Glebe Island Expo

I appreciate the need for temporary exhibition for large no. of people is necessary during the reconstruction of Darling Harbour, but I do not believe this location is appropriate.
James Craig Rd intersection with City West link is an extremely bad one in terms of exiting traffic from James Craig---it already causes significant traffic blockages at that intersection which then causes major problems for vehicles attempting to enter City West from The Crescent. And this is both during week peak hours and at certain times of a weekend. To add another 1000 + vehicles to this mix will not work!
The other cocerns are
that there is no pedestrian access---
some patrons will need to be shuttled from other car parks such as temporary Cruise Ship terminal White Bay
and we know from prev. experience "temporary" = "permanent" in the language of bureaucrats/govt ( Sydney Super Yacht Marina is the perfect example)

I am writing to object to the proposed "interim" exhibition facility on Glebe Island. Concerns:

(1) Traffic

The traffic analysis is deeply flawed, as the grade of service figures used differ substantially from the similar analysis done by the CPT proposal. For example, the Victoria Rd/Robert street GoS is evaluated by this proposal as C, vs F (a more accurate assessment for anyone who lives nearby) by the CPT proposal. The competence of the traffic planners used is therefore questionable.

This development's proposal to channel additional traffic through Robert street via a new connection is an attempt to resurrect an already rejected idea. The CPT has been restricted to James Craig drive, and any attempts to put any more traffic or connections through to Robert Street will be a disaster for local traffic conditions.

Also, if this connection is put through, it is obvious that CPT traffic will also use this connection, further exacerbating existing traffic problems

(2) Parking

Assuming a modal split based on previous exhibitions at Darling Harbour is also deeply flawed. Darling Harbour has substantial public transport connections via train and bus, and much more expensive parking, encouraging the use of public transport. A more realistic assumption would consider a much greater use of private vehicles

Assuming that 8,000 people will agree to use public transport and shutle buses/ferries rather than parking in the surrounding areas and walking to the site is another deeply flawed assumption. There are few parking restrictions in the nearest streets, so many of these patrons will ignore the shuttle bus and clog surrounding streets

Conclusion:

As per previous attempts to use Glebe Island for events, it is clearly not well set up to cater for large numbers of patrons. Sydney has existing events precincts (e.g. Moore Park, Olympic Park, Roseville Racecourse) which are much better set up for scale events, and should be the first preference.

I have NEVER made an objection EVER.... So you can understand how distraught and dismayed I was to see the Glebe Island Expo Application - I understand we live close to the city and this is part of "progress". However if you are to build something that has 25 000sqm and parking for 1000 vehicles I have no idea how we will ever be able to drive out of the peninsula. It is like the government is turning this poor overcrowded, shocking infrastructure peninsula into an absolute mess. For me to drive off the peninsula is already impossible, how do you expect another 1000 cars to get into and out of the peninsula without turning this into a hellish disaster? This should absolutely NOT HAPPEN... if planning does its job, it will recognise this is a ludicrous and greedy idea with absolutely NO MERIT.PL

May I suggest that the old Glebe Island Bridge be re-opened for the duration of the Glebe Expo to allow for easy, safe access to the site for pedestrians and cyclists from Pyrmont and surrounding areas ? Thank you.

As a resident I object particularly to the building of a road joining Robert St which will add 1000's of cars to an already over capacity road system into Balmain. This is the main entry into Balmain from the city. It will undoubtedly also impact on parking in already congested Rozelle area from people who do not want to park in the parking area. There will thousands of extra people in cars on buses leaving and going to the Centre with associated noise and impact on streets adversly changing the quiet residential areas of Rozelle. The surrounding areas are not industrial or commercial areas. Then there is the building of the facility. Any noise and vibrations during the night will impact badly on the area. What controls are being put into place to prevent any of this completely changing the area of Rozelle?

