Harbourside Shopping Centre Redevelopment - Public Domain and Bridges

Dear Madam
I am resident living in ODH,following are my objections to the proposed changes of Mirvac development

NORTHERN PODIUM - WATERFRONT GARDEN - LANDSCAPING

Proposed landscaping of the northern podium will raise the approved height limits set by the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) and will affect our views.
We bought the property to enjoy the beauty of city views and Heritage listed iconic Pyrmont bridge views
The proposed mounds will exceed the height limit by up to 1.2 metres. Add to this taller trees & shrubs will add a further 12-15 metres to the height of the podium (initially proposed 12.5 meters) obstructing the views of ODH residents, the very purpose of living there to enjoy the views will be spoiled
Previously proposed grassy rooftop, is now proposed to be public space only 40-odd metres away, from our living apartment adding noice impact
And large proposed trees will exceed the previously approved by IPC proposals

NOISE impact
if the rooftop bars remain open after 12.00 midnight on the proposed podium some 40-odd metres from the building, noise impact on the ODH residents could be detrimental to their health
My humble request to restrict closing hours for proposed licensed premises on the podium to 12.00 midnight.

IMPACT OF THE TOWER
Already proposed height of the residential tower has great impact causing shadow not only on the public domain ,proposed increase the height of tower further impact public domain shadow and also cause wind tunnel effect, it also reduce solar access to Darling Harbour foreshore


For reasons listed above, I lodge my objections to modifying what was approved by the Independent Planning Commission NSW (IPC) in 2021.

Kind Regards
Dr Savita Prabhu
Resident ODH

Objection to proposed changes to Mirvac
Darling Harbour Redevelopment



Dear Madam

My name is MUDDAPPA Prabhu one of the resident live in one Darling Harbour apartment 1003 for 12 years
We bought the property to enjoy the the best placed beauty of the city and Pyrmont bridge which is one of the great location

Unfortunately Mirvac redevelopment proposal of Darling Harbour above the proposed and approved by independent planning commission authority only shows their muscle to hurt ODH residents by additional proposal to raise the podium level by 1.2 meter by adding mounds and proposed vegetation in the form tall trees and shrubs on the top of this goes beyond 12 .5 meter height obstructing the views of the city and the heritage Pyrmont bridge of ODH residents which was one of the reason we moved to ODH
As resident living in ODH, the proposed podium facilities of the public space open late nights can create noise impact problem which may have effect on the health for ODH residents

It is also sad to see proposed tall residential tower can cause shadow on the Bay which was poorly taken into consideration

With this facts I strongly object Mirvac proposed changes to the podium height and tall trees and shrubs


Kind regards
Dr Muddappa Prabhu

OBJECTION
The project is getting too large and scope creep enters to play ! Stop It !!

the Northern podium should not be allowed to be any higher than RL12.5

The Northern Podiun should not be allowed to extend further East and encroach on public space and cause loss of sunshine to the Darling Harbour precinct !

I sent an email to Annika Hather a week ago with more details and suggestions.

Please combine this online objection with that email.

Thank you very much

Dear Ms Hather

I have lived at 50 Murray Street directly opposite the Mirvac construction site for over 21 years and now reside in a evironment of incessant acoustially unsound noise and unhealthy dust and debris.

NORTHERN PODIUM WATERFRONT GARDEN LANDSCAPING

I I object to any deviation by Mirvac from the decision made by the Independent Planning Commission (IPC).

a no environmental or aesthetic benefit is gained by increasing/modifying and ignoring the IPC guidelines.
b Mirvac is deliberating and unilaterally deciding what is best for all of Sydney to the blatant disregard not just the residents of One Darling Harbour but to the public at large.
c There is no demonstrated public benefit in increasing heights of soil mound/and or increasing the height and nature of trees.
d The perceived benefit lies with Mirvac in terms of increasing its vertical net space.

PUBLIC WALKWAY HARBOURSIDE

2 I object to any deviation decrease and restriction to the public thoroughfare as envisaged by Mirvac.

a Neither ICC nor Sofitel intended or managed to decrease the width and ease of access to the public walkway and both designed and built their buildings to compliment same.
b Mirvac should look to be in harmony with the limited public space not look to restrict that space because of their desire to increase their footprint.
c Public domain should be not be restricted - Mirvac is required to rethink its design.

