Harbourside Shopping Centre Redevelopment - Podium and Tower

As in the case of the Mod 3 application, Mirvac has requested approvals for changes that cannot be adequately assessed without the application they intend to submit at a latter date. These include visual and acoustical impacts as well as encroachment on the pubic domain. I therefore submit that approval requested be deferred until the public domain DA is exhibited.

Please see attached file.

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.

OBJECTION TO Modification 3 of SSD 7874 and SSD 49295711
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. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.


6. 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.
7. The Commission made it clear RL12.5 was to be the maximum height of the deck in order to
preserve views.
8. Adding soil mounds of 1.5 metres raises the deck height from RL12.5 to RL14.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. I cannot see any justification for planting of trees that exceed the Building Envelope.

17. 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 determined & 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 & cause 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 to soil mounding as this reduces park & recreational area.

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

I previously objected to the height of this development.
The matter was determined by the independent commission.
Although I held the belief that the independent commission allowed Mirvac too much leniency when they accepted the proposal, I accepted the result.
Now Mirvac want to “sneak a bit more” than what was determined.
Mirvac obviously can’t accept an independent assessment.
This appears to be a further case of a big corporation not accepting the independent judge’s decision and adopting a continued attack until they get their way.
Planning NSW is bound to accept the independent commission’s ruling & must inform Mirvac to proceed with the approval they have and abandon this on going heartache for their neighbours.

I have two objections to the changes sought by the proponent of the development.
The first being the changes to the Bunn St connection/event stairs. In the approved concept this is an open space through the podium that allows an uninterrupted view to Cockle Bay and the city beyond thus providing a visual link between Pyrmont and the City. This connection widens out to the event stairs which spill out to the Cockle Bay promenade at its widest point. Roofing over this connection and moving the event stairs renders, what was touted as a significant feature in the approved concept completely worthless. This modification should be declined .
The second objection is to the awnings proposed on the eastern side of the podiums to shelter outdoor dining space for the patrons of the numerous restaurants that will line the ground floor. This can only be seen in the light of further alienating public domain for commercial gain. The former Harbourside shopping had approx 28,000sqm solely dedicated to cater for locals and tourists. The proponent was able to leverage this fourfold and in the process reduce the the area for shops and restaurants to a mere 8,000sqm. Clearly the intention is to increase this area by stealth.
I note that the public domain aspects of the development will be the subject of a future DA, if this approved in its current form any subsequent DA's will be a fait accompli.

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.


Objector: Jing Wang
Resident One Darling Harbour
[email protected]

The project had a DA approval and now Mirvac is seeking to amend this approval. This amendment will cause issues to the area such as the poor visual appearance, the height will make the water views smaller which is the highlight of Darling Harbour. The residence will have more views taken away. The visual appearance of the project is now poor and will be a blight on Darling Harbour visitation. The tree submission will look fake and block out more views, and will impact what is expected of visitors coming into Darling Harbour. The soil mounding is another issue as it will ensure it is difficult for event gathering, it will also cause safety issues and will more than likely be dangerous particalry for children.

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.

My objections are outlined in the attached file

I oppose any changes to the Podium and tower without further public consultation.
We have been through a five-year process discussing this development and to make further changes now, just to satisfy the developers requirements at the expense of the visitors, tourists and locals is unjustified and unnecessary.
We rely heavily on NSW planning and Government to do the right thing by all its citizens.

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

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 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

i am objecting the changes requested on MOD 7874
i spent lots of time in this projects and happy with commissioner decision for a open space of 3500sq m open space with height RL12.5 . Now the applicant had deny all the efforts and would like to make modifications in last minute which cannot be accepted. Stick to the original plan for sake of community ,
WK Tam owner of ODH

I object to Mirvac's proposal to place large planter boxes mounded with dirt on top of the podium structure. As the actual application for the landscaping of the 3,5000 sqm park has not as yet been submitted it is putting the cart before the horse to seek approval for the structural work. I also note that the IPC in approving the development envelope for this area specifically said that any provision for deep planting should be contained within the podium structure not on top of it..

See attached document

SSD-49295711
I object to reduce size of Public area on Northern Podium from approved 3500sqmtrs by nearly half & also rising from RL11.8 (paying respect to our historic Pyrmont Bridge). It was meant to be an area enjoyed by all with seating, grass & tree areas creating beautiful shade areas to enjoy by all instead of a very small tiny area that will not attract the public to use, instead, ugly commercial space blocking their views with mounds & concrete paths.
The Bunn St bridge also does not give access to be able to walk thru a beautiful park area , to Pyrmont bridge, because instead u have to go down stairs to waterfront then back up more stairs to the park area, very few people will use this system, also it does not work for disable people who would like to enjoy this as well, so suggest that there be access from Bunn St bridge direct to the park.
I also object that they want to change the wording of IPC approval to remove public access for Nth podium (Water garden & Central podium)
The entire Nth podium should be 3500sqmtr & reduced as IPCN said to 11.8m & entire space be available to the public so all can use this large park area, Mirvac might find this attracts people to come rather than stay away from commercial area , that we have had the last few years

Please refer to our submission of objection that is attached