Cockle Bay Wharf Redevelopment

I strongly oppose the height of the proposed tower. It is too high and not consistent to existing towers in immediate surrounds. The tower should not higher than or at least equal in height with existing towers in Sussex street and Kent Street behind. Also the scale and height of the tower is not suitable to the human-scale street-level pedestrian promenade of Darling Harbour.

I object to the whole development of Cockle Bay detailed in this SSD 16_7684 for the following reasons:
1. The proposed tower dwarfs every other structur in the area and devalues the heritage and usage of Darling Harbour. The negative visual impact on Darling Harbour and communities to the west is not compensated by the benefits it claims.
2. The commercial tower and the retail and deck levels impose a wall close the eastern side of Darling Harbour that is overbearing and will detract from enjoyment of the Darling Harbour shores
3. The modifications to the eastern access to the Prymont Bridge are not sympathetic to the heritage of this treasured structure.
4. There is no evidence community consultation or warning of development was provided to the community on the western side of Darling Harbour

In short I firmly believe that this is an inappropriate structure for the valuable community asset of Darling Harbour and will detract from its enjoyment with no other benefit to the public.

I object to the overly large (i.e. tall) size of this proposal. Buildings should step down from the city to the waterfront so this area should be subject to a height limit about half that in the adjacent area of the city. Also, because this development is on publicly owned land, any development proposal which relies on strata style ownership should be avoided. Public land such as this is important as it can be subject to redevelopment on a more frequent basis than most strata developments. This enables development on this iconic community site to respond to changes in community needs and expectations.

To,
The Director,
Department of Planning and Environment,
Level 22/320 Pitt Street,
Sydney,
N.S.W. 2000.

To The Attention of Michelle Nettleford.
Ref: Redevelopment of the Harbourside Shopping Centre Reference (application no. SSD 16_7874)

Also To The Attention of Pilar Aberasturi.
Ref: Cockle Bay Wharf Demolition and Construction of New Building (application no. SSD 16_7684)

Dear Sir/Madam

I refer to the above named development proposals, these developments are quite significant and are sure to have a negative impact upon the entire Darling Harbour Foreshore. I as well as many others strongly oppose these developments for the below listed reasons;

Firstly, these poorly designed buildings will block the sunlight across the entire Darling Harbour precinct including the park where many families take their children to play and cultural events are regularly held in front of the stage.

Secondly as you are aware traffic congestion in and around the harbour precinct is already a significant problem. The issue has only grown with the introduction of the new Entertainment, Exhibition and Internal Centres. There has already been a number of submissions to various agencies about the problems with traffic and transport to Darling Harbour. The listed proposals will only see this problem grow in severity.

Thirdly, you know there are many other large proposals in the Darling Harbour Foreshore such as the new IMAX development, including ones yet to be lodged such as the Star City Casino proposal. All of these are exceedingly large high-rise/compounds which will significantly alter the entire visual landscape of the Darling Harbour area. Your department must examine the impact of all of these for the precinct as a whole rather than gauging them individually.

Fourth, the foreshore of darling Harbour is

Fifth, Darling Harbour is a major Sydney landmark, well known and visited by many Australians and International visitors alike, especially during public events such as Australia Day and New Year's Eve. Don't destroy this public space by circling the foreshore with so many tall high-rises, making the harbour appear like nothing more than a garden pond surrounded by concrete towers. You must consider the impact on the visual landscape of the area. Furthermore if you approve these a new precedent will be set, likely leading to more developments in the future. It is very important to understand that Darling Harbour was not created for this purpose. It was created for the public to enjoy. These towers should be in other streets away from the waterfront.

Sixth, These two corporate towers will be located near the historic heritage bridge which has played a very important part in the history of New South Wales. It will become an "eyesore" and diminish the presence of the old bridge which is a vital attraction of Darling Harbour.

You must consider why Darling Harbour was created; the purpose of this area was for recreation, an open space waterfront area for every citizen to enjoy. It is a place people come to go for walks, enjoy dinner or take in the sights, not stare at concrete towers all round them. No commercial towers should be placed at all in Darling Harbour area. Do not spoil a precious Sydney landmark and social avenue.

Please consider all of the above carefully.

Thank you,

Regards,
Marielle Bernie

Cockle Bay Wharf plans

1. Cockle Bay Wharf is a place for everyone to share. It is a designated tourist precinct. It is described as Sydney's great celebration space and a playground for all ages. Any development within this area must serve to retain the history of the location and enhance the tourism and public purpose values of the area. 