Regards
Dawn Veloskey

OBJECTIONS TO HARBOURSIDE REDEVELOPMENT (SSD-49653211)
Note:
I do not have any political donation to disclose, and I am happy for you to include my name with my submission.
To whom it may concern:
I own an apartment at One Darling Harbour. (50 Murray St, Pyrmont). The apartment faces East and is adjacent to and directly overlooks the current Mirvac redevelopment of the previous Harbourside shopping centre.
I understand that Mirvac is now trying to extend the boundaries of what was approved by the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) SSD7874 (25.06.2021) when it determined the maximum Gross Floor Area (GFA). My understanding is that Mirvac's current proposal substantially exceeds the IPC's original ruling.
NORTHERN PODIUM
I have major objections to the proposed changes to the northern podium waterfront garden and landscaping. What was a grassy rooftop with occasional low growing shrubs etc (to meet the original height restrictions) is now proposed to be public space with large trees which will well exceed the building envelope previously approved by IPC. Under the current Mirvac proposal, the landscaping of the northern podium will raise the approved height limits set by the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) and will have a substantial impact on the view from my apartment and all the apartments facing East toward Cockle Bay. This will also be exacerbated by the proposed addition of mounds/retaining structures and trees/shrubs. The proposed mounds will exceed the height limit by up to 1.2 metres. Add to this taller trees & shrubs which when mature will add approximately 15 metres to the height of the podium. This will take away and negatively impact the views of the bay from the majority of East facing apartments. These apartments are our homes and many residents have lived in their apartments for more than 20 years. I believe it is totally unacceptable to add even greater negative impact to the residents of East facing One Darling Harbour apartments by approving any additional height and/or scale to what was originally approved for what is a development built solely for profit.
NOISE AND OPERATING HOURS
Use of the podium levels of the new development should be restricted to no use after midnight. The potential for people to hold parties/BBQs etc on the podium levels if not restricted to none after midnight will have a negative impact on the lifestyle of permanent residents living around Darling Harbour and in particular, on East facing residences in One Darling Harbour (These properties are only some 40m, laterally, from the proposed podium levels). There have been regular noise breaches after midnight already and if the proposed use of the Northern podium areas are allowed to remain open 24/7 it will represent a substantial negative impact on the enjoyment of the private apartments facing East at One Darling Harbour.
THE HERITAGE LISTED PYRMONT BRIDGE
I understand that a key feature to be considered during the development application assessment process was the proximity and scale of the development to the State Heritage listed Pyrmont Bridge. I believe that the additions to the proposed additional height, size and scale of the Harbourside redevelopment will substantially affect and markedly lessen the heritage context of the bridge and the wider Darling Harbour foreshore.
FOOTBRIDGE
The pre-existing footbridge forms part of a designated public walkway connecting Pyrmont/Ultimo residents to the CBD via Pyrmont Bridge. I understand that Mirvac has also been making application to remove the requirement to reconstruct the footbridge over Darling Drive. I hope this information is incorrect, as one of the key features of IPC's approval (2021) was an upgraded footbridge over Darling Drive. From a public safety point of view, given the extra traffic generated by the commercial, retail, and residential buildings, reconstructing the footbridge over Darling Drive would add to the public convenience and more importantly, substantially lower the risk to the pedestrian public.
PUBLIC WALKWAY
The public domain forecourt in front of 'Harbourside' prior to demolition had a variable width forecourt of 11-metres to 29-metres. Under the previous original building envelope, the walkway was very congested and busy. Restricting the public walkway thoroughfare to 6-metres in front of the proposed development will result in choke points that may be dangerous, particularly for younger children, with additional risk of proximity to the water. I understand that Mirvac may be applying to narrow the walkway areas to allow ‘outdoor dining’ into their development. I feel that outdoor dining should be allowed, but within the area of the current development approval and not on what should be a public thoroughfare. If this is allowed to occur, I believe it would negatively impact public convenience and safety.
Based on the key issues outlined above, I lodge my objections to modifying what was approved by the Independent Planning Commission NSW (IPC) in 2021.
For your consideration.

Regards
Richard Sellers

I Object to MIRVAC's constant attempte to alter what the NSW Planning department decided more than half a year ago.

1) Please stop MIRVAC from bullying planners to extend the Northern Podium to any height above RL12.5m - this was agreed before and protects views and local amenity from surrounding buildings. Also any extra height will greatly effect sunlight into the Darling Harbour bay and walkways.

2) In this latest proposal (of space grabbing) Mirvac wants to develop the Northern Podium further East and in so doing reduce the public access along the waterfront - this is Totally Unacceptable. Why, just for a few more square metres of rentable space, should this developer be allowed to extend onto what has been planned as public space ? This is rude, and crude grabbing of public space and highly objectionable.
If the latest Mirvac plan is allowed, then the West side public space will be cast into shadow from early afternoon. Darling Harbour Bay is narrow and the walkways need to be wide to allow for public space where families can play, watch events, and even ride the ferris wheel. There will be no space left for these simple public pleasures if the Northern Podium is extended any higher or wider (towards the water).

