Darling Square - Concept

The existing buildings are only 25 years, could be refurbished or extended to accommodate future needs. NSW taxpayers do not want to pay for such costly and unnecessary projects.
The new development is grossly too big and expensive, in fact serve little change to present or future needs. In fact there would be more people , less vehicles parking spaces resulting total disaster.
The new development especially the residential and commercial buildings around Haymarket precinct only create more traffic congestion as there would be more people and vehicles , creating very unpleasant environment for residents.
The new high rise Haymarket buildings are too tall and big, as they are too close, blocking sun light, traffic chaos, less public spaces as there would be more people living is such enclosed area, loss of privacy, more noises (traffic & living quarters).
The proposed Haymarket precinct buildings have no architectural merits, just like any big and tall long box shape construction. They would dwarf the surrounding Chinese Garden and Chinatown. Existing Chinatown would lose its identity and charm because of new surrounding tall developments.
This is once in a life time decision , so make it right. Create something that improve the quality of life of Sydney people.
Instead of creating more profits to the developers.

I write to register my protest against the New South Wales Government's plans to demolish the Darling Harbour Convention and Exhibition Centre. I have lived in Sydney most of my life and have a great affection for the city. All agree that Sydney has one of the most beautiful harbours in the world. The Opera house and the current Darling Harbour Convention and Exhibition Centre blend perfectly with the harbour environment, bringing the yachts ashore (metaphorically speaking), for all to enjoy.


The planned development has no discernable aspects blending it into, or complementing the Sydney environment. It strongly resembles developments I have seen overseas in Asia (particularly Hong Kong), Europe and North America. It is excessively bulky and largely blocks the view of the heritage listed Goldsbrough-Mort building from visitors in Cockle Bay. The Premier has declared that he wants Sydney to have Australia's largest Convention and Exhibition Centre. There is no need to engage in a game of one upmanship with other cities, the current Centre is popular and successful. The Centre earns considerable revenue. An increase in its capacity can be made with sensitivity to neighbours, both during construction and through the years ahead.


Darling Harbour is itself a historic area and it adjoins an area as valuable and rich in history, in my opinion, as the Rocks. This area can be cared for and would flourish, or it could be turned into a slum area, decaying in the shadows of massive glass towers. The aforementioned Goldsbrough-Mort building is very much a part of Sydney's maritime history and should not be built into oblivion.


The people of Australia are being asked to do everything possible to reduce the impact of our lifestyles on the environment. Living by the principles of "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" in order to cut down on rubbish volumes and reduce our "carbon footprint" has become essential to a sustainable society. Excessive consumption and the "throw away society" are luxuries humankind can no longer afford. Governments should lead by example to encourage people to make the necessary adjustments to their lifestyles to ensure sustainability. The demolition of perfectly serviceable, well maintained and fairly new buildings is environmentally irresponsible.


I plead with the New South Wales Government to postpone its plans. I request Government adjust its plans to take into account our individual and societal responsibility to care for what we have, to minimise our impact on the environment and to keep the Sydney flavour in Sydney.

Excessive height causing unbearable shadowing and reflection for the public areas of darling harbour.

Hi,

I am a local resident & ratepayer & have looked at the Haymarket South redevelopment submission. My main concern is the planned student accommodation. The buildings (esp the north one) is too large & blocks the powerhouse museum view from the city (which is a very important tourist & historical building which should not be blocked). I believe it would be better to have one building starting higher from the south & getting lower from the north in a tiered fashion. Architecturally, you could design it in a way which is in line with the wave look like the Harry Seidler Ian Thorpe Pool complex (given it is next door). Having 1 building will also means that the land between the existing 2 buildings could be utilised, meaning a less tall building could be built.

I object to the proposal . I own a north facing apartment in The Peak. This proposal will severely reduce our amenities, blocking all Darling Harbour views and creating excessive shadow.
In the interests of compromise I request that the proposed most eastern situated high rise apartment block be rotated so that it faces east or west, not the proposed northerly aspect. There is no geological reason why this cannot happen. Alternatively I request that the eastern most high rise mentioned here have less apartments and so a smaller footprint, with the proposed most western situated high rise to have more bulk and volume.
These 2 alternative proposals still allow the same number of overall apartments and would not add cost to the Lend Lease development. I believe they would not add any negative impact on the proposed development, but would have a positive impact by maintaining fair and reasonable amenity for north facing owners in The Peak.

