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

I am strongly objecting to the changes requested in MOD 7874 as they grossly violate previously negotiated and agreed upon restrictions. In particular, the tree canopy with significantly exceed the building envelope.


After several rounds of negotiations the compromise was achieved for a contiguous 3,500sqm open space on the northern podium with a height of RL 12.5. 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 not acceptable that the Applicant now applies 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.


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 is now planning to break the previous agreement is doing this without any consultation with any of the residents of One Darling Harbour.

I am an owner of an apartment on the second level of ODH. I object to Mirvac’s Modification Application(MOD 3) of the original Concept Plan (SSD7874) for its Harbourside site as it will severely impact my amenity and connection to Cockle Bay including views to the harbour and Pyrmont Bridge which I have detailed in previous submissions.

I object to Mirvac’s request to change
Condition A13 to ‘with a majority finished deck level no higher than RL 12.5’. This means 49.9% of the deck level can be any height at all - i.e. no height limit;
Condition C13 ( C) “the provision of deep soil planting zones incorporated within - to include and above - the structure of the podium deck’ - forcing an increase in the RL 12.5.
Condition A16. Note that Mirvac wants to delete the words ‘publicly accessible’ and ‘Northern and Central’. These terms should stay to ensure the Northern and Central Podiums remain a ‘communal space’ in line with IPC requirements.
In particular the request for mounding does not comply with:
- Condition C13 ( c) ‘the provision of deep soil planting zones incorporated within the structure of the podium deck’
Condition A13 (i) “with a finished deck level no higher than RL12.5”– a finished deck includes no structure, soil or protrusions.
Condition C15(a) “provides new plantings (including plantings on or within podiums) ..’
Condition A16 which requires that any project above the building envelope will “improve amenity, public accessibility and have minimal detrimental impact on views from ODH to the harbour.

Community consultation has not informed the proposed MOD-3 ‘design and operation’ of the publicly accessible open space.
ODH residents have been consistently clear that there be no increase in the RL 12.5. - i.e. maintain ‘absolute limits’ which were made a condition in the Commissioner’s Report to ensure an appropriate outcome for neighbours.
Furthermore, there are no activation elements offering community benefits or a better quality of life in the design for the podiums north of the tower - worse still the ‘mounds’ create serious safety concerns for a public space.
There is significantly reduced usability for various groups optimising the space and views.
No large trees should be placed close to the historic Pyrmont Bridge.
Landscaping is unbalanced between the Northern Podium and the Southern Podium.

The structure of the open space is inconsistent with ‘The Places Strategy’ - communal spaces where community comes alive, where bonds are strengthened and where a sense of belonging is fostered’. \
Mod-3 appears to allow all podiums to protrude above the building envelope and the Northern and Central Podium to no longer require public accessibility.
It’s demoralising that Mirvac would now apply to change what the community have concurred after much time and effort in what has been a long and thorough process.
Mirvac’s modified design is lacking in compliance, planning and excellence.

Dear Sir/Madam,
OBJECTION
I live on the third floor of the building called One Darling Harbour, 50 Murray Street, which directly overlooks this proposed development by Mirvac. The whole planning application has been extremely upsetting as it directly affects my life in the building.

I object to the proposed amendments regarding the mounding of soil on the northern podium as this will in effect raise the roof line which has already been agreed.

I also object to the planting of bigger trees in this area, as this will no doubt further block my views of the Pyrmont Bridge and the water - the views being main reason why I bought my apartment in the first place. Also large trees are not suitable for a roof top area as the root system cannot be as deep as it would normally be if the trees were planted in the ground.

The northern podium was supposed to be a large flat amenity area for the public to walk and enjoy, with level grass areas under trees for kids to play. Please do not allow these soil mounds as this will change the use of the area in a negative way.

Yours faithfully
M. Winter

Dear Sir/Madam,

OBJECTION
I have learned that Mirvac has made proposed amendments to SSD 49295711 and I wish to object.
I object to the mounding of soil which will have the effect of adding to the Roof Line of the podium height to RL 14.0 and to cause me additional view loss from my apartment 313 One Darling Harbour and for my fellow One Darling Harbour residents.

The previously agreed levels were a compromise for a continuous level 3500 sqm open space on the northern podium with a height of RL 12.5m to allow amenity and view sharing.