2. We live in Darling Harbour One and although we do not face Cockle Bay our building is situated at a satisfactory position particularly from the Heritage bridge - Pyrmont Bridge. It is the positioning of the proposed redevelopment of Cockle Bay Wharf and relative buildings and their close proximity to the Pyrmont Bridge that is our biggest concern. 

3. Pyrmont Bridge is listed on the State Heritage Register and is a key feature of both Cockle Bay Wharf and Darling Harbour area. Any development must preserve and enhance the heritage values of the bridge. The Cockle Bay Wharf proposal will dominate, significantly change and diminish the heritage context of the bridge. 
We are therefore not in favour of these plans

Cockle Bay Wharf plans

1. Cockle Bay Wharf is a place for everyone to share. It is a designated tourist precinct. It is described as Sydney's great celebration space and a playground for all ages. Any development within this area must serve to retain the history of the location and enhance the tourism and public purpose values of the area. 


2. We live in Darling Harbour One and although we do not face Cockle Bay our building is situated at a satisfactory position particularly from the Heritage bridge - Pyrmont Bridge. It is the positioning of the proposed redevelopment of Cockle Bay Wharf and relative buildings and their close proximity to the Pyrmont Bridge that is our biggest concern. 

3. Pyrmont Bridge is listed on the State Heritage Register and is a key feature of both Cockle Bay Wharf and Darling Harbour area. Any development must preserve and enhance the heritage values of the bridge. The Cockle Bay Wharf proposal will dominate, significantly change and diminish the heritage context of the bridge. 
We are therefore not in favour of these plans

We believe the lower section of the development is suitable for the area. However, we believe the proposed building tower is not suitable for the following reasons:
1 Cockle bay is currently attractive because of the open environment. The proposed high-rise tower will close in the bay.
2 the shadows created by the proposed tower will darken the environment.
3 there is currently a wide open corridor running down Market Street to Cockle Bay. The proposed tower will close in the city, removing one of the key the attributes that makes Sydney so special - the ready access to water views from many parts of the city.

I don't see how this can make an already over populated area better - as a frequent visitor with friends this will make being there much harder for space and visits the whole atmosphere will go and the public will suffer for it and not want to be there , making it lose out in the end .

To whom it may concern,

I have long pointed to Cockle Bay Wharf as an example of waterfront development done right. The buildings are not imposing, stepping down to the water, allowing for light and views. The architectural style is sympathetic to the history and nature of the area (nautical and industrial) and allows for the prominence of the historic Pyrmont Bridge. It is also quite a 'permeable' building- the public can access most of it and therefore enjoy the harbour views.

That is, of course, until now. This proposed redevelopment is shockingly overbearing. The huge tower looms over, and dominates, Pyrmont Bridge. Gone is the sympathetic architecture and building envelope. The public loses amenity, light, views, and the simple pleasure of an enjoyable public foreshore.

It must be amended or rejected.

Minister for planning
Hon Anthony Roberts MP

Dear Sir

The Proposed Cocole Bay tower is a big monster!
I feel it is a monster located so close to the Historical Pyrmont Bridge and far too big so close to the waters edge.
It is completely out of character!
There are already three towers dominating in this area.
Build the tower elsewhere where there is plenty of room.
Leave the foreshore for the people not hi rise!
This Tower does nothing to beautify our beautiful harbour.
Cockle Bay looks good the way it is
This tower will overshadow Cockle Bay very much of the day and create a wind tunnel to the city also.
The 200 car spaces should be rejected as it will create more cars on the already congested roads which we definitely don,t need
Open space not more high rise!
P.S. If you really must have another tower the place for it could be in front of the Commonwealth Bank building and Price Waterhouse company building. Definitely not higher than the two existing buildings.
At the corner near the Pyrmont Bridge where you want to build a tower landscaped the area and make it in to something beautiful for everyone to admire and enjoy when walking over the bridge.