I object strongly to the mixed use development in the southern Haymarket Precinct. This development greatly fails to meet the Director General's requirements, in particular SSD2 (Sth Haymarket precinct), SSD3 (Student accommodation), SSD5 (Mixed Use) and SSD6 (Hotel).

The grounds of my objection are:

1. Severe loss of visual amenity and loss of views from my apartment H202 and other residents at The Peak, and unacceptable congestion and deterioration of visual impact of the locality from the public domain. This will cause major deterioration in the peaceful enjoyment of my home. I will lose my view of Sydney Harbour almost entirely. This will have a dramatic effect on the valuation of my property. It has been estimated that my apartment will be devalued by at least 20-30%. There has been no offer of compensation in this Proposal to residents like myself who will personally and financially suffer due to this greedy development by a private developer.This is due to an almost total loss of northerly and NW view towards Darling Harbour, Sydney Harbour, Blues Point and Anzac Bridge. The concept of 'view sharing' in this Proposal is ludicrous. The new towers are facing at maximal angle to Sydney Harbour causing maximal obstruction to existing residents and buildings. There is no justification for the height of these new towers, and no justification for the angle of aspect of these towers. There are not significant view corridors in this Proposal. If there was reasonable 'view sharing' the towers would comply with existing height restrictions (such as Holiday Inn and King St Wharf etc) and be angled at 90 degrees to the current footprint aspect. (Key Assessment Requirement 3,4,5,6)

2. Loss of visual privacy and severe acoustic impact - The planned towers up to 40 floors will be within 200 metres of my windows. I will have new residential apartments facing directly into my windows. This is unacceptably close and will cause severe loss of visual and acoustic privacy for my home as well as unacceptable privacy for the new residential, commercial and student accommodation. (Key Assessment Requirement 4,6)

3, Unacceptable loss of solar access, shading and shadowing of The Peak and southern Haymarket public areas- as shading and shadowing of my apartment complex especially in winter. (Key Assessment Requirement 4,6)

4. Unacceptable noise and vibration during the construction period, particularly as the new development is located in a very close proximity to my home at The Peak. There will be ongoing noise from AC units and other roof-top noisy structures after the development ids completed, which will greatly impact the peaceful enjoyment of my home , other local residents and buildings and the public domain. (Key Assessment Requirement 5,7,15,16)

4.The planned heights of the residential towers far exceed existing development and planning restrictions in the Chinatown and Darling Harbour area. These development restrictions were strongly enforced by the NSW Government and City of Sydney for newer developments such as Novotel, King Street Wharf, Southern Darling Harbour and Harbour Street. It is unacceptable that a private developer can be allowed to bypass these long-standing height restrictions and planning protocol in the Darling Harbour Chinatown precinct. There will be greatly impaired loss of heritage and loss of the character of Chinatown due to this high rise and congested development. (Key Assessment Requirement 2,3,4,6,10)

5. Unacceptable overcrowding of residential development and commercial development and insufficient open spaces. The Haymarket Precinct is already heavily populated - one of the most densely populated Precincts in Australia. Adding an additional 1000s of residents and numerous high rise residential apartments will greatly add to overcrowding and loss of amenity in this area. There is insufficient parking proposed for these new residents. There are no new roads for access. There is greatly insufficient additional of public and green spaces to provide amenity for theses new residents. Existing parks and open spaces will be much more congested and overcrowded. The bulk, height and scale of this development is grossly excessive for this locality. (Key Assessment Requirement 4,6,8)

6. Loss of parking, loss of access and street congestion along Quay St, Ultimo Road, Little Hay St, Harbour St and other local streets. There streets are already severely congested and crowded. Building of numerous towers of residential and commercial spaces - without provision of new roads - will cause gridlock traffic conditions throughout most of the day and night. There is already gridlock traffic along Ultimo Road and Quay Street due to University of Technology and ABC workers. When there are events at the Sydney Entertainment Centre or Convention Centre the traffic is blocked for over an hour. This is the current situation. With 1000s of new residents and cars, the streets will be the most heavily congested streets in Sydney. The redevelopment of the Entertainment Centre and Convention Centre will be useless because access to these facilities will be greatly reduced due to 'The Haymarket' and development as described in this Proposal generally development and associated severe overcrowding and congestion. There will greatly reduces access and parking for local businesses and their customers. There will be greatly reduced access and parking for local residents. Student accommodation can be constructed at alternative sites, that do not involve such significant detrimental impact on the public domain, amenity of local residents and businesses. Since when does student accommodation require an expansive Harbour view? (Key Assessment Requirement 4,6,7,8)

