Darling Square - Concept

See Attached

7 May 2013

The Director
C/- Matthew Rosel
Metropolitan & Regional Projects South
NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2000

SENT VIA WEB SITE SUBMISSION

Dear Matthew,

STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR A STAGED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, RETAIL, COMMUNITY AND OPEN SPACE USES AT THE HAYMARKET (CONCEPT PROPOSAL) (SSD 5878)

I refer to the above matter and your letter dated 25 March 2013.

As requested in your letter, outlined below are my submissions for your consideration:

I object to the planned proposal on the following grounds:

* Impact on Natural Environment

The proposed development will involve the removal of many trees and impact the Chinese Garden.

I object to the removal of long term growth trees and the construction impact on the Chinese Gardens, for example the dust on the Gardens and the over shadowing of the Garden.

* Impact on Built Environment

There are a number of heritage listed buildings in the current area and any redevelopment of these has had to undergo maintenance of the heritage facade. The proposed residential buildings and commercial building will clash in terms of maintaining the architectural uniqueness of the area.

I note the new CBA buildings took into account height and local architecture when designed. The proposed buildings seem to maximise profits rather than maintain the uniqueness of the area. That is, my concern is that the proposed buildings will not suit the area and stand out as an eyesore is terms of height and design.

I object on this basis and that a "European Style" courtyard, as proposed, shouldn't be in an Asian/Chinese area.

Further, and to reiterate, the existing Darling Harbour buildings have an architectural significance. Particularly, the Exhibition Buildings have an architectural style that is in harmony with the Ian Thorpe Swimming Pool complex situated behind them on Harris Street. These Exhibition Buildings are being scrapped a mere twenty-five years after their construction. I object as it is an extravagant and wasteful use of public funds. Many of Sydney's buildings are still in vibrant use after two hundred years.

Finally, I note the original architect of the area expressed his views in the SMH that the existing buildings could be retrofitted to increase their capacity, negating the argument that the whole area is loosing out o large interstate exhibition/entertainment centres.

* Impact on Society

Darling Harbour is a tourist, recreation and pleasure area: it is not a residential neighbourhood. At one end it commences with the current Entertainment Centre and finishes at the other end with the National Maritime Museum and the Sydney Aquarium.

I object to the use of Public land for residential private purposes. Once this land is under a PPP, it will be so for 99 YEARS! We are only thinking short term and not for the future.

* Impact in Economy

Shops and restaurants are planned for the present Entertainment Centre site. At the present time the Chinatown area is experiencing economic difficulties and it is noted that the extension of Dixon Street from Goulburn Street towards Liverpool Street, which has a more recent development of shops and restaurants, has gained very limited visitor interest.

* Sustainability of proposed development

In a recent article in the SMH - link below - it was noted the local area is the most highly densely populated suburb. The addition of more residential units will exacerbate the problem leading to social issues such as noise and crime.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/packedin-pyrmont-is-australias-most-densely-populated-suburb-20130501-2is5g.html#

* Public Interest

The present multiplicity of high-rise constructions, both recently completed and underway, on the Broadway/Ultimo Road/Quay Street area are likely to exacerbate the local traffic congestion and parking difficulties with which both visitors and residents are trying to cope. The existing parking problems will be accelerated by the proposed blocks of multiple apartments which are apparently having very limited parking facilities planned for them.


Yours sincerely
Greg

I object to the size and position of the new blocks, the resulting traffic problems and the shading and viewing blockout on surrounding areas. See below.

I object to the size and position of the new blocks, the resulting traffic problems and the shading and viewing blockout on surrounding areas. See below.

I attach a submission prepared by others since it echos all the issues with which I am concerned.

No good. I lose sun. I lose view. I see cement wall.

I am an affected neighbour of the proposed redevelopment of Darling Harbour South, the subject of SSD Application SSD 5878.

I object to the proposal SSD 5878 and its companion SSD 5725.

My reasons, set out in detail in the main attachment to this submission, are that the proposals will be :
less useful to the immediate neighbourhood and to the NSW community, than what they replace;
more costly to the future users and its neighbours, in money and unrequited impacts;
more costly to taxpayers in that perfectly sound facilities, currently successfully in use, will be demolished to only be less effectively replaced by new ones;
less visually attractive than presently (also a cost or detriment to those who will have to look at them every day) and those yet to come, denied the relative beauty of what is there now;
the source of serious traffic and transport impacts on the surrounding district which have been underestimated, wrongly estimated or not estimated at all in the EIS;
unaffordable in the present economic climate by a government upon which more urgent social demands press ever harder, every day - ie the money value of the outlays and deferred undertakings supported by taxation (debt, future tax increases, subsidies, guarantees etc) are needed more urgently by other individuals or groups, or elsewhere in the State.

Please see my attached submission

Attach

Letter of support attached

As owners of unit 2510, we object to the proposed development on the grounds as laid out in the attached submission

I object in accordance with the group submission

I am very concerned about traffic, loss of privacy, view and outlook.
I attach my submission

I am submitting an objection which has been composed by others. I am in thorough agreement with that objection as the proposal is development that is out of control in an area I have fond memories and stay when I visit Sydney.
The only problem I have ever had with the area is traffic around Haymarket. This is now going to be complete chaos and I shall probably have to look for hotels in another area soon.

Please see attached

09 May 2013

The Director
Karen Jones
Metropolitan & Regional Projects South
NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2000

SENT VIA WEB SITE SUBMISSION

Dear Karen Jones,

Subject: State Significant Development Application for a staged mixed use development comprising residential, commercial, retail, community and open space uses at The Haymarket (Concept Proposal) (SSD5878)


I refer to the above matter and your letter dated 25 March 2013.

As requested in your letter, outlined below is my submission for your consideration.

I object to the planned proposal on the following grounds:


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). Four 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 both exacerbating the stress on current traffic congestions (Quay St, Ultimo Road and Harris St).

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.

The above limitations, coupled with increased number of residents in the Haymarket Precinct will add further stress on traffic congestion. Frequent double parking, other illegal parking and road rage incidents are currently obstructing streets and making movements in and out of the Haymarket area, let alone our own drive-way difficult and quite frustrating at times. I can only see it getting worse with more residents in this small area.


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 imbalanced and is, in part, an inaccurate portrayal of events as recollected by the attendees at the meetings. Several issues raised in these "consultation" sessions appear to have been readily dismissed and misrepresented. These issues include:

- Overshadowing;
- Loss of views, inequitable view sharing between existing and proposed buildings;
- Reduction in property values of existing buildings (with estimated drop in property value by 10 - 20%);
- Reduced privacy due to insufficient building separation of proposed buildings;
- Pressure and questionable ability of current roads to cope with increased traffic;
- Lack of Public Transport, and ability of community services to service the increase in populations and visitors to the area;
- Reduced public and community space through the development of residential towers; and
- Depressing prospect of living in a demolition/building site for the next decade.




Based on all of the above points raised, I strongly object to the planned proposed. Further details of my objections are provided in the Appendix of this letter.




Yours respectfully,

E Liao
0427 893 081

see attached

Submission attached

Submission on behalf of 3 residents of The Peak Apartments, reason for objection see attachment.

Please attached.

This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for Darling Harbour and it's a shame we blew it. What a pity.