I have inspected the proposal for the temporary Exhibition Centre and strongly object to this construction. As a resident of Mansfield Street and of Balmain for the past 30 years, the traffic situation in and out of Balmain has become untenable and to bring more cars in and out of the area is unthinkable. Balmain is extremely heavily populated and bringing an exhibiton centre to the area is inappropriate in a residential area. My street, Mansfield St, is one street away from Robert Street where traffic and people will be transported in and out of the area to the Exhibition Centre and as such I feel people will be trying to access the Centre and parking in all streets at or near this Centre even though a parking centre has been proposed. People still look around the area for free parking as opposed to paying and this will make the whole area extremely congested. This is the wrong place to erect a temporary Exhibiton Centre and for the above reasons I strongly object to this proposal.

I believe that the proposed Glebe Island Expo developement
would generate major traffic congestion in the adjacent 19th
century street pattern which would reverberate throughout
the entire Balmain Peninsula which even now is in virtual
gridlock at peak hours.

I would like to express my concerns over the proposed white bay exhibition space.
-this is an inappropriate site. Roberts rd is already congested by traffic which will be further exacerbated by the cruise passenger terminal. Anyone who uses the Roberts road/vict rd junction will testify that there will be times when access to the area will be almost impossible.
-no detailed assessment of traffic impacts have been made.
-impacts on local parking -parking space numbers have already been removed for the passenger terminal access road.
-there will be noise impacts on residents
-the site is inappropriate for the number and size of events
-the ferry wharf is a temporary wharf with no benefit to residents.
-reference to a temporary facility is misleading given the duration of the structures in place
-this temporary construction will be unsightly and visible from a number of places. This impacts the heritage values of the area.
-will cruise ships be denied access when events are in place since the traffic, parking and noise of these 2 combined activities will exceed what is acceptable?

I have seen the plans on exhibition along the Blackwattle Bay walk, while walking my dog and it concerns me that this proposal is a stand alone project, which will have a great impact on the entire area. I would like to see it incorporated into a whole Blackwattle Bay scheme to address the concerns of all stakeholders.This proposal will move the goalposts for many people who bought into the area and those who frequent it as visitors, tourists and locals. More consultation is definitely needed.

I object to the planned development.

in a number of public events, residents worked with authorities to develop a plan for the Bays Precinct Area.
The DA ignores the requests of all residents.
This DA is not part of a Master plan which was unanimously requested by residents.
I oppose the large carpark at White Bay. This was not part of the CPT approval and is the attempt to have more parking via the backdoor which is not acceptable for local residents. Robert Street cannot cope with additional traffic and carparking will generate noise for local residents. The carpark for the CPT already had to be reduced due to concerns of the residents. more parking at White Bay is not accceptable. There is enought space for carpark on Glebe Island in the DA shown as Dry Goods area for Sydney Ports.

To summarice my concerns:
lack of Master Plan
parking at White Bay
Noise

Balmain Precinct Submission to the Glebe Island Expo, Proposal SSD5589 2012

The Balmain Precinct objects to the proposal for the Glebe Island Expo.

The Precinct has concerns related to traffic and noise impacts upon the surrounding residential area, and in particular increased congestion on arterial and local roads. The community does not believe the potential traffic impacts on the inner-west area and the noise disturbance upon residents of the Balmain Peninsula have been adequately addressed in this proposal.
The Glebe Island Expo is an unnecessary and expensive option for the provision of a temporary venue for events while demolition and construction work takes place at Darling Harbour.
We believe this proposal is a missed opportunity to provide public benefit with public use of the harbour and its foreshores at Glebe Island.