An open area with raised mounds will not facilitate amenity value as it blocks views of water based events and of Pyrmont Bridge , particularly for children.

The types of trees planted should be appropriate for the amount of soil already allowed and huge trees are not appropriate for a roof top garden.

Yours faithfully
A. Winter

1. no public consultation has taken place so how can it be assessed.
2.I question the soil mounds.
3. I question the amenity impacts of the rooftop garden and outdoor pool this level with level 4 Darling one.
4. I oppose the proposed planting of trees 25 meters are far to tall and would require deeper mounds.
5. I oppose placing 5 meter wide fixed awnings with outdoor restaurant seating along the pedestrian boulevard on the waterfront. This will severely restrict the easy flow of pedestrians in a tourism precinct and effects the spirit of the project.
6. I oppose the re design of Bunn st connection and Events stairs now pedestrian access to waterfront garden. Again this will effect the free flow of pedestrian traffic in a tourism precinct.

With the proposed roof garden, tall trees, it will greatly impact the view of the residents in our apartment block, 50 Murray st Pyrmont. With a such massive residential development is place, it will impact the supply situation in term of available rental properties. The extra restaurants and retail shops will also threat many of existing retail shops and restaurants which are already abundant in the area.
In addition, the extra long trade hours for the proposed retail shops and restaurants (6:00-23:00) will also impact the quality of life of existing residence in adjacent area.

objection of MOD ssd 492915711
1. overshadowing of the public domain.
2.the deep soil planting is disproportionately placed this the landscaping is unbalanced
3.does not deliver a safe and activated space.
4open space should be advantage to families over eater based event
5.community consultation has been confirmed the design and oDH resident will not support an increase in the RL12.5
WK Tam owner of ODH will object any modification

The modification propsed is a blatant land grab contrastnig the existing controls set in the previous approval. The independant panel should this modifcation get to that point, should reject this application in its entirity.
Issue
Maximum height of pathways/paving of Waterfont Park (on roof of northern podium)
Effect: If the amendment is approved only 1,750sqm (50% of 3,500sqm) will be required to be at the reduced height of 12.5m RL. Any remaining area could be at the applicable envelope height in Attachment B of the Consent (eg 25m RL)
Comment: If the height controls are ignored, this will obliterate iconic views of the heritage listed Pyrmont Bridge. This alone should be enough to reject the entire application. Do not be fooled.

Issue: Height of soft and hard landscaping on top of southern , central and northern podiums
Effect: If the amendment is approved, soil mounds/planter “boxes” may sit above the height controls anywhere on the site. By way of example the soil mound for each 12m tree is required to be a 1.3m deep in an area 10m x 10m. Due to the wind pressure on the northern podium, soil mounds will likely need to be much larger.
Comment: As per previous, this is a disgrace and should be rejected. Any amendment to the existing permission/control will obliterate views of the iconic pyrmont bridge.

Issue: Awnings sitting outside building envelope on ground floor and level 6
Effect: No restriction on the size or shape of the awning is proposed. The ground floor awnings are intended to provide an outdoor seating space for the retail tenancies. This will reduce the publicly available space on the waterfront (the Tower & Podium DA seeks approval for 5m deep awnings – see item 3D of the Tower & Podium table)
The incompatibility of private restaurant seating in an area intended as public space was raised by Neil Ingham,, ODH’s expert planner in submissions to the Department in 2017. Level 6 awning could impact views from to NW.
Comment: This should be rejected for obvious reasons.

Issue:Location of event and gathering space on the waterfront and quality of Bunn St connection
Effect: Bunn St connection becomes a retail tunnel and event stairs shifted towards Pyrmont Bridge (away from the Mirvac residential tower, closer to ODH and at the identified pedestrian pinch point.
Comment: This will negatively impact the private open space proposed in the original approval.

Please reject this modification, it is offensive that these changes are even being considered. They are incongruent with the original approval.

I object to the amendment put up by Mirvac that only requires a majority of the 3,500sqm park on the northern podium to be at 12.5m RL. I note that the IPC set the maximum height of the whole area at 12,5m RL. This would suggest that up to half of the area could be considerably higher than the 12.5 RL which has a detrimental impact on the amenity of One Darling Harbour residents.

