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

My Objection to Modification of SDD 49295711
A. Soil Mounding within the Open Space of Northern Podium (Waterfront Garden) as the soil mound will be greater than the previous condition of RL 12.5 and increase to RL 14 on the podium/deck to the north. I object because the increase will effect the view sharing and include shadowing of the foreshore which is public domian impacting both visitors and residents. There has been significant consultaion and the agreed/ approved mound height addressed concerns. The new height does not and will impact residents of One Darling Harbour as the canopy of trees/plantings will also reduce views particualry historical views of the bridge, it will also impact the public domian in terms of increased shadowing and less sunshine and also the harbour itself. I also object to the design which does not consider safety of children or people after dark. The mouldings are not supportive of line of sight which impacts safety after dark and the use of the space for physical play/ sport and the supervision required for young families to be comfortable.

Mirvac has been through the process and were given clear guidelines and reasons as to the 12.5RL height for the Northern Podium.
"The Commission considers that the conditions of consent provided the Applicant enough scope to find design solutions to avoid, mitigate and minimise identified impacts without compromising the benefits of the project" and "In some instances the Commission found it necessary to impose absolute limits in order to ensure an appropriate outcome is achieved such as a specifying the minimum setback from Pyrmont Bridge and the MAXIMUM FINISHED DECK LEVEL Height of the public open space above the northern podium." This podium is meant to be open space for all to enjoy the views, for families to gather and a place for active recreation including the exercising of dogs. For Mirvac to suggest taking most of the soft ground as tree mounds beggars believe. The immediate issue is that families will lose sight of any child under 150cm, the minimum height of soil required for tall trees. There is no justification for this change.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I object to the proposed changes MOD SSD 49295711

As a regular visitor with my grandchildren to Darling Harbour particularly to watch water based events, I object to this alteration of the previous compromise, which I understood would create a 3500sqm level space for families to gather on the northern podium.

This area will be compromised by any moulding of soil, blocking the views of the events in Cockle Bay and Darling Harbour, as well as hindering my ability to keep an eye on my grandchildren.

Please leave this area to be a level grassy place to be enjoyed for all.

Yours faithfully

Marta Samsa

Dear Sir/Madam,

I object to the amendments proposal by Mirvac re Harbourside, particularly with regard to soil mounding and bigger trees on the northern podium.

I often visit Darling Harbour with my young family as it is a place for everyone to enjoy and I was happy to learn that there was going to be a roof top garden with grass where we could sit and enjoy the views.

I have heard that Mirvac are proposing to make soil mounds instead of flat areas, so this will make sitting more difficult and obstruct the views of the events especially for my little ones.

Roof top gardens do not need huge trees, they just need trees that have a low wide spread to create some shade, and the must never be the danger to the public for a large tree to fall over in strong winds.

Please note my above objections

Yours faithfully

E. Samsa

Dear Sir/Madam,

OBJECTION

As a regular visitor to Darling Harbour, I am writing to object to MOD at SSD 492 95711.

I was interested to learn of the compromised approved plans for the development at Harbourside to include an area of open roof top garden. I am disappointed to learn that Mirvac now propose to mound earth in the area blocking the open space and then planting huge trees totally unsuitable for a roof top garden.

These soil mounds and large trees will restrict my ability to keep an eye on my young cousins playing, as well as restricting our views of the pedestrian bridge and any water based events. We were looking forward to being able to have picnics on the grass.

I encourage you to reject the proposals and stick to the previously agreed flat gardens with trees that are the appropriate height for a roof top garden

Yours faithfully
R. Woods

I object to two aspects of the recent proposals from Mirvac to modify the building envelope as approved by the IPC in relation to the northern podium. The IPC mandated that there be 3,500 sqm of public accessible space adjacent to the Pyrmont Bridge at a height of 12.5m RL, which is the height of the deck level of the bridge. Changing one word “majority” for “all” significantly undermines the view taken by the IPC. Taken to the extreme just a little less than half the space can be anywhere up to twice the original level ie 25m RL Thus approximately 1,700 sqm can be utilised for an extra two levels of revenue earning space. How can this not be seen as a premeditated manoeuvre to thwart the intentions of the IPC.