Traffic impacts:
Victoria Road and the Anzac bridge are already badly congested, and with the advent of significant increases in population in the Balmain/Rozelle area and other inner-west areas within the next few years, traffic will likely ground to a halt. Adding more vehicles to the road system in this area will bring traffic to a complete standstill. To assume that thousands of customers and service vehicles accessing and egressing from events at the Glebe Island Expo will move without difficulty through this area is wrong. A transport study produced in 2007 does not provide the necessary accurate up-to-date information on which to base a traffic management strategy. Since 2007 traffic has increased significantly in and through the area and continues to increase.
Traffic flow difficulties will have a negative impact upon the success of events held at Glebe Island. Better traffic management is required to deal with likely congestion. Would-be patrons and exhibitors will be discouraged from participating in events at this location unless a far better plan is produced and implemented to deal with the movement of the people who would normally attend such events.
Robert St is one of only two access roads into and out of the Balmain Peninsula. Robert St is already a major `road block' in peak hours. Darling St, the alternative access road, is heavily congested near Victoria Rd, in particular during peak hours and Saturday mornings. Robert St needs to be relieved of traffic congestion by directing all traffic that is not intended for the residential or commercial area in Balmain/Rozelle onto other roads and by reducing the number of vehicles that need to access the area. Ferry services for the general public need to be increased with the installation of a public ferry terminal in White Bay with associated light rail service into White Bay.
Robert St is part of the planned access road system for the White Bay Cruise Terminal and the Baileys Maritime facility at Wharf 6. This use of local roads for port-related traffic is contrary to the Masterplan for White Bay/Glebe Island and will continue to create problems in the area. Given the traffic problems already existing and likely to increase as a result of further residential and commercial development in the Balmain/White Bay area, traffic management for the Glebe Island Expo and other ports uses needs to exclude local roads for access and egress.

Noise impacts:
The proposal is for 24/7 use of the site. The facility is to be located on the side of Glebe Island which is adjacent to the high density residential area of the Balmain peninsula. Traffic travelling to and from the events and servicing the events will create noise outside the operating hours of the events themselves. The current proposal includes a large parking area on the foreshore of the Balmain Peninsula and use of a local road (Robert St) for egress.
The noise of patrons and service persons leaving the venue late at night has not been considered. Cumulative noise levels from the venue, after travelling across the narrow waterway between Glebe Island and the Balmain/Rozelle peninsula, will be significantly greater at residences on the peninsula at White Bay.

Benefits of Glebe Island Bridge:
Restoration of the historic Glebe Island Bridge for use as a pedestrian and cycle access route for Glebe Island and White Bay would provide a very valuable alternative to vehicular access via Robert St and Victoria Rd/Anzac Bridge - already at capacity. It would also be a healthier and more attractive alternative for residents and visitors moving between the CBD and the Glebe Island/Balmain area. It would be an expensive mistake should this option not be made available to the public. The adaptive re-use of the White Bay Power station would also benefit from the availability of the attractive, historic Glebe Island Bridge as a popular, and key, access route. We ask that the Glebe Island Bridge be restored where necessary and made available for public use as soon as possible.

Cost to the public:
The cost of building and demolition of the Glebe Island Expo and associated facilities can be avoided if more thought is given to the use of alternative existing venues that continue to struggle to attract major events.
Has consideration been given to not having the Entertainment Centre and Convention and Events centres all out of operation at the same time? Can this timetable of demolition and construction be amended so that the cost of building a temporary facility on Glebe Island is avoided?

Potential public benefit missed:
The Bays Precinct Taskforce consultation process highlighted the traffic issues in the Bays area around White Bay and the strong desire for, and benefit of, providing public access to the waterfront, with provision of pedestrian pathways and cycleways along the foreshore. It also strongly supported provision of further public ferry services to ease traffic congestion and make more use of one of Sydney's greatest assets, Sydney harbour. Any new proposal for Glebe Island that is not an industrial use provides an opportunity to provide public access to the waterfront at Glebe Island and improved public ferry services to the area on a permanent basis. There is no consideration of this in the proposal.