Please respect the wellbeing of darling Harbour and do not allow this development to get any larger at all.

Thank you for your consideration.

Dear Annika,

Ref SSD-4965311

I’m lead to believe that the web site to enter submissions is down and that your the alternate source.

Can you please enter my request that the Northern footbridge associated with the above reference in my view is no longer needed and is an eye saw.



Thank you

1. Noise:
- Continuous noise is already uncomfortable and obliterates “quiet enjoyment” on a daily basis…The plans to endure another four (4) years of construction to mid-2027, and warnings it will get louder as project progresses is unsustainable.
I have lived at my current address for 10 years now.

IMO Developers like Mirvac dont usually care about residents and have zero regard or burden project will have on ODH.
In a real solution scenario Acoustic treatment of windows would be the only way construction noise could be mitigated effectively and I don’t think the developer would accept that expense to all ODH units.

- - The creation and use of the 24/7 public park
podium (in front of ODH) and the retail outlets that will open out onto the Waterfront
Garden have the potential to create noise, disorderly conduct and other issues that will affect
eastern apartments

-Mirvac’s proposed bridge/entry from Bunn Street, will only steer people
towards the waterfront – not the Waterfront Garden or the Pyrmont Bridge meaning people coming off Bunn Street or Wilson’s Car Park,
headed to Waterfront Garden or Pyrmont Bridge, will be directed to use the walkway
directly in front of ODH building (rather than walking through the Harbourside shops as
they used to). This can only pose as more noise issues and security issues as well with the PBH nearby.
2. Views
Views from ODH will be negatively affected to a greater extent from this DA than was allowed by the Independent Planning Commission
- - The effect on views from ODH to the East and North East are determined by the height
of the Waterfront Garden (on the northern podium) and the nature and location of
proposed vegetation.!
The current DA by Mirvac has asked for the hard landscaping to exceed the 12.5m RL
height limit.
It has currently proposed hard landscaping that will lift the height to 13.3m RL across
much of the site. This means the views from my 4th level apartment would be blocked altogether which is the main attraction, feature, asset and pleasure of living in this unit.
There are inconsistencies between the architectural plans and the model of the
development depicted in the photomontages so this is the dealbreaker objection from me as I dont want to live staring at a wall or grass blocking waterviews. I cannot stress more an objection to this loss of view and loss of pleasure. This is the sole reason I decided to live in this unit and have liged here happily for 10+ years now.

I hope this submission is taken seriously and considered as it negates the quiet enjoyment if residents for 4 more years and has the potential to ruin the single most important feature of this unit.
.

Dear Madam,

I am an owner of an East facing apartment in One Darling Harbour.

I declare that I do not have any political donation to disclose. Please withhold my name from my submission.

Mirvac current approval already exceeds the IPC ruling. Mirvac is at it again. Chipping and changing to include more into the development and trying to get all this under the radar as concern neighbours are worn down gradually and start to miss and not provide response and objection submissions to the these changes.

We are loosing track of what changes and their impacts will be as more and more of these change request are being raised. Are we to end up giving up as these drags on over the years. We are not professional and is not on this full time unlike Mirvac who has multitude of teams dealing with different aspects.

So we are so depended on your team to do the right thing by us and keep Mirvac honest and maintain and develop a good neighbourhood to live in and enjoy for all future generations. We deserved your utmost support as rate payers and to manage profit focus multi national company like Mirvac who do not have to live with any impacts and consequences ongoing.

The view of the contruction pit, dust, noise, congestion and any other issues have already being extended to impact the neighbourhood much longer.

My objections for the Public Domain DA modifications as follows:

> Why is Mirvac allowed to keep changing and requesting for increases to agreed height and space envelop and usage approved. If they have problem to meet what is approved then they need to change their design to stay within the approval. Mirvac does not seem to take responsibility to ensure a good neighbourhood environment for the future of the residents. The residents in the neighbourhood have to live with impacts forever but Mirvac just go on to another development and impact another neighbourhood.

> Views will be reduced further from the increase height of mounds and the trees and shrubs canopy. Water line view will be decrease or blocked all together.

> Increase noise and ongoing 24/7 on a raised public space within a short distance will have impact to a good night rest.

> The removal footbridge will create a bottleneck and increase noise and foot traffic in other pathway alongside One Darling Harbour. It will create a safety problem as the foot traffic will increase multi folds. The footbridge is to cater for constanct multi fold increase in foot traffic and flow into the new harbourside environment. The change to the footbridge is another instance where Mirvac is not interested in the well being of the neighbourhood. Would it not be a benefit that the existence of the footbridge will bring customers to the retailers in the new environment.