To add insult to injury they also want huge planter boxes and mounds of soil to support trees of unknown height, although their submission mentions 25m tall shade trees in the private recreation area for tower residents, so it can be reasonably be assumed the same for the public area. Shade trees by definition have dense foliage otherwise they are not shade trees, hence the visual impact will be quite sever for One Darling Harbour residents. This planting infrastructure is on top of the podium level and not contained with in the podium envelope, presumably Mirvac would argue that it will in coach on their commercial space and the potential to maximise their profit.

Given these two objections alone is enough to withhold approval.

To whom it may concern, I object strongly to SSD-7874-Mod-3 & SSD-49295711
In particular to the second section seeking to Modify the Terms of Approval of the Northern Podium… with six sub points. I object to all six sub points.
Following the Determination of SSD-7874 in July 2021
Mirvac must comply with TERMS OF CONSENT.
Including the very important term, stated in section A13.
“A Minimum of 3,500m2 of continuous public open public space must be provided on the northern podium. (i) with finished deck level no higher than RL12.5 “ This Condition of Consent is to ensure views are maintained and the Heritage Pyrmont Bridge remains a dominant structure in the landscape.
These Conditions of Consent were the people’s wishes and the Planner’s Choice to provide a generous, but controlled impact development.
I spent a lot of time making submissions, attending consultations and reading the Commission findings along with many members of the community. I was happy with the 3,500sqm open space on the northern podium with a maximum height of RL 12.5.
This Mod-3 Seeks to extend the building envelope far beyond the approved height and bulk. NSW Planning cannot let this happen.
There must be no “mounding of soil” above RL12.5. If soil depth is required for larger plantings, it should go DOWN into the Podium not extend above the RL12.5 height condition. NSW Planning put this Condition on the Norther Podium development for good reason and it must be respected and upheld.
Increasing the RL12.5 maximum height is not permitted – whether it be construction, soil mounding, air conditioning units, or anything for any purpose. The People’s will and Planning Department’s Conditions cannot be just thrown aside and over-ruled.
Suggestion: In the scope of “soft landscaping” I would expect flower beds or succulent plantings and a few palms to provide limited shade and impose little impact on shared views of the Darling Harbour water and water activities.
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.
It is shameful that the Applicant would now apply to change what the community spent so much time in agreeing to. Mirvac will have dirt on their hands if these Modifications are permitted.
This project is of great significance to the Darling Harbour Precinct. Overdevelopment is not welcome, and the amenity should reflect the People’s needs and respect the Cultural Heritage of the area. Thank you for your consideration.

The modification will affect current residents and home owners waterfront living. It will be an eye sore to them and not something they signed up for initially. Also having an extra tall building in the front row is unacceptable and inconsiderate for current residents.

I strongly object to the changes put forward by Mirvac to the height limit at the Northern part of the site in front of One Darling Harbour. I am a tenant on the fifth floor and from what I am seeing on the proposed changes that my view will be greatly reduced!
My understanding was that the height limit would be no higher than the Pyrmont Bridge in a meeting prior to the demolition staring however Mirvac has deliberately lied to us of one darling harbour by going through the back door in proposing changes to the height limits after the demolition has started. This is a total disgrace!!!

OBJECTION TO Modification 3 of SSD 7874

I object to the Applicant adding anything, including the proposed soil mounding, such that the effective ground level of the Northern Podium exceeds RL 12.5 as approved.
I also object to the proposed tree planting on the Northern Podium. I can see no good reason for so many and such massive trees to be planted on the Northern Podium.
I object to any changes to the Conditions of the Approval except to recognise the increased setback of at least 15 metres of the northern edge of the Podium as per Condition B2 and as now shown in the plans. I particularly object to the requested change to clause A16.