Parking:
The main parking area servicing the Glebe Island Expo development, as proposed, is the one to be constructed next to the Cruise Terminal at White Bay for use by Cruise terminal passengers and associated vehicles. How can this be workable given that the number of Cruise ships expected to use White Bay has increased since the relocation of the Cruise Ship Terminal was announced?
Buses between the CBD and Balmain/Rozelle and other buses travelling along Victoria Rd are often full, and commuters are finding it increasingly difficult to access buses during peak hours. Use of current bus services to service the Glebe Island Expo cannot therefore be considered and any interruption or delay to services needs to be avoided.
Temporary or permanent?
Will this truly be a temporary facility? Can we be assured that the proposed Glebe Island Expo will be removed and not replaced with a more permanent structure in 2017?

Alternative locations:
Were other locations fully researched and considered for larger events? Given the traffic and noise impacts - this is a 24/7 proposal - of such a facility so close to a high-density residential area, what criteria was applied to determine that this location is the most suitable site for the Expo in the Sydney Metropolitan area? The residential area close to Glebe Island is already experiencing unreasonable noise and traffic impacts. The Environmental Impact statement has not considered the adverse health impacts arising from this particular proposal.

We ask that the Glebe Island Expo proposal be substantially amended or rejected so that intolerable traffic and noise impacts upon the surrounding area through the construction, operation and demolition of the facility will not occur. We also ask that public benefit from well-planned public access to, and use of, the harbour and its foreshores be provided at Glebe Island and White Bay.

Christina Ritchie
Chair Balmain Precinct
per Balmain Precinct

Background

Sugar Australia (and its predecessors) have been in occupation of the existing facility at Glebe Island since 1993.

Upon this site Sugar Australia has invested in excess of $100 million to convert the silos primary use from bulk wheat to bulk refined sugar storage. In addition to the onsite expenditure, significant capital was further invested in the acquisition of the food grade bulk carrier MV Pioneer to service this facility.

Refined Sugar is imported into this facility from Mackay via the MV Pioneer, which is then stored within fourteen of the thirty silos at the Glebe Island terminal. From this point bulk refined sugar is packaged and transported across Sydney and beyond to various food and beverage manufacturers. The trucks used to transport the sugar include both semi trailers and B-doubles.

Temporary Exhibition Centre at Glebe Island

Sugar Australia has the following concerns and comments on the proposal to construct a temporary exhibition centre at Glebe Island.

The precinct is currently predominantly used for industrial purposes with significant numbers of truck movements per day. The introduction of the convention centre will bring a substantial number of the general public into the area. This presents additional pedestrian safety risks. There will need to be strong additional controls around managing pedestrian access to areas on Glebe Island other than the convention centre.

Security and safety for employees and the public especially at night is also a concern with a lot more people who are potentially affected by alcohol in the area and interacting with a nearby 24 hour industrial sites. Pedestrian control measures will need to control pedestrian movements so they are unable to access the industrial sites and the wharf areas.

While parking is planned for the general public which will be coming to the convention centre, there will be a tendency for people to attempt to avoid parking costs or park closer to the Convention Centre and so park in parking bays which are allocated to Sugar Australia employees. The Sugar Australia parking bays will need to be in some way protected for use by Sugar Australia employees.

Traffic congestion on Glebe Island is of significant concern to Sugar Australia. Road traffic will significantly increase with the introduction of the overseas cruise ship passenger terminal. The introduction of the convention centre will add further to the traffic. The intersection of James Craig Road and The Crescent will become a bottleneck for entering and leaving the precinct under the current proposal to maintain the current phasing of the traffic lights. Sugar Australia strongly supports the proposed route for traffic to exit the precinct via Roberts Road as this will ease congestion on the James Craig Road / The Crescent intersection.

Sugar Australia support the construction of a new access road into the precinct which is designed with proposed and future traffic requirements in mind.


Yours faithfully,
Ray Clarke
Operations Manager - NSW, Croydon and Depots.

