Harbourside Shopping Centre Redevelopment - Modification 3 - amend the tower height and podium

In terms of Sydney Airport's protected airspace, this project was first assessed & approved by the Federal Government in 2017 to a maximum height of 166.3m AHD.
The proposed development was reduced in height to 153.7m AHD in 2020. At the time we advised that the Federal aagovernment approval was still valid.
Now in 2023, the proposal has grown to a new height of 170m AHD.
At this increased height, the proposed development would be subject to assessment and a determination made by the Federal Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts.
Please advise if you wish the assessment process to proceed.

Excessively high trees do not provide shade to the ground area immediately below to the garden users and are not human scaled or appropriate to a rooftop garden

· Tree height exceeding the envelope, will cause further view loss ODH residents without providing the benefit of providing shade to users of the park immediately below them


· Tree height will further overshadow the public domain, particularly the harbour domain/foreshore, and

· will further reduce solar access for ODH residents.


image.png
2. The soil mounding is a problem because Waterfront Garden is now 50% hard paving 50% high trees and you can't walk between the trees due to the soil mounding. The orange is where the hard paving is. Object by saying

· The structure of the open space is no more than a site link through mounded soil.

· There is no opportunity for event gathering capacity for families as there is little open space to sit and the public cannot sit beneath the trees or walk between the trees and there is loss of 50% of the public amenity. We already lost the area where the Ferris wheel is and the Event steps have been removed and the proposed steps where performers supposedly can perform is in a high traffic area site link area.

· The proposed mounding over the complying RL12.5 will raise the RL by up to 1.5m for up to half the 3,500sqm reducing open space meaning children, people in a wheelchair or anyone around 150cm tall will not be able enjoy line of sight to the water

· Dangerous for children to be able to jump off mounding areas on to hard paving and can easily lose line of sight of children as they run behind soil mounded landscaping

· Giba park is a perfect example of what Waterfront Garden should be modelled after, lots of flat grass, open space where dogs and children can run around easily, the entire area is open but has trees providing shade that you can sit beneath (prefer shorter trees) and no matter your height, you can enjoy the waterview



image.png

3. They want to change the wording of the IPC approval to remove the words 'publicly accessible' from the Northern (Waterfront Garden) and Central podium. Object by saying:
· I object to the proposed elimination of the requirement that the open space above the Northern and Central podium be ‘publicly accessible’.

· The purpose of Waterfront Garden and allowing the building of such a tall residential tower on publicly owned land was conditional on significant public space being retained and to improve public amenity.

· This is an unacceptable encroachment on the IPC requirements and intention of improving public amenity.



image.png

Dear Officer,

I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed modifications of SSD-7874-Mod-3 & SSD-49295711, particularly the second section that seeks to change the terms of approval for the Northern Podium with six sub-points. I disagree with all six sub-points.

The conditions of consent are crucial and must be followed, including providing a minimum of 3,500m2 of public open space on the northern podium with a maximum height of RL 12.5. This is to ensure views are maintained and the Heritage Pyrmont Bridge remains a dominant structure in the landscape. I was content with the 3,500sqm open space on the northern podium with a maximum height of RL 12.5. The envelope should not be expanded and tree height should be capped at 5 metres to ensure that the shade provided is human scaled.

Also the Tower Height is already too tall and allowing additional height will further overshadown darling harbour's public domain. I object to this.

The proposed modifications seek to extend the building envelope far beyond the approved height and bulk. The maximum height of RL 12.5 cannot be exceeded, whether it is through construction, soil mounding, air conditioning units, or anything else for any purpose. The community's wishes and the planning department's conditions cannot be disregarded. Overdevelopment is not welcome, and the amenity should reflect the people's needs and respect the cultural heritage of the area.

I feel it is essential that we consider the potential risks associated with large trees in a dense residential area. I am not comfortable with the idea of having large trees in our community, as the possibility of branches falling or the entire tree toppling over could put members of the community at risk of injury. It is important to ensure that our community is safe for everyone. Large trees also obstruct solar access for neighbouring buildings and this expansion beyond the envelope is not considerate of surrounding buildings.

Moreover, I am also worried about the reduction of public amenity. The garden is already quite small, and restricting access to 50% of the landscaping area will make it difficult for the public to access the entire Waterfront garden area, and the entertainers will not have enough space for crowds to watch them perform, which is a key attraction of Darling Harbour.

