Cockle Bay Wharf Redevelopment

I am really worried by the loss of sun light and over shadow that will be created by a 47 story building directly opposite my unit. Also with the extra traffic created by the 2000 workers and now the new Packer Casino we will have bumper to bumper traffic along Sussex St. I have noticed the great increase since the opening of Barangeroo towers 1 and 2 without even the start of the forthcoming huge Casino and 4 new apartment blocks to be completed on this site along with the proposed Ferry and Rail Terminals.

I do not want my personal details published.

The development is encroaching upon the promenade/wharf. The encroachment should match existing setbacks from the waters edge. Any greater encroachment will be inconsistent with neighboring developments and will destroy the open atmosphere of the darling harbour precinct.

This is not a revitalisation. This is mega-sizing an already over-crowded and badly public transport serviced area of the Harbour that no longer looks pleasant and open water, not visible not significant among the overbearing buildings galore everywhere. It is disgraceful what the State is allowing developers to do to our wonderful public spaces. We no longer have breathing space in this increasingly third world looking loud, crowded, dirty and stressful city.
Absolutely no parking for vehicles other than (perhaps electric only) service vehicles, to effectively manage noise and emission pollution. Tenants and visitors should be only accessing site via public transport. That public transport should be funded by or at least majorly contributed to, by the developer.
Strongly object to the application in its current form for the above reasons: size and parking in particular.

This is not a revitalisation. This is mega-sizing an already over-crowded and badly public transport serviced area of the Harbour that no longer looks pleasant and open water, not visible not significant among the overbearing buildings galore everywhere. It is disgraceful what the State is allowing developers to do to our wonderful public spaces. We no longer have breathing space in this increasingly third world looking loud, crowded, dirty and stressful city.
Absolutely no parking for vehicles other than (perhaps electric only) service vehicles, to effectively manage noise and emission pollution. Tenants and visitors should be only accessing site via public transport. That public transport should be funded by or at least majorly contributed to, by the developer.
Strongly object to the application in its current form for the above reasons: size and parking in particular.

Amended Concept proposal for Cockle Bay redevelopment

We strongly OBJECT to this proposal!

WOW! What a monster of a proposal!

It is far to big and far to high and far to close to the water. The proposal states this building is in a more slender form but even that is far to big for this space.
It is ridiculous to even contemplate building a high rise of this height within this area.
This building should not be built there so close to the waters edge. If you have to have a development there it should be no higher than the existing buildings like the Commonwealth tower.
The podium should not be any higher than three levels.
As you are redeveloping this site the podium should be stepped back from the foreshore at least double what it is current.. This area will draw large crowds and we need to think of the future so we don't have to build out into the water as they doing on the opposite side of Cockle Bay.

Please let's have some commensense made when this building is approved and constructed. ThankYou

Amended Concept proposal for Cockle Bay redevelopment

I strongly OBJECT to this proposal!
It is far too big and far too high.
The proposal states this building is in a more slender form which is still too wide at 165metres in depth.
It is far too close to the waters edge.
It is ridiculous to even contemplate building a high rise of this height and width in this area.
The original concept of a building this close to the water is to start building low and step up as the buildings goes back away from the waters edge.
Everyone wants to build on the water.
Keep the building on our foreshores low.
It is the people's space!
Don't let our foreshores look ridiculous and overcrowded.
If we need to have another tower
1 Keep the podium levels in line with the Historical Pyrmont Bridge and keep the podium to 2 levels only.
2 Keep the new building in context to the existing level of the three towers already built there such as the Commonwealth Bank building, the Rabobank building and one other that means the new tower should be no higher than the present levels of approximately 30 storeys. This will help with overshadowing and more sunlight on the other side of Cockle Bay.
As you are demolishing the existing structures of the whole front of this Cockle Bay Area the new Concept building should be moved back away from the water with at least double the width of the present walkway to make room for future pedestrian traffic
Leave some water in Cockle Bay and do not build so close to the waters edge.
Please let's have some commensence made When this building is approved and constructed. ThankYou!

I strongly OBJECT to this proposal. The building is far too high & too close to the water's edge. Cockle Bay is for the public to enjoy & not for developers to build skyscrapers on. Our foreshores are becoming overcrowded with buildings that should not be there. I spend a lot of my weekends around Cockle Bay & think the area is becoming far too congested & soon there will be no Bay left for us to enjoy. No more towers in the Cockle Bay/Darling Harbour area please.

Although the revised EIS does show some reduction in the tower width, this is still unacceptably close to the wharf edge, overbearing in size and out of keeping with use of Darling Harbour and Cockle Bay public domain. It is unacceptable that Planning NSW as custodian of such a valuable public asset to allow its to be ruined by in appropriate commercial development.

The Eastern end of heritage listed Pyrmont Bridge is still unacceptably altered by the development so that key elements are hidden.

