and the fig tree.
* Even if it was considered appropriate, which it is not, to erect a building within this space the proposed building is an unsympathetic design in terms of proportions, material and overall scale in this highly sensitive area. The height of the building is excessive, and should be restricted to the SCRAS' restriction of one storey. The proposed four-storey glass box has no relationship to Campbell's Stores in respect to height, width, roof shape or materials.
* Restriction and loss of opportunity to restore generous public views to the foreshore area from Hickson Road with the removal of the existing pavilion.
* I object to privatisation of an area that historically was public foreshore and public domain;
* Reliance on an existing tree to screen the proposed building from view serves to highlight the inadequacy of its design and the inappropriateness of its location.
* I am concerned about possible impacts to the existing fig tree due to construction within the root zone and the necessity to lop approximately 4m of the branches so as to facilitate construction.
Objections on the grounds of detrimental impact on the heritage significance of Campbell's Stores

* The proposed new four-storey glass building is out of context, dwarfs the heritage building and will be the tallest built element along the foreshore and Hickson Road promenades. It is located within the buffer zone of the World Heritage-Listed Sydney Opera House and would disrupt the view of 19th century Sydney that can currently be appreciated from that venue
* The proposed glass box is to be located within the defined heritage curtilage of the Campbell's Stores and so is at odds with the guidelines for Policy 13 of the CMP which states: "The need to retain a suitable setting for Campbell's Stores should be considered when assessing any proposal for new development or alterations within or around the site. No development that would detract from the maritime setting of the property or obscure key views to or from Campbell's Stores should be permitted." (CMP, GML 2014, p.168)
* Locating the new glass box in place of the existing intrusive structure to the north of the Stores, will obscure views of the northern elevation of Bay 11 and destroy the opportunity for people to appreciate Campbell's Stores' historic significance as a stand-alone industrial building within its maritime setting. This would be particularly the case when the building was viewed from the north, including from the northern end of Hickson Road, from the pedestrian pathway on the eastern side of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Dawes Point Park when it is reopened for public use on completion of the Harbour Bridge restoration work (see Photomontages 6a and 7a).
* Retaining Campbell's Stores' historic physical and visual connection to the waterfront is essential. No development should be carried out which has any possibility of compromising this connection. A public space provides the opportunity for the thousands of people who visit the Rocks to actually see the Campbell's Stores northern elevation and to deliver the full heritage curtilage.
* The basement level of the proposed glass box will abut the ground level of Bay 11 effectively burying the northern elevation of the classified `Highly Significant' heritage façade to approximately top of door height on the ground floor.
* The CMP notes that better integration from Hickson Road via a pedestrian walkway in front of the Campbell's Stores would provide for increased and improved public access to Sydney Harbour and Campbell's Stores and an increasing value to the site in both community and economic terms.
* Campbell's Stores has been a stand-alone building for most of its life and certainly since about 1902. Prior to that only minor structures and a single storey cottage were within the area to the north of Bay 11. The Stores have never been seen as part of a continuous street façade of mixed architectural styles. Rather, the Stores have always been 19th century waterfront warehouse buildings, of simple utilitarian design, viewed in the whole. To `fill the gap' between the Stores and the Park Hyatt and treat this part of the site as an `infill site' as the architects have described it, is to irrevocably and detrimentally alter the heritage setting of the Stores' building and the historical context within which it will be appreciated.
* The proposal does not address the existing voids within the Stores or provide for their reuse. Instead, the proposal involves the introduction of a series of new openings in the floors and it is assumed that the existing voids are to be closed over. As such rather than utilising existing and sometimes inappropriate modifications carried-out in the past, the application proposes further inappropriate modifications.
* The current proposal involves the introduction of new uses to the Hickson Road frontage. It involves unsympathetic alterations to existing openings including new concrete entry portals with back-lit signs and potentially the introduction of chairs and tables, umbrellas and street trees. The end result will be that the Hickson Road frontage of Campbell's Stores will be cluttered and visually obscured. It will be hard for anyone to understand and appreciate the original form and use of this building. Its `Exceptional' heritage significance will be undermined. This western elevation of Campbell's Stores is its most original and uncompromised elevation. As such, there should be very minimal work carried out on the Hickson Road elevation of the building.
* The noise, wind and air assessments that accompany this State Significant development application are based on a range of assumptions and suggest further detailed elements to be addressed at the development stage. This is not adequate. They should be addressed at the time of application and clearly shown on the architectural drawings.
* Further assessment needs to be undertaken to assess noise impacts and address any acoustic and screening measures as part of this application, so that appropriate heritage and visual impact assessments can be prepared.