See attached documant

PLEASE REFER TO OUR SUBMISSION OF OBJECTION

I object to the significant changes that the Applicant wants to make to the approved development. Addition of soil mounding adds significantly to the finished deck level as approved, ie RL12.5 ,for the northern podium further blocking the views of residents of One Darling Harbour to the Harbour, Cockle Bay and Pyrmont Bridge. Further the open space, which is meant to provide amenity for the public, is now no more than soil mounds and concrete paths. Families who want to use the open space to view the many harbour activities will have their views totally blocked. This was never the vision. The public are being offered nothing. Why cannot some of the trees be put on the much larger southern podium? There are far too many trees being proposed for the northern podium making it unsafe for women to walk though at night - dark and winding though mounds of soil. I also object to the tree canopy exceeding the building envelope on both the northern and central podium. Planting the trees on high mounds adds to the problem of ensuring they stay in the building envelope. The community spent a lot of its time working with everyone to get an agreeable outcome for the development and now the Applicant wants to change conditions to suit itself without regard to the community views. The community views, as well as the Commission views, are very clear from all the submissions. In regard to finished deck levels for the northern podium I want there be no change, no mounding do a bit of work and find another solution.

I live in One Darling Harbour and I object to firstly the mounding of the soil above RL 12.5 on the northern podium. The community spent significant time and effort through meetings, submissions and consultation with the Commission to achieve a fair and reasonble outcome of conditioning the northern podium -that being a minimum 3,500sqm of contiguous public open space with a finished deck level no higher than RL 12.5 so not to obstruct sight line from the west to eastern Cockle Bay foreshore and to optimise equitable access and improved public views. From the plans it appears some 50% of the area of the open space up to 1.5m high (the Applicant just wants to add the word 'above' which could be unlimited height) on the northern podium will have a finished deck level above RL12.5. Clearly obstructing the sight lines from the west to eastern Cockle Bay foreshore. With 50% of the open space being mounded and most of the other area taken up with hard paving for walking the Applicant clearly has not improved public amenity. Safety by design concepts would not entertain an area for families to have to navigate through windy large mounds (50%) and keep an close eye on their children. THE APAPROVAL IS FOR AN OPEN SPACE. It is none other than a site through link and the Applicant trying to achieve a deep soil voter by taking up 50% of the open space with mounds of dirt to plant trees. There are clearly other options to achieve the same outcome with wells or pits into the finished level which would minimise the impacts without compromising the benefits of the development. Condition 15(d) States 'minimum appropriate soil volumes and depth within the structure of the podium". The Applicant has not complied with his condition. MIRVAC IS PUTTING DESIGN AT THE FOREFRONT RATHER THAN PEOPLE. The open space is meant to be a communal space for the community to enjoy and view the many harbour activities. Mounding of soil other than at the western boundary will obstruct families being able to views any water activities in the harbour. Further it will obstruct views of the heritage Pyrmont Bridge.The amount of trees to be planted over 50% of the open space is excessive. It will create a cold dark (particularly at night) not welcoming place. I would support wells/pits along the western boundary of the northern podium and the planting of trees within. This would provide protection form the afternoon sun, not obstruct family views of harbour activites and the Pyrmont Bridge and provide an open communal space safe to walk around and walk though at night.
My second objection is to allowing the tree canopies to exceed the Building Envelope of the northern and central podium. The significant issue is the tress are planted well above the finished deck level due to mounding pushing the canopies much higher than if the trees with planted at the finished deck level. The Central podium is for the amenity of the residents not the community. Trees extending beyond the building envelope will impact on the view sharing for One Darling harbour residents. Once again Mirvac are putting its residents benefits ahead of what is fair and reasonable for its neighbours at ODH. The Applicant can incorporate the soil with the structure allowing the canopy to stay within the building envelope without compromising the overall development.
My objection applies similarly to allowing the canopies to exceed the building envelope for the Northern podium. Higher canopies will impact the view sharing for ODH. The Applicant can incorporate the soil with the structure allowing the canopy to stay within the building envelope without compromising the overall development. Reducing the mass planting of trees will reduce the impact.