The new proposed project very different from what they was proposed few years back. It totally block all my apartment view and light from Sun ( we have the only door is facing west.
The should consider to move back the original proposed where they have our agreed location.

This redevelopment has been done without consideration to the surrounding residence due to the following:
- substantial congestion will occur as construction begins,
- reduced lights and airflow to Sussex Street
- the new tower will overcrowd Cockle Bay precinct, especially because it will be taller than the existing Darling Park ones
- ultimately will significantly have impact to the view and subsequently the value of properties on 222 Sussex Street

I strongly support that this proposal is to be rejected.

I strongly object this proposal, as currently the waterfront precinct has been overcrowded with tall buildings. Water front areas should be kept away from too many high rise, as this will significantly blocking the view, airways, and access to direct sunlight from the water.
Furthermore this will significantly reduce the value of properties surrounding the precinct, as it will only be even more crowded than it currently is. Therefore I strongly oppose this plan.

We have been living in Astoria Tower for many years and would like to share the views with the future generation, although this will not be possible with the proposed building in the way. With the current construction of Meriton's new building next door, it has already blocked off one side of the apartment for privacy, this leaves limited privacy in the apartment which is the area facing Darling Harbour. Although the position of the proposed building will impede with the rest of the privacy our apartment has to offer, meaning our lives will become like birds in a cage; zero privacy, with many eyes constantly surveying our actions. Also this would mean a lack of natural light and a significant loss of views to the harbour, ultimately hampering our wellbeing. Even though plans and documents said there should be sufficient views for us, this is not true and instead is very inadequate. Furthermore, the harbour is a tourist/entertainment district, with the newly proposed building the significance of the harbour will be lost as well as its dominance against the heritage Pyrmont Bridge. So in order to manage these issues, there should be a height limit, similar to the height of the current Cockle Bay Wharf site. Also, the building design is too bulky and should be narrowed down. Furthermore, because the new building will be commercial, it will create even more traffic on Sussex St, which is already a bustling street full of cars especially during peak hours. This will create further noise pollution that will continue to irritate us. In addition, it does not only affect us but also the childcare centre located at Darling Park, affecting the wellbeing of the children. Moreover, our opinion on the amended proposal is very negative, and would highly suggest that the proposed building to be removed from the plans. If not, a height limit similar to the current Cockle Bay Wharf site should be placed or the building should be moved to an entirely different location, such as towards The Ribbon which is being constructed or the new commercial zone at Barangaroo. If this high rise is successful, it would mean many more applications to develop more high rises around the harbour and eventually mean the loss of the harbour's symbol.

We believe the inclusion of the tower will adversely affect the amenity
of Cockle bay. The tower is too close to the water, and will have the
effect of closing in the space around the bay. The view corridor into
Cockle Bay from Market and Kent Street will be adversely affected.
Cockle Bay currently enjoys an open environment which is shared by
areas outside the Bay. The inclusion of the tower will dominate the
area, remove view corridors to the Bay and sky. The effect of this
dominating tower will be to remove the openness the bay and make it
opressive.

See attachment

There is no question that Cockle Bay Wharf is in need of redevelopment, but to book-end Pyrmont Bridge with high-rise residential towers is too much!

Apart from the destruction of the architectural and heritage history of Pyrmont Bridge and the important historical role it played as the main avenue for goods and services flowing into Market Street, additional high-rise so close to the waters of Cockle Bay will severely impact the enjoyment of many tourists, workers and current residents.

In general, the vital pedestrian bridge should be key to the development of both sides of the wharf with its direct (not an awkward ramped connection) to Market Street footpaths should be a priority with the road ways on the east city side lowered to facilitate this. This has the additional benefit of allowing the connection of Cockle Bay to the city over the roadways without other poor pedestrian connections such as the one near the old IMAX theatre.

Per the attached document, which also suggests improvements to the Harbourside development, lowering the tower to adopt a wider footprint, with a maximum height of 6 stories, and removing the proposed connection into the span of Pyrmont Bridge should be priorities.

While redevelopment of the Harbourside centre can help improve the area, the proposed plan to incorporate a narrow, high storey residential tower and infiltrate the heritage listed Pyrmont bridge are poor aspects of the design.

The proposed raise rear section (or which appears to be this) is a better way to overpass the light rail and connect to the hotels and apartments behind the current Harbourside shopping centre. The parking garage, and the awkward series of pedestrian ramps from the garage, Novotel and poor overpass to Harbourside centre could all be removed if the garage connected into different levels of the new development overpassing the light rail sheltered underneath.

I am happy to discuss all aspects of my improvements if contacted.

Ultimo Village Voice is a community group of Ultimo residents. We 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, we 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
We 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. We 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. We 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.

Please see attached

Please see attached

Please see attached Letter by iPLAN PROJECTS as Consultant Planner for Tianlong Ribbon Pty Ltd.