Objections on the grounds of detrimental impact on the amenity of occupants of 8 Hickson Road and the Park Hyatt Hotel

* Noise impacts on residents as a consequence of late night/early morning trading hours would be significant.

There is no specific detail about number and type of uses, yet the applicant is seeking approval for the hours of operation as follows:

6.00 am to 2.00 am (the following day) and
Sunday from 6.00 am to midnight

The applicant could potentially obtain approval for long hours and turn the proposed glass box building into bars, clubs, restaurants and function centres, with late trading near Hickson Road residents and guests at the Park Hyatt Hotel. This will result in noise disturbance with noise emitted from the premises, including amplified music and the noise from departing patrons in the early hours of the morning.

Without confirmation of land use, of the proposed four-storey glass building , the Department cannot appropriately assess and determine the hours of operation and operational impacts on nearby residents.

* The application fails to provide any details about the various uses within the existing Campbell's Stores, the increase in tenancies from the current four (4) to thirteen (13), and does not provide an overarching Plan of Management that addresses the large number of people patronising disparate restaurants and bars; considers patron management, noise and security; and addresses anti-social behaviour.

* Noise emitted through the proposed `open window' ventilation design will severely impact residents at 8 Hickson Road and potentially also guests at the Park Hyatt Hotel.

The existing operation of the restaurants in Campbell's Stores impacts on residents at 8 Hickson Road when the doors that front Hickson Road are left open. This currently occurs only occasionally when guests leave these open.

The ventilation design for the renovated Stores proposes a passive/natural ventilation system which will necessitate the windows facing Hickson Road being left open for much of the year. Part 5 of the JPW Design Statement states,

`... For much of the year it will be possible to take advantage of moderate ambient conditions and operate the building in passive/natural ventilation mode... Thanks to the inherent passive features of the building ... building occupants will be able to enjoy the space with the windows open and air conditioning systems turned off . There is opportunity for cross flow natural ventilation from East to West on the first and second floors and, as described below, the kitchen exhaust systems will help to draw air through the building even on still days. Text provided by Northrop Engineering `

Neither the Noise and Vibration Impact Statement nor the EIS appear to have assessed the impact on residents at 8 Hickson of noise from restaurants and bars, including amplified music, as a consequence of the proposed `open window' ventilation design.

* Noise and fumes from the kitchen exhaust system emitted from the roof of Bay 11 will impact on the residents of 8 Hickson road and guests at The Park Hyatt Hotel

The proposed kitchen exhaust system intends to direct all kitchen exhaust through the roof of Bay 11. This is the location likely to have the greatest noise and fumes impact on occupants of both 8 Hickson Road and the Park Hyatt Hotel, the only resident-occupied buildings within proximity of the site.

The existing kitchen exhaust system, which serves a smaller number of kitchens, already impacts on residents at 8 Hickson Road particularly when the wind is blowing from the north-east. All kitchen exhaust should be directed to the southern end of the building and discharged from there, where noise and fumes will have the least possible impact on existing residents.

* The stack height and sound barriers erected to mitigate noise and fumes of the kitchen exhaust will substantially impact on my Opera House views.

It is suggested that the kitchen exhaust stack should be increased in height and sound barriers constructed around the exhaust system so as to mitigate potential noise and fumes impact from the kitchen exhaust system. Both of these mitigating factors will impact on the wonderful views currently enjoyed from our living area and main bedroom and would create a major, negative visual impact on our views and on our enjoyment of our property. (Air Quality report and kitchen exhaust 9.2.1 Emission Height).

* Loss of On-Street Parking on Hickson Road.

There is no detailed description about works to Hickson Road, such as loss of on-street car parking or specific details about outdoor seating and dining. Loss of on-street parking is a concern to residents as it further limits the availability of visitor and tradesmen parking, which is already a substantial problem in this part of Hickson Road. Loss of street parking would also affect visitors to The Rocks Markets on the weekends, when buses cannot service this area due to the closure of George Street.

