Cockle Bay Wharf Redevelopment

See attached

To whom it may concern:

This proposal has been modified considerably from the original
concept. The first engagement with residents described a plan with
almost no impact on the view of our building. However, with each
iteration, the building footprint has moved and grown so that now it
is significantly impacting all west facing residents of Astoria
Towers. This will impact our views, quality of light entering our
apartments, and the resale value of our property.

In addition, I was led to believe there are guidelines for building
heights on the foreshore whereby they would increase gradually moving
away, which has been contravened with the height of this building.

The attached pdf highlights Astoria Towers and the proposed building.

Sincerely,
A concerned resident and taxpayer

See attached

See attached

please see the attached submission

See attached

Please refer to attached

Please refer to attached

See attached

I object to the height and scale of the proposed development

See attached submission

We object to the development proposal for the reasons attached in our
letter

See attached

7 August, 2018

Department of Planning and Environment
Attn: Director - Key Site Assessments
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001

SSD 7684 COCKLE BAY WHARF REDEVELOPMENT (CONCEPT PROPOSAL)

Dear Director,

On 13 April, 2017, the National Trust of Australia (NSW) lodged its
strong objections to the Concept Proposal for the redevelopment of
Cockle Bay Wharf.

The National Trust's view was that the proposed Cockle Bay tower
development would certainly have a (major) visual impact on the
setting of Pyrmont Bridge.

The National Trust had long recognized the importance of the
foreshores of Sydney Harbour, its associated waterways and Parramatta
River. The Sydney Harbour Landscape Conservation Area was listed on
the National Trust Register in September, 1982 and the Middle Harbour
and Parramatta and Lane Cove Rivers Landscape Conservation Areas were
listed on the National Trust Register in January, 1983. All these
listings urged the maintenance of strict controls to protect the
scenic and cultural values and natural beauty of the foreshores.

As early as 1828 steps were taken to protect waterway foreshores. In
Governor Darling's tenure, an August 21, 1828 Government Notice from
the Colonial Secretary's Office stated that -

"The Government will further reserve to itself all land within one
hundred feet of high water mark, on the sea coast, creeks, harbours
and inlets."

Sydney Harbour is world renowned for its bushland headlands and
foreshore parks and its international reputation is intimately
associated with its scenic harbour vistas. However, massive tower
development originally confined to the centre of the Central Business
District is now being sited on the foreshores. Such development is
impacting negatively on one of the world's greatest harbours.

The National Trust confirmed and reiterated its policy of 34 years
when the Board of the National Trust on 29 March, 2017 adopted its
"Policy on the Conservation of the Heritage Values of the Foreshores
of Sydney Harbour, its associated waterways and the Parramatta River".

The Policy stated: -

1. The National Trust strongly reiterates the Trust's policy of some
34 years regarding the implementation and enforcement by the
Government and its agencies of strict regulatory controls including
set-backs from high water mark and building heights, to protect the
scenic, cultural and conservation values of the foreshores of Sydney
Harbour, its waterways and tributaries and the Parramatta River.

2. High rise development is not to be sited on the foreshores and,
where development is proposed, it is to be of lower scale nearer the
water's edge and taking into account the local topography, stepping up
from the waterways.

3. Generous and easily public accessed foreshore reserves and parks
are to established, not just limited public access and narrow
walkways.

4. There is to be no major overshadowing of foreshore parks and
waterways from new development proposed on or near the foreshore.

The Trust rejected the exhibited Concept Plan and called for new
proposals in keeping with the principles outlined above.

On 14 December, 2017 the National Trust lodged another objection to
the Concept Plan for the Redevelopment of Cockle Bay Wharf reiterating
the concerns outlined above and noting the importance of the Cockle
Bay Archaeology Precinct.

In terms of the current SSD 7684 Cockle Bay Wharf redevelopment
(Concept Proposal) the National Trust makes the following comments.

Section 7.6 Built Form of the Revised Environmental Impact Statement
appears to be an attempted justification of increased height in the
area at the waterside where the National Trust has always maintained
that heights should be minimal.

The Statement notes that "the centre of Darling Harbour has previously
accommodated low-scale development to create a `valley floor' feel."
This is an alternative way of expressing the concept of buildings
`stepping down to the water's edge" and is the principle that the
National Trust espouses.

The Statement then goes on to argue - "It is noted that recent
development consents in the area (notably the Ribbon development,
adjacent to the Site, the SICEEP precinct and Barangaroo) indicates
that this Valley Floor principle has evolved to accommodate changes in
the local built form that include taller buildings."

This is an extraordinary euphemism. The reality is that the `Valley
Floor' principle has been broken and ignored on repeated occasions
leading to inappropriate and insensitive development near the water's
edge. This is not `evolution', it is simply bad planning and
development building heights way beyond those always intended by the
planning system. This is more a mutation than an evolution.

And these mistakes should not become the justification for even more
of the same, in this case, very tall buildings on the water's edge.

A 183 metre tall tower is not appropriate for this location and no
reasonable person could regard a building of this height as "an
important gateway and marker for entry to the CBD," as the
Environmental Impact Statement attempts to argue.

The Statement then notes that the Darling Harbour Development Plan
does not provide controls for building height, floor space ratio or
setbacks within Darling Harbour.

When has a Development Plan not controlled building heights, floor
space ratios and setbacks, particularly for an area as significant and
sensitive as Darling Harbour?

Again, this is another complete failure of the planning system - a
totally ineffective and superfluous Development Plan.

For many years, dating back to the early 1990s and the Wolli Creek
redevelopment, the National Trust has seen the argument put forward
for `landmark' buildings, code for over-tall buildings which impact
severely on their surrounding environment. These buildings certainly
do leave their mark, but not in a positive way.

This project is justified with the argument that charrette
consultations and Design Review Panels have shaped and mitigated the
development's impacts.

The Wolli Creek development was also based on charrettes and a
development resulted that be-littled and rendered insignificant the
John Verge designed 1836 Tempe House and its landscaping including
`Mount Olympus' destroyed by the aforementioned `landmark' building'.
A building which in reality is a very `ordinary' and lacklustre
compared with the State Heritage Register listed landscape that it
destroyed. This building was the wrong size and scale and in the wrong
location.

The same can be said for Cockle Bay Wharf where the broader Darling
Harbour will be degraded by this over-development.

Yours sincerely,

Graham Quint
Director, Conservation

Please see attached covering letter and attachments.

I object to the concept proposal on the grounds of inadequate EIS/HIA and
on the overall cumulative impact on Darling Harbour. Further details
in attached document.

See attached

See attached