Harbourside Shopping Centre Redevelopment - Podium and Tower

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

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.

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.

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.

11. 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.

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.


Objector:
Mark Constantine e. [email protected]
Owner of apartment at One Darling Harbour

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 made an astute and accurate judgement of the proposed redevelopment and it should stand. It is grossly unfair to the community to have its amenities and land 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.

SSD 49295711

1 I OBJECT to the new soil mounding proposed within the Open Space of Northern Podium (Waterfront Garden) above the publicly agreed RL 12.5 deck level.
This means that the "new" finished deck height will be 14.0 RL or above.

What is the perceived benefit?
There is no demonstrated benefit for the increase raised by the applicant - indeed its intended result and effect is to increase overshadowing of the public domain read the public foreshore area and decrease view sharing and decrease solar access.
I note this particular area was and is a major public concern as raised in prior public submissions and during public meetings.

The intended Tree Planting is ludicrous in intent and design - causing not just further view loss and further overshadowing of the public domain read the Harbour water domain but as well reducing solar access and solar mass to myself as a resident and all other residents of a direct neighbouring building namely 50 Murray St (ODH).

Any further overshadowing of neighbouring ODH residential building was not agreed to and not raised ab initio when Mirvac initiated and lodged its applications.

Any proposed trees growing from proposed mounds must be subject to a height and maintenance restriction which is contained within the agreed existing building envelope.

Further dilution of direct sunlight into my passive solar/thermal mass home is important to me and ODH residents - (Im referring to solar access being defined as sunlight onto walls and any other surfaces of private dwellings) and is strongly objected to.

I am making an objection to two issues in the submission Mirvac has made.
The first relates to the proposed hours of work. These should be the same as those currently in place while the demolition is taking place, ie Monday to Friday 7:00am to 6:00pm and 8:00am to 1:00pm on Saturday. It is enough is enough, We the residents are in close proximity to the work site and when we get home from work it is a time to relax and not be harassed by construction activities just metre from our homes. Saturday has been traditionally a half day, allowing work to start at 7am does not even give us the comfort of a little sleep in let alone have some respite in the afternoon.

As for the hours proposed for the retail sector, I would hope that any out door retail activities that may occur on the northern podium public space will cease at 6:00pm rather than 11:00pm as all the apartments on the east side of One Darling harbour have bedrooms that directly face this area. Once again the amenity we currently have will be severely compromised by such activity.

It would interesting to note that a consultant to Mirvac said that enhanced acoustic measures need to be incorporated into the building of the residential tower to mitigate the noise impact

I am a resident of ODH and my objections to the proposed modifications to the Harbourside redevelopment as follows:
> The usage of the top of the podium for a private rooftop garden and outdoor pool is news to me. This usage have impllcations to ODH occupants, Hence there should have been direct consultation regarding this.
> Any landscaping structures, trees, awnings etc should be design to stay within this agreed envelope as agreed in the agreement from the comprehensive engagement process. Now more concessions are being requested but without the proper opportunity for impacted parties to be able to access and response to.
> The size and height of proposed trees is excessive to be on top of a building structure if is not incorporate into the design of the building structure properly.
> This excessive tree height will be have impact and contrary to view sharing with ODH residents.
> The tree height will cut morning light to ODH residents
> Shorter trees with wide canopy would be more appropriate to provide shade.
> Tall trees will be hazardous during windy and stormy weather.
> The tower height and podium height is already excessive and should not be allowed to increase further as it will have impact to natural light for some ODH residents.
> Public access and convenience should not be reduced as would be by proposed change. Any change should be with proper public consultation.
> A typical corporate giant working gradually to gain more benefits and by pass public consultation.

Soil mounds and planter boxes should not exceed the height above the 12.m RL.
Provision for soil should be contained with the structure to meet RL requirements.

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 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.
> The tree height will reduce sunshine to ODH residents
> Tall trees does not provide shade as effective as shorter trees with wide canopy. Why are these not considered rather than increasing the height for growing tall trees.
> Tall trees are also safety hazards during windy and stormy weather.
> Believe there wasn't any indicaton or mention of a the private rooftop garden and outdoor pool for the 1,000 plus future residents of the tower on the roof of the central podium in the existing approval. These have implications to the daily enjoyment for ODH and near by inhabitants.
> The tower height and podium 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 blatant 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.
> No wording of the existing approval without proper consultation with the community as comprehensive effort and time have been put in by all for approval.

The soil mounds should not be changed in Height and trees should not be 25 meters high.
The height of the podium should not be any higher than what has already been agreed upon. Tree height should be a maximum of 5 meters. The open space is important, and the height of the podium should not be increased whether by building or vegetation. The view from One Darling should not be impeded in any way other than what has already been agreed.
The pedestrian boulevard should not be encroached on at all whether it is fixed awnings or umbrella's.
The Bunn Street connection should not be altered from previous submission.

I object for the following reasons:
- 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. Furthermore, these trees are likely to impact views.
• Tree height exceeding the envelope, will cause further view loss for my residence 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.
This was not what was previously on public display and what residents had agreed too. It is disingenuous to put through the changes at this stage as I would have objected if they were in the original plan.

Regarding the Mirvac demolition and rebuild of Darling Harbour, I am disgusted that they wish to increase the height of the complex more than the “original” plans. The view from the apartment, of which I am a tenant, which was only slightly impacted will now be greatly impacted. They have started the demolition and for them to try to change the original plans, appears to me to have been always their intention. This is totally unacceptable and must stay to the original design, which appeared to have a height not exceeding that of the Pyrmont Bridge.

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
0425232344
A resident of One Darling Harbour

Mirvac, Snohetta and Hassells are sophisticated Organisation and would have enough talented people to design an outstanding building by staying with the WPC building envelope.
A forest will be a detriment for the public to approach the waterfront and Harbour views.
Snohetta and Hassells were touted as world class Architects, this request for modification to the building envelope is disrespectful off the WPC ruling and are more the actions of "a do as we like culture".
Please insist that the WPC ruling is retained.

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