I strongly object to this proposal as it will add to the over development in The Darling Harbour's waterfront causing unpleasant impacts to the public domain and adjacent areas.
Firstly, this proposal will lacks good planning principles which require buildings to recede as it approaches the waterfront. It's massive structure will cause significant over shadowing and dominate the public domain. The tranquility of open public spaces will be dominated and devasted by this massive tower.
In recent years, there has been at least 10 massive tower proposals (4 to be approved) on the waterfront in this bay precinct (Pyrmont Bay, Darling Harbour, Cockle Bay and Barangaroo). While each proposal should be assessed on its own merits and impacts to the public and private outcomes, there should also be an independent assessment of the collective impact of all these developments on the waterfront and it's surrounding areas. At this rate of development, we will not have a bay precinct but a 'well surrounded by tall walls/towers'
This proposal does not respect the heritage values of Pyrmont bridge and the porpoises tower will dominate the landscape and detract from the heritage values and views.
With its massive size it will also block a significant amount of views for residents on the southern end of Sussex Street and views from Pyrmont Bridge, Pyrmont and Ultimo.
As the custodians of this harbour, the government must REJECT this proposal.

Cockle Bay is a small and strategically important area of national significance, visited by millions of tourists and residents every year and admired for its character and charm. It has never had high-rise buildings which are totally out of place and will ruin its character. This in turn will reduce the attraction of Cockle Bay and potentially the revenue it generates. There does not seem to be any strategic planning on behalf of NSW Planning and Environment with respect to development of the foreshore and heights of buildings, but rather the ad-hoc granting of permission on purely commercial bases to these high-rise building developments on the water's edge.
The first High-rise building was the 35 storey ICC Hotel, which was rushed through the planning stages with no information posted to local residents to allow them to submit timely objections (despite NSW Planning claiming to have done so). The granting of this single 35 storey building was an opening of the floodgates to future skyscrapers in the area which will destroy the character of Pyrmont and Darling Harbour and add to the population over-crowding if applications such as this are granted. I note that this building is already being used as a precedent to building up. I have taken the liberty of providing photographic evidence (in my submission for the proposal of another 50 storey tower at Harbourside in Appendix 2) of the considerable negative visual impact this one skyscraper has had on the views from Pyrmont and from Cockle Bay.
Sound from Darling Harbour has already increased dramatically in Pyrmont apartments since the new ICC tower and other buildings have been completed, with music from Cockle Bay and Tumbalong Park channelled through these buildings and reflected off the concrete surfaces of the ICC tower which rises above all other buildings. With other huge towers, sound pollution will increase again whenever there is an event in Darling Harbour.
I would ask you to reject this proposal and any further developments in the area of Darling Harbour, Cockle Bay, Pyrmont and Ultimo, until you have published a consistent and transparent over-riding development plan for the long-term development of these areas, in particular the heights of buildings along the foreshore.
I note that zoned `height maps' have long been part of the local environment plan for Sydney (for instance the Central Sydney Height Map from the 2005 Local Environment Plan - see http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/119886/sydney_lep_2005_central_sydney_height_sht_1.pdf ) and would have thought NSW Planning would be bound by the sense of building proportions which are contained in such strategic plans.

The proposal is gross overdevelopment abutting the harbour foreshore. Along with the Barangaroo and other commercial developments, Darling Harbour is at risk of becoming a degraded walled waterway with diminished open space and tiered setback to the core city.

The extension of core city commercial development into Darling Harbour is out of character to the original (1980s) land use purpose of Darling Harbour for public and tourist use. The core of the Sydney CBD has been poorly developed in terms of sunlight, air quality, and generally ambience and this proposal extends this blight. The existing Darling Harbour development at Cockle Bay is one of the few locations in the city that provide relief for people to the intensity of the over-developed core, and particularly with respect to the Western Corridor.

The claim the Cockle Bay needs revitalisation with commercial development is hogwash given the close proximity of core city commercial facilities.