7. Detrimental Environmental impact due to overcrowding, greatly increased vehicle and truck movements, and greatly increased pedestrian movements. It is without question that there will be significant water pollution, increased runoff, litter and construction contamination of Sydney Harbour due to this unnecessary private development. The fragile ecology of Sydney Harbour and in particular Darling Harbour will be irrepairably damaged and this part of the Harbour will be one of the most polluted and contaminated. There will be greatly increased air pollution in this locality as well as greatly increased noise pollution. This is unacceptable environmental impact being caused by private development of residential and commercial facilities which have negligible benefit for the public. A high level of environmental amenity has NOT been demonstrated by this Proposal which is a key requirement of the Director General. (Key Assessment Requirement 5,14,15,16)

8. Negligible public benefit of this development. The construction of numerous high rise towers has no benefit for the public, and has a significant detriment in terms of visual amenity, noise, congestion, impairment to access, loss of parking, overcrowding and other substantial detrimental effects. There are already ample commercial and retail spaces in southern Darling Harbour and there is not enough capacity for future development in terms of parking, loading zones, massive street congestion, pedestrian congestion, lack of transport facilities. There is no public benefit from additional commercial and retail spaces that cause detriment to current residents and businesses. Facilities in Darling Harbour are some of the most recent developments in the City of Sydney. These sites are not requiring urgent renewal and are eminently functional now. There are other areas in Sydney that require urban renewal far more urgently that southern Haymarket. The NSW Government and developers should be focusing their efforts on these sites and preparing development proposals such as (but not limited to):

REDFERN
BARANGAROO PRECINCT
COCKATOO ISLAND
WESTERN ANZAC BRIDGE PRECINCT
GARDEN ISLAND POTTS POINT
RAILYARDS IN CHIPPENDALE

These site would also be excellent sites for Hotel development and student accommodation, and new residential accommodation. These sites would not involve such as huge detrimental impact on amenity and the environment, and on local residents and businesses in particular.

9. Unnecessary new development that is not required in this Precinct. The proposal states that 'the balance achieved between the retention of private views and private outlook in the context of delivery of major urban renewal precinct in the southern CBD is acceptable.' This statement is so biased and flawed it is beyond ridiculous.

The Haymarket Precinct is one of the most recent urban developments in the City of Sydney. Southern Darling Harbour includes very recently constructed buildings restaurants and shops in the vicinity of IMAX and to the south. Facilities are modern and regularly used. The concept that 'urban renewal' is required in this part of Sydney is ridiculous.

This development is an opportunity for private developers to make a massive profit at the expense of the taxpayers of NSW and particularly at the expense of local business owners and residents in Haymarket.

Serious concerns need to be raised in the NSW Government considers this statement as reasonable, and review by NSW Ombudsman and ICAC in terms of the links between government and developers needs to be undertaken. Intense scrutiny by the Media would also be a necessary action.

i totally object for this project to proceed,as it will create more congestion in area,and will devalue my apartment ,with loss of views to the north ,2 quay st haymarket - "the peak apartments"

i object to this project ,as it will bring more congestion to the area and i will lose my views to the north ,which will devalue my apartment ,...... 2 quay st haymarket " the peak apartments"