Reasons for Objections
The reasons for my objection are:
1. I am the owner of an Apartment at One Darling Harbour (“ODH”) which currently has views to the east over Harbourside Shopping Centre to Darling Harbour, Cockle Bay and the CBD.
2. Section 4.55 (1A) (a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act provides a consent authority can only modify a development consent if it is satisfied the development as modified “is substantially the same development”. The Applicant claims the amendments are minor and will have negligible impact. I strongly disagree. I believe the development proposed by Mod 3 is not substantially the same as the development approved. The Northern Podium was to be capped at RL12.5. The proposal means approximately half of the 3,500 square meters of the Waterfront Garden will be raised to RL14 and it will have significant adverse impacts on views of One Darling Harbour (“ODH”), other neighbours, and Pyrmont Bridge and overshadowing of the public domain and reduced solar access.
3. Condition A13 requires the open space to be one single accessible level with a finished level no higher than RL 12.5. That is not what the MOD would deliver.
4. The Waterfront Garden is meant to be open space for the public to be able to gather and strengthen community. But the proposal put forward is little more than creating concrete pathways between mounds of soil to funnel the public to the retail space below. It doesn’t provide level areas for family or community event gatherings.
5. Condition A16 provides any future development applications for projections above the building envelope must have “minimal detrimental impact on views from neighbouring properties to the Pyrmont Bridge and harbour”. Clearly the landscaping now proposed above the building envelope of the Northern Podium cannot be said to have minimal detrimental impact on our views or the views of many residents of ODH.
6. Clause A16 also refers to the Northern Podium landscaping “improving the amenity of the publicly accessible open space above the Northern and Central Podium”. I object to the Applicant’s request to remove the words “publicly accessible” and “Northern and Central”. The approval included a requirement for the Waterfront Garden and that it be publicly accessible as is only fair given the Applicant was being given permission to significantly raise the height of the Podiums and increase its bulk and scale and build a massive tower in public airspace for it to sell off to fund its redevelopment of the Harbourside Shopping Centre. It was only fair then that it should give back to the public an open park being the Waterfront Garden. I shudder to think what next overreach is being planned by the Applicant if it is able to achieve these amendments to Condition A16.
7. Any increase in height of the deck or soil mounded on top of the deck will have significant impact on our views and the views of other residents of ODH and its neighbours and views from the iconic, heritage Pyrmont Bridge.
8. The Commission made it clear RL12.5 was to be the maximum height of the deck in order to preserve views.
9. Adding soil mounds of 1.5 metres raises the deck height from RL12.5 to RL14.
10. I cannot believe we are again having to argue against the Applicant raising the height of the podium. One Darling Harbour residents wanted the Northern Podium to be no higher than the existing shopping centre but reluctantly went along with the height being capped at a maximum of RL 12.5.
11. To appease objections to the excessive bulk and scale of the original proposed building and to gain concessions, the Applicant offered to landscape the roof of the Northern podium. This was to make it less of an eyesore to residents of One Darling Harbour and adjoining properties and the users of iconic Pyrmont Bridge. Importantly, the Applicant initially promised the Northern Podium would be non-trafficable. But that didn’t last. Next the Applicant suggested some hospitality seating would be allowed on the landscaped Northern Podium. Now the Northern Podium is to be open to the public. This seems to be largely because the Applicant failed to make any reasonable provision for open space. But now the Applicant proposes the views of the occupants of One Darling Harbour will be further compromised by 1.5 metre mounds of soils and 25 metre tall trees and they will also have to put up with noise from the now trafficable landscaped Northern Podium.
12. RL 12.5 was already a compromise. There were very good arguments put forward that the finished deck height for the Northern Podium should be limited to RL 11.8.
13. RL 12.5 was intended to be the finished deck height. Clearly that meant the Applicant need to incorporate design solutions, such as soil pits or wells, for landscaping below the finished deck height of RL 12.5.
14. This modification is yet another example of overreach by the Applicant to raise the effective finished deck height to RL 14 by adding 1.5m of soil and to incorporate 25 metre tall trees with no regard for the detrimental effect it will have on view loss to One Darling Harbour, its neighbours and the views from the historic Pyrmont Bridge. Tall trees tend to not provide much shade those below but increase the risk of damage or injury by fallen branches or children falling from high branches. I also question whether 1.5 metre depth of soil could support the height of trees proposed. I suspect there would be a greater risk of tall trees falling on park users than if shorter trees were planted.
15. The proposed soil mounding and tall tree planting will also cause unacceptable overshadowing of the public domain and reduced solar access particularly along the waterfront.
16. I also question whether the proposed style of landscaping is suitable for use by the public. I believe it will reduce the amenity of the proposed public waterfront garden. Mounding will impede views of Darling Harbour and Pyrmont Bridge and potentially make it difficult to supervise children playing on the Northern Podium. At night mounding and large trees will likely make the area feel less safe as it reduces visibility. A more open park type of landscaping with no soil mounding and far less and lower trees would have less impact on views, allow children to run and play freely, enhance supervision of children and gatherings and use of the space generally and improve safety at night and make it easier for users to come together to linger and view the water sports and other activities happening at Darling Harbour and on Pyrmont Bridge rather than be funnelled down into the shopping centre.
17. I cannot see any justification for planting of trees that exceed the Building Envelope.
18. For the reasons stated above I do not believe the inclusion of tall trees planted on 1.5 metre soil mounds will improve the amenity of the open space. Indeed, I believe it will have the opposite effect, reduce usable open space, cause overshadowing, reduce solar access and make the space dark and unsafe at night.