Lastly, the design of the garden at the back for private gatherings is not suitable for our community. As a public area, everything should be open to reduce the opportunity for criminal incidents. We need to ensure that all areas are safe and secure for everyone to enjoy.

In conclusion, I urge you to reconsider the proposed plan and prioritize the safety and well-being of our community. The community's wishes and the planning department's conditions must be respected, and overdevelopment is not welcome. Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns.

Best Regards
Constantine Ponus

I’m objecting to the changes requested in MOD 7874 as they relate to the soil mounding and tree canopy exceeding the building envelope.

I’ve spent a lot of time making submissions, attending consultations and reading the IPC findings along with many members of the community. Whilst I was not happy with a contiguous 3,500sqm open space on the northern podium with a height of RL 12.5, I accepted it as a compromise. The Commissioner told us she would insist on absolute limits on the maximum finished height level of the public open space above the northern podium to ensure an appropriate outcome was achieved. Now I find that with the use of ‘mounding’, the proposed finished level will be 1.5m (+ trees) above what was approved by IPC.

It is shameful that the Applicant would now apply to change what the community spent so much time in agreeing too.

The Applicant has ignored all the effort the community has put in to achieve the original outcome and now want to change the finished level of the deck by adding some 1.5m and in doing so destroying the public benefits promised to the community.

The proposed open space area will be raised mounds of dirt or concrete walking paths. No amenity at all. You will not be able to see any of the many events in the harbour. It will also block out Pyrmont Bridge.

Being elderly, I would not feel safe walking around at night. As a light sleeper, noise generated by revellers in the early hours of would not be endearing, not to mention the stench of urine from patrons of Darling Harbour bars.

The large number of trees proposed would obstruct solar access and make the space feel cold and enclosed. Low shrubs & the planting of ‘annuals’ are the preferred option. Larger trees will create root growth which will penetrate the proposed rooftop of the podium.

Any increase in the finished deck level will impact the views of One Darling Harbour residents. The Commissioner visited our apartments and made an assessment on what was fair and reasonable for view sharing. The Applicant draws some diagrams and says it is minimal impacts but did not consult any residents in ‘One Darling Harbour’.

Mark Constantine
Resident of One Darling Harbour

OBJECTION TO MODIFICATION OF SSD-7874-Mod-3

A. Awnings sitting outside building envelope on ground level along the waterfront promenade

I object to the ground floor awnings for the ground floor retail tenancies to be 5m deep. This will reduce significantly the publicly available space of 20m wide on the waterfront. The remaining public space would not have room for any landscape. It does not have any buffer for additional human traffic flow for festivities post-Covid and for mid/long term population and tourism growth, plus the post-Pyrmont metro station completion right near the Pyrmont Bridge.


B. Lack of open space available for public events on the waterfront promenade

There is no open space available for Ferris wheel or street performers on the waterfront promenade as previously possible in front of Harbourside Shopping Centre. The proposed modification by Mirvac seeks to cover off most of the Bunn Street Connection and having total separation from the Events Stairs. The result will make Bunn Street Connection no more than a narrow covered retail tunnel, and the proposed Events Stairs is also narrow with much reduced sitting space on the steps for the public compared to the original design. The open space in front of the Events Stairs has been significantly reduced. The room to cater for any performers along the waterfront promenade has been permanently lost. This is a major failure of the proposed modification.


C. 1.5m Soil Mounding within the Open Space of Northern Podium (Waterfront Garden)

I object to the soil mounding/planter box of the 1.5m above the condition RL 12.5m for the finished deck level in the northern podium. A finished deck height should include no structure, soil or protrusions. Adding 1.5m of soil increases the RL of the deck height to RL 14.0m.

The reasons for my objections are:
1. Overshadowing of the public domain, particularly the public foreshore area and view sharing, with neighbouring developments were significant concerns raised in submissions during public meetings and in written submissions. The mounding beyond the finished RL 12.5m together with the intending tree planting (up to 12m) will cause FURTHER overshadow the public domain, particularly the harbour domain, and FURTHER reduced solar access in the garden.

2. With 1.5m of soil mounding in the garden, it does not deliver a safe and activity space.
-Adults/supervisors of children will not have line of sight of children who are using the open space as intended.

-Usability of various groups optimising the Harbourside views will be significantly reduced with soil mounding/planter boxes. Open space should be maximised for families activities and to view water based events in the harbour. Soil mounding will greatly limit such amenity particularly for children.