Conclusion

Land to the north of the Campbell's Stores, where the new building is proposed to be located, should be dedicated as public open space, used solely to facilitate public access to and from the foreshore and to provide landscaping including the retention of the fig tree.

The proposed development fails to deliver an appropriate and considered response to this historic site on the foreshore of Sydney Harbour and within the buffer zone of the Sydney Opera House. The proposal, in its current form, should be refused and there should be no development to the north of Campbell's Stores.

The proposed development is a high risk, no reward, project for the people of Sydney. The proposed four-storey glass box has a very high risk of negatively impacting the `Exceptional Significant' heritage-classified Campbell's Stores for no justifiable visual, functional or heritage benefit, either to Campbell's Stores or to The Rocks' heritage village. The potential addition of less than 1,000 m2 of commercial floor space just does not warrant the risk to such a heritage-sensitive location.

See submissions attached.

I am relieved to see that the previously included multi-story building at Bay 12 no longer forms part of the proposal. This will permit views of the area from additional points and retain the heritage character of the area.

I refer to your letter of 25 October and the amended RtS Report on the Departments website.The response from Tallawoladah makes no reference to the objections previously made to the location of the mechanical Exhaust from the roof of Bay 11.

Objections both on the basis of noise and odour pollution have been made in numerous previous submissions including the following:-
1. John Sidoti of Dec, 2015,
2. Sake Development of 16 December, 2016,
3. John Rollason letter of 14 December, 2015,
4. Lilian Rollason Letter of 16 December, 2015,
5. John Rollason letter of 10 June, 2016,
6. Lilian Rollason letter of 15 June, 2016,
7. Anthony Plaia e-mail of 17 June, 2016 and
8. Sake Development letter of 20 June, 2016.
This list is not exhaustive . The documents numbered 5 to 8 were all responsive to the Urbis response to Key Issues and to the report of Acoustic Logic of 15 April, 2016.

The most recent responses from or on behalf of Tallawoladah do not respond to any of the above objections. All that is left are the feeble and non-specific Urbis and Acoustic Logic comments which are directed principally to the construction phase, an issue that no longer exists.

Nowhere have I been able to locate in the responses any information as to the precise level of noise expected to come from Bay 11 in respect of exhaust plant or any other mechanical or electronic plant or equipment to be located in Bay 11. Equally, there has been no specification of volumes of exhaust designed to emit from the roof of Bay 11 other than to conclude that it will be the combined total exhaust from the 13 proposed restaurants.

As previously submitted without response, the chosen exhaust site is adjacent to the only residential structure in Hickson Road between George Street North and The Sydney Harbour Bridge. It is now the time during design phase to either redirect the ducting to an outlet in, say, Bay 1 or 2 or to find an alternative engineering solution to the odour and noise problem which will necessarily arise from the current design proposal.

A bald statement as made by Urbis that the installation will comply with relevant Australian Standards will provide no defence to an application for an injunction to abate the public nuisance created by the noise and odour pollution experienced by adjacent residents. The effect of such an order would be to prevent the operation of all the restaurants until the nuisance was abated.

I object to the revised proposal so far as it proposes to locate the machinery and exhaust systems for 13 or more restaurants in and from Bay 11 of Campbells Stores.

As the project is in its planning stage I submit that these functions be relocated to an area as distant as possible from our home, the only residential structure in the street.

No noise or emission figures appear to have been made available and I cannot imagine a noiseless and odourless exhaust system of such magnitude within 30 metres of our apartment being possible. The exhaust installation would also be immediately adjacent to the protected fig tree which is the home to wildlife including possums, Cockatoos, Koookaburras, Mynahs and Lorikeets. This will obviously disturb their environment.

Please do not allow this aspect of the development to proceed.

I don't believe that our lifestyle should be subject to such an intrusion when a feasible alternative is readily available by relocation to the South.

I am pleased to note that the heritage value of the area has been appreciated, however there are still some issues regarding the new submission.

The allocation of only two weeks to respond to a lengthy resubmission is not adequate and more time should have been allowed.

One issue that is apparent is the lack of detail regarding the mechanical exhaust system. There is already a problem with dirt and malodorous emissions from "Ribs and Burgers" and it would be better to have this issue dealt with prior to approval of the revised application. Without this information, it is unfair to expect those visiting the area and living in it to give their approval.