My main concerns are with respect to the proposed traffic management strategy, light and noise pollution, and the restricted ferry service .
1. The traffic study described in the Traffic Management Strategy was based on real traffic measurement data taken on just one week day and one weekend day. This limited data cannot deliver reliable results. As a frequent user of these roads I believe the peak traffic data described is not representative of the daily traffic congestion. The peak time periods identified certainly do not correlate with what I experience as a local resident. We note the date the data was captured was Thursday 20th September, interestingly many schools were already on school holidays at that time. Due to the limited data used, we believe the current traffic management strategy is seriously flawed and its results misleading. It does not present a fair and accurate position on the traffic impact of this proposed project. In particular the egress to Robert's Road is a major concern and will cause us local residents' very long delays in accessing Victoria Rd via Mullens St and Robert's Rd.

2. Our home overlooks the proposed project site and we are concerned that excessive high powered lighting will impact us. We already receive significant light pollution from the existing White Bay light towers and believe this project will significantly contribute to an increase in light pollution for our home and the area. Similarly we are very concerned about the potential noise impact from the project should it become operational. The Noise Impact study contained in the application and is very technical. We found it difficult to interpret the results. We would appreciate a `plain english' translation that someone who is not trained in acoustics can understand.

3. The proposed Traffic Management Strategy describes the Ferry services for the proposed project as restricted to event attendees only. This Private service could also benefit local residents in a big way. The strategy should also consider allowing pedestrian access to the site and making the private ferry services available to the general public. It would be a potential value add from the project for the local community.

Please do not include any of my personal details on the web site. Thank you
4 Dugald Rd
MOSMAN 2088
14 December 2012

Major Projects Assessment
Department of Planning and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY 2001

Re : Glebe Island Expo , Glebe island and White Bay
I am the owner of unit 27/13-17 Stewart St Glebe and make the following comments about the Impact Assessment, prepared by APP Corporation that was recently for the above proposal.
* Need to redefine Community to include Glebe Point Residents
Page 2 of Appendix B , community consultation strategy defines community but does not include the residents of Glebe Point. This is inconsistent with the aim outlined on page 3 that engagement activities must target appropriate communities.
Should the proposal proceed it is essential that the definition of community in the Impact Statement is amended to include the substantial residential community of Glebe Point. Please ensure that all future community engagement during construction and operation phases includes this community and include this within any conditions of consent.
It is noted that in the acoustic report the consultants SLR Consulting Australia included a noise logger at 53 Leichhardt St Glebe. This site is in close proximity to my unit at Glebe. The acoustic report and the final Impact Statement include all results from this site as part of the acoustic assessment. While the acoustic consultants recognised Glebe Point as a legitimate affected community
* Event Management Notification /process
The residents of Glebe should be advised in the same way as residents in Annandale Balmain and Pyrmont so they are aware of what is proposed. Would consider Glebe residents more impacted than Annandale resident s
* Cumulative noise impact
PAC has recently granted consent to the land based uses for the Rozelle Bay marina. The noise impact of this development has the potential to impact the Glebe Point community significantly and as a consequence the cumulative impact of the subject development is even more critical for Glebe Point residents. Tis is another resoan to consider Glebe Point residents throughout construction and operations of the Glebe Island Expo.
* Noise from music- operational monitoring
Although there are to be no concerts in this development it would seem that functions will have music etc. Times for such music need to be restricted and a condition of consent should require noise monitoring of all music uses. Outcomes of monitoring should be on the web site within 24 hours of an event. The communities should be advised of any use where music is to be included. Ways to access the results of noise monitoring should be widey and clearly circulated to all communities and include the Glebe Point communities. This information should be available as soon as site works begin. The consent should include conditions relating to this.
* Ways to provide feedback and complaints handling
Include the Glebe Point community with information about complaints handling process and clear contact information for complaints, suggestions /ideas throughout the construction and operations of the proposal. This advice should also be provided as soon as site works begin and a requirement for this process should be included within the conditions of consent.
* Protection from light spill
At present my unit is well lit by current lighting regime on the site. Any proposed increase in lighting which the Impact assessment does suggest, could create significant adverse impact. All lighting should be designed and installed to eliminate any spill.
* Material to construct centre- need for noise mitigation/attenuation and monitoring
PVC coated canopy is a light weight construction material. Its effectiveness to protect the many affected communities from adverse noise impact should be monitored and the proponent consider how it might mitigate the impact with noise buffers/ additional materials within the centre. Again noise monitoring, and reporting of monitoring, should be undertaken throughout operations and the proponent be required to provide additional noise buffer should the use not comply.
* Must be an interim use
The conditions of consent must include a sunset clause. Long term use of this site with a flimsy construction is unacceptable in the longer term. It will be hard enough to live with in the short term but any longer time cannot be justified. As soon as the new centre is completed operations on the Glebe Island site should cease and the site dismantled.
* Traffic Management/ Impact on Glebe-rat run etc
Any traffic problems that may arise from the intensification of use of the site and those impacts on the ANZAC bridge will have a flow on affect in Glebe. Motorists will avoid the bridge and use rat runs through Glebe. The operator should have a protocol and a system for ensuring that when Police are alerted to any problem on the ANZAC bridge they are also alerted to the likely flow on impacts in Glebe. A condition of consent should be to require police and operator and any other relevant party to develop both a communication protocol and a traffic management plan for Glebe to protect the safety and amenity of Glebe residents.