-People using the park at night will not feel safe walking through a mounded landscaping with dark corners. Tree canopies will further reduce amenities, overshadow the public domain, will make the open space dark at night and unsafe for anyone wanting to use the space at night.

I am a frequent visitor/tourist to One Darling Harbour.
I am writing to object to the proposed amendments/modifications to the proposed shopping centre and tower at Cockle Bay.
The original application was debated intensely and decisions were agreed upon for the new structure ie, the height of the Northern end to be no greater than 12.5 meters and with open spaces for public used for gatherings.
The original stepped system in and around the Bay was designed for the feeling of openness with local breeze and sunshine in abundance.
Darling Harbour was bequeathed to the public of Sydney as their playground to be enjoyed by locals and tourists.
The new amendments change the already agreed on design after extensive compromise by the public to Mervac request.
My opinion is that the arrogance of Mervac construction company with their bullying tactics and disregard to proper process beheld accountable. In fact I am suggesting the height of the complex to be lessened to say 10 meters not given rise to futher height allowances.
Also I believe the 25 metre trees are way too high and could possibly be a danger to the public as they require deep soil to hold their footing.
Yours sincerely
G V Taylor

No. Just no. There is no community or societal benefit to Mirvac's latest requests. If approved, they will be to the detriment of may people - both in the local area and beyond. Mirvac has already been given an ample area/envelope to build, and anything more is sheer greed, without any concern for the people of Sydney and the millions of visitors to Darling Harbour. The Independent Planning Commission make an astute and accurate judgement of the redevelopment and it should stand. It is grossly unfair to the community to have its amenities further eroded because Mirvac wants to make more money without any corresponding benefit to Darling Harbour and the millions who enjoy it. It remains public land and this should be first and foremost in the mind of all planning authorities. So, NO.

I object to all proposed submissions made by the Applicant Mirvac in regard to Northern and Central Podium. There should be no elimination of the open space requirement as to public accessibility - it is public space to be used by the public with free and generous passageway. There is no public benefit provided in doing otherwise .

The modifications to the approved development all fail to adequately address why they are required other than there is a material benefit to the developer. How the changes will impact the amenity we currently have is extremely hard to access given the paucity of the detail in their proposal and the fact that the outcome of the proposed changes will not be known until the DA for the public domain is presented sometime in the future.
Mod 3 should therefore be rejected in its entirety. Maybe the increase in the tower height can be approved, although it has been accomplished by a sleight of hand

I am a resident of ODH and I object to the proposed modifications to the Harbourside redevelopment for the following reasons:

- The envelope should remain the same as the intended tree height of greater than 12m is excessive and poses a risk on stormy weather
- the tree height will be contrary to view sharing with ODH residents
- the tree height will reduce sunshine to ODH residents
- like to be able to sit directly on grass under the tree and enjoy the shade to enjoy the park with my family but the soil mount will hinder this
- Half of the park is not trafficable due to landscape design which will block me and family from safely enjoying the park (trip hazards, reduced access with a reduced traffic area)
- the park is not user friendly because of the 1.5m soil mounding which creates unsafe spaces where people are hidden from view which creates an environment that could possibly encourage aggressive behaviour such as theft or assault especially in the evening and night
- the event steps are an important amenity to allow the public to enjoy the entertainers that are a major attraction of Darling Harbour, removing event steps and the limited nature of the garden design (50% not trafficable) reduces the public amenity of the area.
- the tower height is already excessive and should not be allowed to increase further as it will additionally shade the foreshore and further dominate the heritage bridge.

The maximum height of 12.5m should be the absolute height with not additional podium height to exceed this.

I do not agree with any changes without having prior public consultation.
We all made our comments about this development over a 5-year period. For the developers to now want further changes to enhance their profit margin at the expense of visitors and residents is certainly not in the best interest of the public.
All walkways for foot traffic should not be reduced in any way.