ATTN:Department of Planning and Environment
RE:Application SSD-49295711 and SSD-7874-MOD-3

We strongly object to both these applications on the grounds that they are not in keeping with the previous decisions.
After receiving many submissions from the local residents (One Darling Harbour) & the community the decision was made
by the Independent Planning Commission & now Mirvac are trying to modify what was agreed, that is an insult to the
residents/community.

The height of the tower was determinded & now Mirvac wants to increase the RL's because its not viable to their money
making greediness. This will reduce sunlight & everyone needs sun for their mental health.

We are also not happy with the height of the northern podium, the trees & the soil mounding.
The northern podium was reduced & now Mirvac want to increase it again which will cause view loss & shadowing.
The trees will cause more height to the podium & wind tunnels, we have big wind tunnels in this area.
Couldn't it be just a park with flowers & shrubs, it would be a relaxing colourful place for the public to enjoy.
No soil mounding as this reduces park & recreation area.

We ask that the Department of Planning reject both of these applications.

Dear Sir /Madam
I am objecting to the Harbour Side Project in Darling Harbour .
My objection is
1. The height of the trees that are to be planted as theses trees will eventually grow so high it will cast an incredible shadow on the buildings in the area as well as the seasons change the leaves will die and drop to the ground where they can become a slip hazard if not attended to every day .
2. Planter boxes on top of roofs will also add to the height that was originally accepted for this building.
3. Event stairs now to be used as a pedestrian access to the waterfront , have they considered ;special access for handicapped people , frail older residence and parents with prams?
4. I personally am not happy with the private rooftop garden and swimming pool for the 1,000+ future residence as I don’t want to have to watch people sun baking and swimming when I look out of the window to appreciate the view I have, and observe the the splashing and screaming that comes with
all swimming pools.