Rosemary Adams
14 December 2012

Submission on Glebe Island Expo DA

We do not intend to oppose this development on condition that it is, indeed, temporary and does not set a precedent for future use of the site. The longer term planning for Glebe Island must be conducted as part of a longer term, integrated planning project for the whole of the Bays Precinct - guided by planning principles outlined in the report of the Bays Precinct Community Liaison Committee. We do wish to ask for some changes, as follows:

Notifications - Recommendation - Residents in Pyrmont (Refinery Drive, Pirrama Road, Bowman Street, Bank Street) be notified of Event Management Plans to enable them to make comments to the assessors.

Noise - We note that functions may be held on the premises (which do not have adequate sound-proofing qualities) up to 12 midnight, and that amplified music may be permitted (up to 80dbA). It is the experience of residents who live opposite Glebe Island, that noise carries strongly across the water. We experienced that with the (failed) New Year concert held in 2011, but accepted that NY Eve was a one-off and could be tolerated on New Year's Eve as this is a festive evening across the City. We further note that midnight closing means that it is at least 1pm before all patrons and staff depart.

Recommendation: that amplified music must NOT be permitted; that functions must be completed by 11pm.

We note that operations of the Expo allow for 24 hour access to trucks etc. Trucks, and associated forklifts, etc. generate very irritating noise when backing

Recommendation: that the use of vehicles which emit loud beeping be restricted to normal building construction hours and not be permitted to operate when people normally sleep (10pm to 7am)

Light Pollution - We note that it is proposed to use the existing Ports lights on the site. We further note that these do not comply with current lighting regulations relating to light spillage. Residents were successful in arranging for Ports to turn off these very powerful lights when not required. This is a huge improvement, as the glare from the lights was high impact.

Recommendation: If the Ports lights are to be used at night, modifications be carried out to ensure that light spillage is reduced to permissible levels and are turned off when functions have finished.

Visual Impact - We note that planter boxes are to be installed along the SE boundary of the site. We ask that planter boxes also be installed along the SW boundary to reduce the negative visual impact of the services side of the development visible from Pyrmont

Recommendation: Planter boxes to be installed along the SW boundary of the site.

Signage - The proposed illuminated signage will have maximum impact on Pyrmont residents. We appreciate that some advertising is necessary but ask that the illumination be switched off after 10pm when the patrons will already have arrived. We also ask that the dimensions of the signs be reduced.