Too tall and will obstruct views of neighbouring buildings

OBJECTION TO MOD OF SSD-7874-Mod-3


A. Soil Mounding within the Open Space of Northern Podium (Waterfront Garden)

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

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 12.5 together with the intending tree planting, will cause FURTHER view loss ODH residents, FURTHER overshadow the public domain, particularly the harbour domain, and FURTHER reduced solar access.

2. The deep soil planting is disproportionately placed on Northern Podium with none of the Southern podium, which is a much bigger area - the landscaping is unbalanced.

3. The Design Integrity Panel stated that deep soil could be resolved though detailed design development and not just mounding. Designs such as using pit/well structures into the floor below should be used to achieve deep soil planting and will maintain the finished deck level at RL 12.5.

4. Does not deliver a safe and activated space.
-Adults/supervisors of children will not have line of sight of children who are using the open space as intended.
-People using the park at night will not feel safe walking through a mounded landscaping on all sides.
-Usability of various groups optimising the Harbourside views will be significantly reduced.

5. Open space should be an advantage point for families to view water based events. Mounding on the eastern boundary will greatly limit such amenity particularly for children.

6. Mounding on the northern side will obstruct views of the heritage Pyrmont Bridge from within the open space.

7. The structure of the open space with mounding and walk ways is inconsistent with The Places Strategy which aims to put people at the forefront of design and provides for ‘communal spaces where community comes alive, where bonds are strengthened and where a sense of belonging is fostered’.

8. Community consultation has not been informed the design and operation of the publicly accessible open space. At all times ODH residents have been clear that they will not support an increase in the RL 12.5.

9. The structure of the open space is no more than a site through link through mounded soil. There is no opportunity for event gathering capacity for families. I believe it no longer meets the definition of ‘contiguous open space’. Including pencil like walkways within the measurement of the 3,500sqm condition should not be allowed.

10. Not complying with Condition 15(d) which required ‘incorporates minimum appropriate soil volumes and depth within the structure of the podium’. The requested change would not be ‘minimum appropriate soil volumes’ as it would cover some 50% of the open space.

11. The Commission made the following comment:

"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"

Further Commission comments below made it very clear that it imposed absolute limits on the maximum finished deck level height of the open space above the northern podium in order to ensure an appropriate outcome is achieved.

" 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.



B. Landscaping (trees in this case) protruding beyond the building envelope (the building height is at RL 12.5

There are two significant protrusions of the tree canopy beyond the building envelope: On the northern podium and the other on the central podium.

The maximum planting height plan shows the planting on central podium can protrude over the building envelope by 6 meters.

A significant reason why the canopies will protrude above the building height is that they are being planted on soil mounds up to 1.5m above the maximum RL conditioned at 12.5 for the northern podium. If the Applicant complied with the Conditions whereby the finished deck level was no higher than 12.5 it is likely the tree canopies would not exceed the Building envelope.

The Conditions A16 below allows for canopies to protrude above the building envelope for the Northern podium subject to it specifically improving the amenity, a publicly accessible space and demonstrates it has minimal detrimental impact on views from neighbouring properties ( ie ODH) to the Pyrmont Bridge and harbour. But there is no such condition for the CENTRAL podium.

The two changes to the Conditions do not meet this condition.

Canopies protruding above the building envelope of the northern podium will not improve the amenity. The structure of the open space as proposed will be no more than mounds of soil and walk ways. Trees protruding above the building line will overshadow the public domain, block out any sun to the open space, will make the open space dark at night and unsafe for anyone wanting to use the space at night, and not allow families to enjoy the many activities on the harbour.

Any increase in height due to tree canopies exceeding the building height will have more than a minimal detrimental impact on views from neighbouring properties and the heritage Pyrmont Bridge from within the open space.

Any attempt to delete the reference to the northern podium not being publicly accessible is objected to. At all times the 3,500sqm of open space was meant for public access.

The original DA should have been rejected but the changes with increased height and tall trees on the roof are a disaster and possibly dangerous.

Yet another cynical attempt to increase the height of the building by stealth via another modification request. I object to this proposal.

OBJECTION TO MOD OF SSD 49295711


A. Soil Mounding within the Open Space of Northern Podium (Waterfront Garden)

I object to the mounding of the soil above the condition RL 12.5 for the finished deck level in the northern podium


A finished deck height includes no structure, soil or protrusions. Adding 1.5m of soil increases the RL of the deck height to RL 14.0.