I am a resident of ODH and I object to the proposed modifications to the Harbourside redevelopment for the following reasons:
> First and foremost this proposal is a typical corporate giant working around, grinding down and tiring individuals to get what they want. It is very difficult for individuals to keep up with this constant and progressive pressure by corporate that have special teams to do this day in and day out. Also having only days to response is definitely a ploy to reduced the number of individual objections in order to get their way to the detriment of impacted parties.
> The envelope should remain the same. Any trees, awnings or structures should be design to stay within this agreed envelope as a comprehensive engagement process was followed and some concession was also provided. Now more concessions are being requested but without the proper opportunity for impacted parties to be able to access and response to.
> The intended tree height of greater than 12m is excessive. The size and height of proposed trees is huge to be on top of a building structure if is not incorporate into the design of the building structure properly.
> The tree height will be contrary to view sharing with ODH residents. Trees
> The tree height will reduce sunshine to ODH residents
> The soils mounts for the trees will reduced the percentage of useable public space.
> A large portion of the park will not be accessible to foot and wheel chair traffic due to landscape design.
> The park will not be user friendly because of the 1.5m soil mounding and landscaping structures which creates spaces where people are hidden from view which creates an environment that could possibly encourage aggressive behaviour such as theft or assault.
> The proposed awnings on level 6 will impact views enjoyment from ODH. Also this will be taking away public space and making them for retail which will benefit the corporate due to increase retail space.
> The event steps are an important amenity to allow the public to enjoy the entertainers that are a major attraction of Darling Harbour. Removing event steps and the limited nature of the garden design with reduced accessibility will reduces the public amenity of the area for all to enjoy.
> The tower height is already excessive and should not be allowed to increase further as it will additionally shade the foreshore and further dominate the heritage bridge. This is just a wonton effort to gradually push for more benefits for the corporation. What will they ask for next if they are allowed to keep increasing their demand.

I am writing to express my concern about the proposed tree size that expanding the envelope will allow. As a resident in the local area, I feel it is important to consider the safety of the community as well as the aesthetic value of our surroundings.

I am not in favor of having large trees in a dense residential area, as it may pose a safety risk to the public. The potential of branches dropping or the entire tree toppling over can be a cause for concern, especially in an area where many people reside.

Furthermore, I feel that reducing the area for public amenity is not desirable. The garden is already small, and restricting access to 50% of the landscaping area is a waste of public space. Entertainers need more space to gather, and reducing the area available will make it difficult to hold large crowds.

In addition, I would like to sit and walk under the trees while enjoying the beautiful harbor views. Unfortunately, the 1.5 soil mounds block the view and restrict my ability to enjoy the natural surroundings. It is crucial that we preserve the natural beauty of our surroundings while ensuring public safety.

Lastly, I do not feel safe where the back of the garden is designed for private gatherings. This is a public area, and everything should be open for all to enjoy. We need to ensure that everyone feels safe and comfortable in their surroundings.

I urge you to reconsider the proposed plan and consider the safety of the community, the need for public amenity, and the preservation of our natural surroundings.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely
Lawrenza Lee

I object to the changes requested in MOD 7874 as they relate to the soil mounding and tree canopy exceeding the building envelope.

I attended consultations and read the Commission findings along with many members of the community. I was happy with the compromise for a contiguous 3,500 sqm open space on the northern podium with a height of RL 12.5. It would allow good amenities while allowing view sharing from my apartment at One Darling Harbour. The Commissioner told us it would insist on absolute limits on the maximum finished height level of the public open space above the northern podium to ensure an appropriate outcome was achieved. Absolute limits did not include adding 1.5m of soil onto the finished level.

It is shameful that the Applicant would now apply to change what the community spent so much time agreeing to.

The Applicant has ignored all the effort the community has put in to achieve the actual outcome and now wants to change the finished level of the deck by some 1.5m. In doing so destroying the public benefits promised the community of 3,500 sqm of open space.

The open space area is now just raised mounds of dirt or concrete walking paths. No amenity at all. You will not be able to see any of the many events in the harbour. It will block out the Pyrmont Bridge.

I have nieces and nephews who I take for walks. It would be unsafe to take them through this so-called open space.

The large number of trees proposed would obstruct solar access and make the space feel cold and enclosed.

Any increase in the finished deck level will impact the views of One Darling Harbour residents. The Commissioner visited our apartments and made an assessment of what was fair and reasonable for view sharing. The Applicant draws some diagrams and says it is minimal impacts. They did not consult any of our residents.

Also, I was told at the meeting that access to the building would be via bun street. I believe if this is the case that the current old monorail walkway should be demolished as people would walk left from the bun street access and create more noise for residents like myself who lives in front of the walkway straight onto the newly created park and this would be unbearable all through the night and day.
This is why I believe removing the old monorail walkway over darling drive is a better option for all including the residents of One Darling Harbour to avoid further traffic noise to the Park.

