Harbourside Shopping Centre Redevelopment - Podium and Tower

Too tall and will block views

To whom it may concern
I am objecting to the changes that this developer is trying to do after seeking approval. This is a clear indication that this developer has no clean intentions and is trying to maximise their financial benefit
And forgetting the small guys that have spent most of their life savings in purchasing properties in one Darling Harbour, with what they are proposing so I object to the following changes, they are trying to do on the northern podium with adding Excessively high trees that 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.

I would like to ask the committee to put themselves in our shoes and see how we feel about spending all our life savings on a property and then have somebody like Mirvac come along and crush our dreams and Hard Work

Thank you for allowing me to have my say

Regards
Abdo Abdo

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
George Angelidis

· 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 Waterfront Garden is no more than a site link through mounded soil and not "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 and contrary to IPC intentions.

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

The requested changes are not compliant to Conditions 15(d) and 16.
Condition 15(d) which required ‘incorporates minimum appropriate soil volumes and depth within the structure of the podium’.
Condition 16 allows for canopies to protrude with minimum detrimental impact to views etc
1) 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.
This causes 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) 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 are no activation elements.
It 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. 
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. 

Hence e requested changes to Conditions 15(d) and 16 are not compliant to the intent, spirit and planning guidelines.

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:
David

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.


I am objecting to the changes requested in ssd 49295711 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.

MS L.M. Jouhhador
Resident of One Darling Harbour

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:
Kerry Keogh [email protected]
Owner of apartment at One Darling Harbour

To agree to build a 50 storey residential tower in Pyrmont is sheer madness and shows an absolute lack of pre-engagement with the community.
Please don’t ruin Pyrmont by changing it into a high rise precinct.
Pyrmont traffic in coming from the city and the Anzac Bridge is already choking our suburb.
How does it make sense to add this mammoth monstrosity with the additional traffic, pollution, sewerage it will produce? Not to mention obstructing water views and ruining our village.
Why is the current NSW Government so hellbent on building high rises in already congested inner city areas? This is not Parramatta or Green Square, this is Pyrmont. Simply not enough land space to accommodate this.
We already have Barangaroo. We don’t want to be turned into a soulless mass of high rises with so called “green spaces” thrown in to sweeten the deal.
This is not going to reflect well on the Liberals for the state elections in the city of Sydney.
Thanks

Yet again the height of the residential tower has been increased the third time. This was reduced after IPC and previous exhibition and has now been increased to 170m.This is unacceptable for a private development on public land that will dwarf other structure around the area.
Through pedestrian traffic from Murray and Bunn streets has not been details and especially for accessibility. The Norther pedestrian bridge provided safe access to Pyrmont Bridge avoiding the dangerous crossing at corner pf Pyrmont Bridge Rd and Murray St. There is no explanation on how accessible pedestrian traffic to car par and Bunn St will be achieved on different levels.
The locations of photomontage for visual and view impacts does not include Union Square were the 170m tower will be prominent and way above Sofitel building which hardly visible above buildings surrounding square. This should be included and categorised as major.
View 12 for visual and view impacts from Bunn St is not worst case and only shows half the height of the residential tower. The projected view from the intersection of Bunn and Pyrmont Sts shows a larger impact in from on the list Pyrmont Fire Station.

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

It's great to have more residents in the city but surely they could fit more than 290 apartments in this development. This city needs a greater supply of houses and apartments.

As a local resident I am very supportive of the project and think it would represent a great enhancement to the area to benefit residents and visitors alike.
The only one suggestion I would like to make is to try to encorporate a public access/pavement alongside the eastern side of Darling Drive so as to allow pedestrians to walk on the side of that road as alternative access to Harbourside - which would hopefully also allow to activate the Western side of Harbourside which is currently very difficult to access by foot. This would allow for some shops/cafes to be also located there and be easily accessible