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 12.5 together with the intending tree planting, will cause FURTHER view loss ODH residents, FURTHER overshadow the public domain, particularly the harbour domain, and FURTHER reduced solar access.

2The deep soil planting is disproportionately placed on Northern Podium with none of the Southern podium, which is a much bigger area- the landscaping is unbalanced.

3The Design Integrity Panel stated that deep soil could be resolved though detailed design development and not just mounding. Designs such as using pit/well structures into the floor below should be used to achieve deep soil planting and will maintain the finished deck level at RL 12.5.

4.Does not deliver a safe and activated space.
-Adults/supervisors of children will not have line of sight of children who are using the open space as intended.
-People using the park at night will not feel safe walking through a mounded landscaping on all sides.

5 Some 50% of the site can be mounded and the significant part of the remaining part of the open space is hard paved walkways. There is no activation elements.

6.Usability of various groups optimising the Harbourside views will be significantly reduced.

7.Open space should be an advantage point for families to view water based events. Mounding on the eastern boundary will greatly limit such amenity particularly for children.

8.Mounding on the northern side will obstruct views of the heritage Pyrmont Bridge from within the open space.

9 The structure of the open space with mounding and walk ways is inconsistent with The Places Strategy which aims to put people at the forefront of design and provides for ‘communal spaces where community comes alive, where bonds are strengthened and where a sense of belonging is fostered’.

10.Community consultation has not been informed the design and operation of the publicly accessible open space. At all times ODH residents have been clear that they will not support an increase in the RL 12.5.

11The structure of the open space is no more than a site through link through mounded soil. There is no opportunity for event gathering capacity for families. I believe it no longer meets the definition of ‘contiguous open space’. Including pencil like walkways within the measurement of the 3,500sqm condition should not be allowed.

12 Not complying with Condition 15(d) which required ‘incorporates minimum appropriate soil volumes and depth within the structure of the podium’. The requested change would not be ‘minimum appropriate soil volumes’ as it would cover some 50% of the open space.

13.The Commission made the following comment:

"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"

Further Commission comments below made it very clear that it imposed absolute limits on the maximum finished deck level height of the open space above the northern podium in order to ensure an appropriate outcome is achieved.

" 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.

B landscaping (trees in this case) protruding beyond the building envelope (the building height is at RL 12.5

There are two significant protrusions of the tree canopy beyond the building envelope ). On the northern podium and the other on the central podium.

The maximum planting height plan shows the planting on central podium can protrude over the building envelope by 6 meters.

A significant reason why the canopies will protrude above the building height is that they are being planted on soil mounds up to 1.5m above the maximum RL conditioned at 12.5 for the northern podium. If the Applicant complied with the Conditions whereby the finished deck level was no higher than 12.5 it is likely the tree canopies would not exceed teh Building envelope.

The Conditions A16 below allows for canopies to protrude above the building envelope for the Northern podium subject to it specifically improving the amenity, a publicly accessible space and demonstrates it has minimal detrimental impact on views from neighbouring properties ( ie ODH) to the Pyrmont Bridge and harbour. But there is no such condition for the CENTRAL podium.

The two changes to the Conditions do not meet this condition.

Canopies protruding above the building envelope of the northern podium will not improve the amenity. The structure of the open space as proposed will be no more than mounds of soil and walk ways. Trees protruding above the building line will overshadow the public domain, block out any sun to the open space, will make the open space dark at night and unsafe for anyone wanting to use the space at night, and not allow families to enjoy the many activities on the harbour.

Any increase in height due to tree canopies exceeding the building height will have more than a minimal detrimental impact on views from neighbouring properties and the heritage Pyrmont Bridge from within the open space.

Any attempt to delete the reference to the northern podium not being publicly accessible is objected to. At all times the 3,500sqm of open space was meant for public access.

Ojector
George Angelidis

See attached

Summarised:
· 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.

· The structure of the garden is no more than a site link through mounded soil and non trafficable landscaping and is not a contiguous open space
· 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
· 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, removing the words 'publicly accessible' is contrary to original intentions.

I object to the proposed elimination of the requirement that the open space above the Northern and Central podium be ‘publicly accessible’.
A) 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.
B) This is an unacceptable encroachment on the IPC requirements and intention of improving public amenity.