Mr John Stojkovic
A resident of One Darling Harbour

I own two apartments in One Darling Harbour and I object to MOD 3 SSD 7874 and SSD 49295711 in relation to exceeding the finished deck level of the Northern Podium higher than RL12.5 by mounding soil on a significant part of the 3,500sqmpublic open space. The mounding of soil will obstruct views from One Darling Harbour apartments, obstruct the views to the Pyrmont Bridge obstruct views for families wanting to watch the many activities on the Harbour, and destroys the amenity of the open space. The Open Space looks no more than mounds of dirt and concrete to walk on. Surely this is not an 'amenity". The Commissoner told us setting absolute limits on the maximum finished level of the public open space above the Nothern Podium would ensure appropriate outcome. The Applicant both wants to break the finished deck level limit and provide for an inappropriate outcome. What happened to the vision painted by the Commision? Our community at One Darling Harbour spent a lot of time making submissions to achieve the Conditions for the Project and we do not understand how we cannot be respected. There must be an outcome that we can once again agree on. Why do we need all the trees and why are the majority on the Northern Podium and none on the much larger Southern Podium Surely, we can have lower planting to provide some landscaping and any trees can be place within the structure of the podium as required by the Conditions and not heaped up all over the podium.
I also object to the tree canopy exceeding the Building Envelope of the Northern Podium. This is mainly near the Pyrmont Bridge and trees should not be planted here as it obstructs the views to the Bridge. By not using soil mounds on the Northern Podium and smaller shrubs the Applicant can meet the Condition to be within the Building envelope

I object to the proposed changers put forward by Mirvac, Shohetta and Hassells.
These organisation are sophisticated and should accept the building envelope as set by the umpire.
I am certain they have enough talented people to be able to design an outstanding building withing the set envelope.
The forest proposed for the northern podium will be a detriment to people getting to the waterside and Harbour views.
I am surprised at this proposal as in the early consultation process a senior Mirvac executive confided that the main failure of the old Harbourside Shopping Centre was a poor entrance from the bridge, had no visual stimulation enticing the public to go in and shop, eat and enjoy the space.
Return to the IPC ruling.

OBJECTION TO MODIFICATION OF SSD-7874-Mod-3

A. Awnings sitting outside building envelope on ground level along the waterfront promenade

I object to the ground floor awnings for the ground floor retail tenancies to be 5m deep. This will reduce significantly the publicly available space of 20m wide on the waterfront. The remaining public space would not have room for any landscape. It does not have any buffer for additional human traffic flow for festivities post-Covid and for mid/long term population and tourism growth, plus the post-Pyrmont metro station completion right near the Pyrmont Bridge.



B. Lack of open space available for public events on the waterfront promenade

There is no open space available for Ferris wheel or street performers on the waterfront promenade as previously possible in front of Harbourside Shopping Centre. The proposed modification by Mirvac seeks to cover off most of the Bunn Street Connection and having total separation from the Events Stairs. The result will make Bunn Street Connection no more than a narrow covered retail tunnel, and the proposed Events Stairs is also narrow with much reduced sitting space on the steps for the public compared to the original design. The open space in front of the Events Stairs has been significantly reduced. The room to cater for any performers along the waterfront promenade has been permanently lost. This is a major failure of the proposed modification.



C. 1.5m Soil Mounding within the Open Space of Northern Podium (Waterfront Garden)

I object to the soil mounding/planter box of the 1.5m above the condition RL 12.5m for the finished deck level in the northern podium. A finished deck height should include no structure, soil or protrusions. Adding 1.5m of soil increases the RL of the deck height to RL 14.0m.

The reasons for my objections are:
1. Overshadowing of the public domain, particularly the public foreshore area and view sharing, with neighbouring developments were significant concerns raised in submissions during public meetings and in written submissions. The mounding beyond the finished RL 12.5m together with the intending tree planting (up to 12m) will cause FURTHER overshadow the public domain, particularly the harbour domain, and FURTHER reduced solar access in the garden.

2. With 1.5m of soil mounding in the garden, it does not deliver a safe and activity space.
-Adults/supervisors of children will not have line of sight of children who are using the open space as intended.

-Usability of various groups optimising the Harbourside views will be significantly reduced with soil mounding/planter boxes. Open space should be maximised for families activities and to view water based events in the harbour. Soil mounding will greatly limit such amenity particularly for children.

-People using the park at night will not feel safe walking through a mounded landscaping with dark corners. Tree canopies will further reduce amenities, overshadow the public domain, will make the open space dark at night and unsafe for anyone wanting to use the space at night.