As a resident of Pyrmont I am a frequent user of Pyrmont Bridge and Darling Harbour to access the city on foot. With the increasing development at Barangaroo and the taller structures that have been included in the redevelopment of the Sydney Convention and Exhibition Centre, this is becoming a less pleasurable walk to and from the city due to the overcrowding effect of the height of the buildings on this waterfront stretch of land. The plan to add more new developments including tall tower constructions at both Harbourside and Cockle Bay will significantly decrease the aesthetic quality of this area even more. The current low-rise developments at both Harbourside and Cockle Bay do not encroach on the waterfront and enable it to retain a low-impact and accessible feel. Replacing the existing developments to include high rise towers will take away this feel and significantly encroach on the waterfront accessibility with overshadowing structures that will belittle the pedestrian and give the feeling of being crowded-in which does not exist currently. The towers will not add anything architecturally or aesthetically nor provide any additional services that are currently missing. The towers just seem to represent a desire by some to overcrowd and over-develop our publicly accessible waterfront land, as nothing more than a money-making venture. We do not need these towers and they will significantly and adversely affect an area that is currently working very successfully for those of us who have chosen to live in the area for its considerable attractions and accessible location; as well as those that work in the area and those that visit as tourists. Instead we will experience loss of sunlight throughout the year and be dwarfed by these excessive and unnecessary structures that will adversely affect the character of the area forever by overshadowing us, obscuring our views and unnecessarily dominating the waterfront landscape. Please do not give approval for either of these structures and please consider very carefully all other development applications that similarly raise the heights of buildings in this area above what currently exists and currently works very well for all. Darling Harbour has an important place in the history of this city and country and should remain accessible and aesthetically pleasing for all those that use and visit this area. It is not a plaything for greedy developers to over-develop and ruin. To some of us, it is our backyard.

Please see Alex Greenwich report as tabled in parliament

I object to the proposal to build a 235 metre commercial tower on Cockle Bay Wharf as this is far too high for the waterfront area. This tower would be an eye sore as it would dominate the area & impact the current buildings & residents as well as workers in the surrounding buildings. Darling Harbour is about the views & open spaces not looking at another tall building, we need more open space not less. A building this high would cast shadows & cause darkness to the area which should be bright, open & inviting. It is also in too close proximity to the heritage Pyrmont Bridge, this is a beautiful bridge which should be enjoyed without seeing a huge building as you are walking along. Darling Harbour & Cockle Bay is for the people & not to build more towers. No tower for Cockle Bay Wharf.

This avaricious re-development proposal should be rejected:
1. It flies in the face of the long held tenet respected by State governments and COS to achieve a broad passageway from Jubilee Park Glebe to the Botanical Gardens and beyond.
2. It seeks to absolutely dominate the Cockle Bay CBD foreshore. This denies pedestrians and cyclists the pleasure of un-interrupted connection with the waters of Sydney harbour.
3. The exaggerated scale of proposed building would reduce Cockle Bay to resembling Cockle Bay pond.
4. Any variation of this brazen attempt to usurp the Cockle Bay foreshore for the project's own benefit, should not be permitted to link directly with historic Pyrmont Bridge.

This is another unnecessary tall building plan. Cockle Bay is going to be completely surrounded by tall buildings if the current plans are approved. I am concerned for the environment and air quality if this happens.
Consideration should be given to low rise so that one does not feel choked with tall buildings.
Also the historic Pyrmont Bridge is going to be overshadowed by tall buildings at both ends if this goes ahead and also by the proposed Mirvac Harbourside Project.
Both of these proposals are totally out of proportion and should not be allowed.