Summary
Overdevelopment of the site
Nine towers ranging from 12 to 40 storeys will be built on the current Entertainment Centre and car
park site, an area of 47530m2 (less than 5 hectares). 4 of these towers are between 25 and 40
storeys.
The recommendation by City of Sydney Planning in their July 2012 submission that more than 3
high-rise towers on the site would lead to tower crowding has been ignored. The problems
arising from this overdevelopment are:
1. Overshadowing of existing dwellings
The EIS does not contain sufficient information to assess the number of individual dwellings in
neighbouring tall buildings which will be overshadowed at any time, and in particular at the winter
solstice. No information is given re vertical (elevation) shadowing. It will be too late by the DA
stage to belatedly realise that DCP overshadowing guidelines are far from met for a substantial
number of individual dwellings.
2. Excessive building depth of proposed buildings
Each of the nine buildings has a proposed depth greater than the maximum 18 metres specified in
the Residential Flat Design Code, and the developer fails to address the specific criteria in the Code
under which the maximum may be exceeded.
3. Insufficient building separation of proposed buildings
Within the site, there are 14 separations between buildings. Of these 14 separations, the proposed
distances in eight are non-compliant. With the proposed separations in those eight, it is impossible
to achieve the intent of the Residential Flat Design Code separation guidelines by detailed designs
or any other method.
There is also a non-compliant proposed separation between the NE plot and the Holiday Inn at 68
Harbour St.
4. Inadequate and inequitable view sharing between existing and
proposed buildings
The new public facilities and open spaces could be created without adversely impacting on existing
private views or outlooks. It is the new private towers which adversely impact on existing private
views and outlooks. Therefore view sharing is required.
The EIS pays lip service to view sharing, but it is unwilling to adopt any of the four concrete
measures which would promote view sharing, namely avoiding tower crowding, maintaining
adequate building separation between towers, building slender towers and creating view corridors.
5. Population Density
The Haymarket currently has 5376 residents on a 53 hectare site (2011 census). The 5 hectare
Haymarket Precinct, coupled with the new Quay and Hing Loong Apartments developments will
increase Haymarket s population to between 10,650 and 11,000 on 58 hectares an increase of
between 99% and 103%.


The Haymarket will be further impacted by the large developments in Central Park and Harold Park
when residents use Haymarket streets to access Paddy s Market, Chinatown and other attractions in
the precinct. All these developments will put pressure on the adequacy of public transport; the
ability of the precinct s short grain roads to cope with increased traffic; community services such
as schools, hospitals, libraries and health and community centres, some of which are already at
overcapacity; and the ability to maintain pedestrian safety for residents and visitors to the area.
6. Student accommodation
The student accommodation is on public land on a very narrow site between the Powerhouse
Museum and Darling Drive. Narrowing Darling Drive will result in greater traffic congestion on
this vital access road. Any significant view of the heritage-listed Powerhouse Museum will be
obliterated, begging the question about the purpose of heritage-listed buildings.
7. Conflicts between SSD 5878 and SSD 5752 Sydney International
Convention, Exhibition and Entertainment Precinct - Redevelopment of
convention centre, exhibition centre, entertainment facilities and
associated public domain works
o Expansion of the Exhibition Centre at ground level is prevented
o Reduction in capacity of CBD music venue
8. Traffic
There are two major areas of concern, unacceptable levels of service on Darling Drive and Bus &
Coach standing.
The Transport and Traffic Impact Assessment contains self-contradictory estimates of current
usage. Actual observations show that current traffic levels are already very close to the maximum
capacity which can be carried by one lane. The proposal to reduce Darling Drive to one lane in
both directions when it is already at or near full capacity for one lane will cause unacceptable levels
of service during the peak.
The existing bus and coach standing barely copes with current requirements and the plan offers only
a single coach drop off space and no alternative provision for the daily tourist bus pickups.
9. Heritage
With the proposed obliteration of the view from the east of the Powerhouse Museum by the student
accommodation and the diminution of the setting of the Chinese Gardens it is hard to give credence
to the proposal statement There will be no impact on heritage items located either within the
development site or in its vicinity . .
It is interesting to note that the consultants TKD s Heritage report appears reluctantly to support the
proposal and that it was submitted twice to the client for review before acceptance.
10. Consultation Process
The consultation report appears self-serving and is, in part, an inaccurate portrayal of events as
recollected by the attendees at the meetings.



End of Summary

I object to the current proposal for the demolishing of the entertainment centre for use as residential and office buildings. We are currently lagging behind Melb in music acts due to the poor NSW amenities such as Arena stadium. I would prefer to see major renovations on the current entertainment centre than a demolish and rebuild of a smaller one.The proposed square does not take advantage of the beautiful facades of Paddys market, nor the new UTS building under construction and designed by the great Frank Gehrey. It will likely be his only Australian designed building and it will be lost being tall residential towers. People travel the world to see this great Architects work. I also love the Phillip Cox designed convention centre and am opposed to its demolishtment or its removal. However I do support the new hotel and replacing the circular convention hall. The southern end of Darling Harbour is known as the Entertainment Quarter, I believe Sydney would do well to focus on improving this area for attaching OS and local visitors.

Too many buildings too close together. See below.

This objection to the planned Multistory buildings projected on the north side of the current "Peak" building (2 Quay Street) is based, not on the obstruction of view but:
* Overcrowding of the area. Currently Market Days and weekends are just awash with people and traffic
* The whole skyscraper obsession now spoiling the Sydney Skyline especially near the water (I include my own building in this criticism).