Recommendation: Illuminated signs be switched off after 10pm; size of signs to be reduced

Traffic - We note that there will be some impact on main road traffic flows due to the increase in green light time on side roads. Pyrmont has become a peak hour "rat run" in recent years and some evenings it is almost impossible for local residents to leave their suburb. Bank Street is a particularly bad bottleneck in both directions as four lanes pinch to two in a short section just near the Fish Markets lights. Any small change up (or down) stream will inevitably have an impact on roads feeding into the main road system. Noting that there will be times when traffic associated with the Expo coincides with CPT events or cruise ship operations we ask that the amount of parking be reduced to discourage Expo patrons from using their cars. The Government must ensure that there is sufficient fast and convenient public transport to and from the Expo site, and the CPT. The cumulative impact on traffic of both operations, especially on Balmain/Rozelle residents will be very high.

Recommendation: Reduce the amount of parking provided and ensure adequate public transport by road and water is provided to the Expo site and the CPT to reduce traffic impacts on adjoining suburbs.

Ferry Service - It should be noted that the waters of Johnston Bay and White Bay are heavily used by rowers and dragon boaters, especially in the early mornings and at weekends. The hours of operation of the ferry service should be negotiated with the clubs which may be affected. We also strongly recommend that when the temporary ferry terminal is no longer required for Glebe Island, it be moved to White Bay to serve the CPT and the local Balmain community, and the ferry service be extended to Pyrmont Point and, possibly the Fish Markets.

Recommendation: Negotiate hours of operation with rowing and dragon boat clubs to ensure they can continue to undertake training in safety. Relocate the ferry terminal to White Bay on completion of the Expo and extend the ferry service.

Communication: It is noted that a Glebe Island Expo Working Group is to be established.

Recommendation: that the Working Group include representatives from Balmain and Pyrmont communities.

The Traffic Management Strategy is optimistic its reliance on public transport and shuttle buses, and in its assessment of the impact on the two major intersections. The frustration felt by visitors will be a severe disincentive to patronise the facility.

Without some creative use of the Glebe Island bridge I suspect that we have a White Elephant in the making.

I support the development of an under utilised Goverment asset however some issues need to be addressed to mitigate the impact:
The noise assessment ignores any potential impact to residents on Lilyfield Road. This impact is continually ignored in developments on Glebe Island and White Bay yet the developments continue to ingress the numbers of trucks and busses that utulise the intersection of James Craig Road and the City West Link. Both trucks and busses significantly increase the traffic noise when using this intersection due to high braking and accelleration noise. This has not been considered in the proposal and has a cumulative impact from previous approved developments including the new passenger terminal at White Bay. The Glebe Island & White Bay Master Plan requires a noise wall to be constructed to mitigate this issue yet nothing has been done. In fact the noise mitigation has been reduced due to the illegal demolition of structures along the City West Link by Sydney Ports orporations. This needs to be addressed.
The proposed temporary facility has a minimal link to the water. The facility will be unattractive to people travelling to the site with no/limited external area. Who wants to travel to a waterfront site only to be corralled into an oversized tin shed. How can the boat show be contemplated for this site? Open up more of the quay front and stop Sydney Ports pig headed land grab for the site.
Getting to the site is difficult, you need to look at improving pedestrian access either via a walkway from the existing bus stops on Victoris Road or even temporary raise/lower gangways that can reinstate the pedestrian link between Glebe Island and Glebe. This is a simply link that maintains the existing heritage bridge and navigational use without the large costs of restoring the bridge.
Thank-you

We consider the main issues with this proposed temporary use of Glebe Island as an exhibition centre as being possible noise generated but certainly that of traffic congestion at the main access /egress intersections of James Craig Rd with City West Link (thus creating significant delays for Annandale--and adjacent southern suburbs--from entering the CWL) and Roberts/Buchannan /Mullins Streets + Victoria Rd intersections.
This will definitely be the case in peak hours--esp a.m---as such "jams already exist, they will just be made significantly worse.
The most efficient way of moving people in and out of this site is obviously that of using the existing Glebe Island Bridge. This should be a significant part of approval.
We acknowledge the need, for financial reasons to the state