11 February 2017
Department of Planning
Major Project Assessments
Level 22, 320 Pitt Street
Sydney NSW 2000

Dear Sirs
Cockle Bay Wharf Redevelopment (Concept Proposal)
I live in Ultimo and I have numerous concerns about this development which will result in overdevelopment on Darling Harbour's waterfront, creating impacts on the public domain and adjacent areas. Details of our concerns are listed below.
First and foremost, I remind the Government that Darling Harbour is a gift to the people of New South Wales and that in 1984 the then premier of NSW, Neville Wran, announced the Government's decision to redevelop Darling Harbour and "return it to the people of Sydney" in time for Australia's 1988 bicentennial celebrations. Accordingly, public access and interests should be at the forefront of all planning decisions that affect this area.
Scale Impacts
The proposal for a 235 metre commercial tower on the existing Cockle Bay Wharf marks a massive change in scale. The tower is excessively high, and would dominate Cockle Bay and surrounds, and add to cumulative impacts from other high rise plans and proposals in the precinct.
The fact that there have been replacements of low rise buildings with taller and denser buildings like the CBA office blocks is not a justification to build more high rise in Darling Harbour. Two wrongs do not make one right! We need to stop this inappropriate "change in character" which will make Darling Harbour no longer a pleasant place to visit with easy open access to the waterfront for all.
View Impacts
The tower would significantly impact on views within Darling Harbour, and from Pyrmont Bridge and Ultimo/Pyrmont. The tower would devastate city skyline views from Pier 26 and dominate them from the Harbourside promenade; the promenade at Cockle Bay Wharf would have most city views blocked. The tranquillity and pleasantness of these waterfront public spaces would be eroded. Skyline views from Tumbalong Park, vital to its amenity, would be interrupted.
Of great concern are view impacts from heritage significant Pyrmont Bridge, with most city skyline views blocked. The heavy presence of the tower directly adjacent to the bridge would dominate the experience of walking on this important bridge and substantially detract from its heritage values and views.
As mentioned above, Darling Harbour is dedicated public land and one of its vital roles is providing public access to the harbour, blue skies and a varied skyline. No particular development should dominate outlooks.
Traffic & Transport Impacts
The proposal for up to 200 car parking spaces should be rejected outright; it is excessive and unacceptable given the proximity to other transport options and the already serious traffic congestion in the central business district road network. Any additional traffic generated by this development will only exacerbate this congestion.
Pedestrian Access
Despite the close proximity to the city, there is lack of direct pedestrian access between Ultimo and Pyrmont to and from the city, especially after part of the previous walkway attached to the Western Distributor was removed for new lanes as part of the 2004 Cross City Tunnel changes.
Residents who want to go to the city are now forced to go via indirect routes into Darling Harbour and make their way to the city, despite promises that the Sydney International Convention, Exhibition and Entertainment Centre Precinct redevelopment would improve access.
With the redevelopment of Darling Harbour including this development and the Harbourside redevelopment, it is an ideal opportunity to reinstate direct pedestrian access from Ultimo/Pyrmont to the city and extend the Harris/Fig Street walkway to provide direct access to the CBD.
Community Benefit
There does not appear to be any provision of social infrastructure to support the development's new workers, and the existing CBD and nearby Ultimo and Pyrmont community. The developer contributions from this development should incorporate facilities such as childcare, aged care, sporting facilities (which were removed from Darling Harbour some years ago) on consultation with the local community.
Conclusion
I submit that the proposed development, in its current form, will result in a development that is overbearing in size and does not appear to offer any public benefits that might help justify such a substantial redevelopment. I request that the building bulk be reduced and recessed from the waterfront, and the height of the podium level be reduced to that of the existing development to reduce the scale and overshadowing impacts. I submit that it's important to retain the current open low-rise environment to ensure that Darling Harbour remains an attractive tourist and entertainment attraction. The government must act as custodian of the harbor and refuse this damaging proposal.

Cockle Bay Wharf SSD 16_7684

This is a letter of objection to the current proposal to redevelop the Cockle Bay Wharf site.

I am the owner of a residential apartment in One Darling Harbour(ODH), a building directly located on the western side of the Harbourside Shopping Centre at Darling Harbour.
The design of my apartment provides an extensive outlook onto the Cockle Bay precinct looking directly at the site of the proposed redevelopment.
Due to the nature and use of our building the effects of the built form directly opposite will be of a more permanent nature i.e. for those who live here compared to those who might visit the area.

After reading the EIS and visiting Sydney to view a model of the concept plans for Cockle Bay I strongly object to:

- the concept plan which is over-bearing, beyond the current scale and out of character compared with existing development on and around the site.
Cockle Bay is a small body of water compared to the rest of Darling Harbour.
The concept plan detracts from the natural beauty of Cockle Bay;

- the change in outlook from my apartment and the lack of address, within the impact statement, to the permanent residents of our building which looks directly at it.
E.g. the glare factor from our direction was dismissed by addressing only those who walk on Pyrmont Bridge;

- the height and breadth of the podium centred by a tower diminishes the aspect of the historic Pyrmont Bridge for all the general public who visit the foreshore of Cockle Bay.

- a concept plan that down plays in its design the historical significance of the area in the development of our Australian history (which the original design of the precinct at least acknowledges).
The current low rise built form with its variety of shape and use of materials is a nod to previous historical buildings.

- the shallow argument in the archeological impact statement that infers that a quick dig of a site for building purposes is enough to preserve our knowledge of recent history and that that somehow justifies the approval of the concept.

- any foreshore being a site for a tower but particularly in this area.
Towers are more permanent buildings which can't easily be removed and the foreshore should be free of these and protected for the future.
The Harbour Foreshore Authority should be used to help respect the foreshore from overdevelopment such as this.

- large public companies using improvements to public infrastructure through PPP's to justify concept plans that are otherwise overbearing.

- the lack of planning controls in an area where the landscape has deep significance to our Australian history, culture and psyche.

Since it is important that the views of the community and the concerns and issues of local residents are considered in the design and planning process I thank you for considering my objections.