Why cannot Sydney take on the limitations shown by controlled building codes of such beautiful cities in Europe such as Geneva ?

I wish to object to the proposed residential towers of up to 40 storeys on the site of the Sydney Entertainment Centre.

Such towers will likely obstruct the views from our apartment substantially.

Such loss of views will substantially impact on the value of apartments in The Peak (2 Quay St) and consequently reduce the value of any new apartments built in the vicinity.

In particular, the block proposed to be built behind the Novotel will substantially impact on the views from the north facing apartments in The Peak.

It is notable that were such a block to be buiit on top of the existing car park behind the entertainment centre, the obstruction would be less, as this site is offset to the west of The Peak and hence not directly in the line of site to the Harbour, from the northern apartments in The Peak.

There is also likely to be significant winter-time overshadowing of apartments on the northern side of The Peak.

The proposed height of the new apartment towers breaks the height enveloped carefully preserved over the decades with the highest towers situated closest to the centre of the CBD with a progressive lower height towards the periphery.

A further proposal from one resident in the Peak is that the Entertainment Centre is ideal for the creation of a larger Convention Centre. It is situated in the middle of the historic Chinatown precinct.

The DP suggests the development will create a vibrant community and entertainment sector, but in reality, this already is the case.

We totally object to the size, number and bulk of the new buildings which will dominate the area in every way

The size and scope of the proposed development is not in keeping with the amenity of the Darling Harbour precinct. This is an area of high community use, for the enjoyment of all types of families.. The building will overshadow the surrounding common areas. The hotel is likely to have a negative impact to existing hotel and apartment business in the area with a high density of use making some of the smaller business unprofitable. If there has not been a survey conducted on the requirement for extra "beds" in the Darling Harbour area then I suggest this should be taken into consideration when making the final planning decisions.
There will be considerable loss of views of Darling Harbour from some of the existing apartments in the area..and therefore devaluation of the property values.

As the owner of an apartment directly behind the proposed event deck I have a concern regarding both background noise and amplified noise from late evening or night events. The current structure provides a noise barrier and events end at 10pm usual time for classification of Night time, but with the new event deck being raised and now much closer to residential homes at Bullecourt apartments maybe as close as 25metres there appears to be no measures to restrict noise. The DA makes comments regarding impact to changed views but does not show impact of noise on the Bullecourt Apartments which will be impacted by reflected noise by being so close. Also there are little details of 80 days of Marquees being on the event deck and no details of noise associated with these structures or events they would be used for or plant used to service them. My objection and comment is based only on noise control measures after 10pm in relation to the event deck being so close to residential apartments.

I wish to submit my extreme objection to this development application as its proposed building will significantly block the view from the Peak, 2 Quay Street Haymarket, to Darling Harbor. It doest not only seriously disadvantage the valuation of all owners of the Peak, and also it splits a view from Darling Harbor in terms of destroying the landmark of the Peak.

I disagree with this project as the student accommodation building will over shadow my property. This is clearly shown on the shadow forecasts included in the DA. This will not only devalue my property but will also dramatically change the way the house operates. We will not to be able to grow our own food or even dry our washing (nappies for our toddler) on the line.

I Jack Ahyong fully support to the proposal in the redevelopment under Application No SSD 5878.
The submission that I am proposing is that the current Entertainment Centre NOT TO BE DEMOLISH until such time that the NEW ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE together with the new Convention Center at Darling Habour is FULLY CONSTRUCTED,COMMISSIONED and OPERATIONAL.

The reasons for this request are :

( a ) Restaurant owners and other businesses are fully
dependent on the Entertainment Centre for patronage

( b ) Currently business owners are struggling to survive
due to a lack of patronage as there are low number
of events currently being held at the Entertainment
Centre.

( c ) Loss of patronage to the Olympic Park venue as major
entertainment shows are now performed there,
impacted heavily on the Haymarket CBD.

( d ) The new Entertainment Centre at Darling Harbour
should be enlarged to seat more patrons so as to
encourage more entertainers to perform there, thereby
increasing patronage to the Haymarket and Darling
Harbour CBD.

( e ) Early demolition of the current Entertainment Centre
will heavily impact on the viability of the local
hospitality industry to survive in the Haymarket CBD.

see attached