I wish to single out one objection amongst the many that could be made to this modification sought by Mirvac.
They have requested that a majority (not all) of the 3,500sqm is required to be at
12.5m RL. This is request is completely at odds with the consent granted by the IPC which categorically stated that all the area was to be at 12.5m RL which mirrors the consent made to the development of the Cockle Bay Wharf. I can remember being on a location tour by the commissioners who expressed the view then that the 12.5m RL would preserve the amenity of the residents of One Darling Harbour and ensure the Pyrmont Bridge remain a focal point of the area from a number of perspectives.
It should also be pointed out that the IPC indicated that soil plants must be contained within the structure of the podium and not on top of it. The modification sought to place soil mounds and planter boxes above the 12.5m RL has he effect of increasing the perceived hight of the podium. I assume that this modification is sought to maximise the usable space of the top floor of the podium.
The developer should be made to work within the framework laid down by the IPC, which was the result of significant opposition to the development as a whole. The IPC's ruling was considered a compromise that could be accommodated. However, Mirvac is incrementaly pushing the envelope to claw back to some extent the compromises they now seem unwilling to accept, which was probably their intention all along.

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

I spent a lot of time making submissions, attending consultations and reading the Commission findings along with many members of the community. I was happy with the compromise for a contiguous 3,500sqm open space on the northern podium with a height of RL 12.5. It would allow good amenity while allowing view sharing from my apartment at One Darling Harbour. 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. 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 in agreeing to.

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 some 1.5m and in doing so destroying the public benefits promised the community of 3,500sqm 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 grandchildren who I take for walks. It would be unsafe to talk them through this so called open space as I would lose sight of them as they always want to run off ahead.
What about young girls walking around at night. Not safe.

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 on what was fair and reasonable for view sharing. The Applicant draws some diagrams and says it is minimal impacts. Did not consult any of our residents.

Jing Wang, resident of One Darling Harbour
[email protected]

Please see attachment

I am a working professional who works in the city and am wheelchair bound. I reject all proposed modifications and request that Mirvac stick to the IPC approved concept plan.

These are my reasons:

- The proposed Waterfront Garden is insensitive to the needs of people who use wheelchairs. The soil mounding will interfere with my line of sight to the view of the water, therefore the entire garden should be of one flat level surface.
- The landscaping in mounded soil will reduce my access to all areas of the garden, the area under the trees should be trafficable so I am able to park my wheelchair under a tree to enjoy the area while being shaded.
- The trees should not be too tall so that shade can be provided to the area immediately beneath the trees and should not be clumped together as this will interfere with my line of sight to the fireworks and views
- The soil mounding and clumped tree landscaping will also make it difficult for me to view performances and entertainers if they are held in Waterfront Garden, these performances were a key attraction and public amenity in the previous Harbourside area
- The height of the tower is already far too tall for its location and on general grounds I object to increasing the height further, particularly as there will be further overshadowing of the public domain and foreshore.

Regards

My objections to the project are outlined in the attached document

See attachment

I am an owner of ODH.
I accepted the final plans that was negotiated with Mervac, however I strongly object to a number of proposed modifications being put forward by a very unfair greedy company/ Mervac. We came to an agreement and now they want to break it

1. Firstly there has not been a public consultation so how can this be assessed
2. The soil mounds above the Northern Podium does not support safety for the communal area for the public, especially the children due to soil mounding that is not publicly trafficable, it creates un even flooring. Not a safe area
3. I strongly oppose the planting of 25 meter trees. There would not be enough soil to support these huge trees. Very dangerous in high wind conditions, brances falling from a height. Not safe at all
4. I oppose the Bunn Street connection and event stairs redesign. Now pedestrian access to waterfront garden, this will affect easy flow of pedestrian traffic in a tourism precinct.
5. I strongly oppose 5 metre wide fixed awnings with outdoor restaurant table seating along the very popular boulevard on the waterfront. This will have a huge impact of easy flowing of pedestrians I a strong tourism precinct. Will affect the overall spirit.
6. I also question the amenity of the rooftop garden and outdoor pool this level with level 4 Darling Harbour.
7. I oppose the increase of the tower height. It is unnecessary and the stated problem could be easly resolved by reducing the tower height.
Darling Harbour is for all.
Mervac's greed is not acceptable