Your support for the neighbourhood will be much appreciated,

Dear Madam,

I am a resident of One Darling Harbour, residing directly above the construction site. I wish to express my strong opposition to the proposed Public Domain Development Application as it contradicts the approval granted by the Independent Planning Commission NSW (IPC) in 2021.

As a resident living in an east-facing apartment on the third floor, I have specific concerns:

1. The proposed increase in RL due to the hard landscaping planned by Mirvac will adversely impact us as it will significantly block our water views.

2. The escalation of noise pollution, which we have already been enduring due to the ongoing construction, is likely to worsen and become a constant issue with the retail outlets on "Waterfront Garden" as proposed by Mirvac and potentially intrude upon our privacy.

For these reasons, I strongly object to Mirvac's proposed changes and urge you to reconsider the impact they will have on the residents of One Darling Harbour.

Sincerely,

Supreet Elksnis

Dear Annika

I appreciate the extended timeframe to register some objections to Mirvacs application, considering the issues with the website.

My family has been in the building since building completion,I currently own 2 apartments in 50 Murray Street and am currently living facing DH on level 16. The development of DH has been overdue and many are excited to see the result.

Being familiar with the development processes my greatest concerns about Mirvac have come to fruition. Mirvac is pushing the boundaries on the Northern Pavilion exceeding height levels with the landscaping and trees. They would exceed the height limits immediately, what will they be like in 5 years? Naturally, these will greatly affect the views and "quiet enjoyment " of residents, some of whom have been in the building for some time.

Another concern of the northern podium, and in general, is the definition of "public space" and how this relates to the "Use" of space. There must be a clear understanding of the use of all outdoor areas on the site as all the exposed areas have the capacity to impact noise levels on nearby residential and Hotel buildings. Will the podium become a licensed area? Will it be available for public functions? What is the definition of "public space" I'd hate to think it was to become a virtual outdoor nightclub or a company Xams party in front of the building trading till 3 a.m. From the 16th floor, it is possible to hear music from Cockle Bay and King St Wharf. I like music, but I do not want to hear "duf duf" at 12 a.m. from the podium or any other part of the development in front of our building.

Annika, I am also concerned that Mirvac does not want to honor the construction of the footbridge over Darling Drive. I have used the bridge to avoid using the crossing which during the day can be extremely busy for me, and certainly is difficult for the elderly having to dodge cars, Cabs, Cyclists, Uber, and worse of all Trucks and Bus's that whip around the corner from Darling Drive onto Murray St very quickly. My own father was run over on Murray St. so I can confirm it's a very busy dangerous intersection. Having access to cross-over Darling Drive is a lifesaver. As well as for the residents and guests at No 50, many people staying at the Novotel and those with access from Murray, unfamiliar with Sydney, use the safe walkway to DH over the bridge. The bridge I know was part of the IPC approval so there is no excuse for a streamlined neat bridge that fits in with the new designs not to be constructed.

If Mirvac had genuine concern about the residents or the City, their first application would not have had the 50-story tower right next to the Heritage Pyrmont bridge. It took several rounds of objections to reach the current location of the Tower so forgive the residents if they may appear cynical. I am looking forward to completion and know the development will once again lift DH however its construction must work with the IPC, the building, and the community that has been built or visits it daily.

That said, I lodge my objections to any modification of the approval from the IPC NSW in 2021.

For the record, I have no political donation to disclose and you are free use my name with the submission,

Much appreciated
George Angelidis

I am the owner of a unit in 50 Murray st Pyrmont, also known as One Darling Harbour (ODH). My wife and I bought the unit in April this year after studying the approved plans for the Harbourside redevelopment. The changes to those plans devalues the unit. Our apartment is on the North East end of the building. I would like to lodge my objection to the current proposal for the Harbourside development by Mirvac specifically in relation to the below matters.

Noise: The ongoing development has significant impact to reasonable noise expectations plus the future design has the potential to further increase this impact specifically in relation to the direction of foot traffic from Bunn st and Wilson st Car Park. Can you please advise what Mirvac is proposing to alleviate the current and future impact excessive noise does and will continue to have to our apartment. I note Mirvac’s expert has recommended acoustic attenuation measures (e.g. glazing upgrades) be installed on its proposed residential tower- Is this possible for our Unit?

Views: I note there are inconsistencies between the architectural plans and the model of the development depicted in the photomontages. Can you please confirm the final heights. Additionally, I am concerned that future landscaping may lead to impacts of the water views to the South East that we currently enjoy particularly in relation to potential “hedging” impacts. Can you please advise mitigation measure to ensure view impacts are minimised and do not exceed impacts in original proposal approved by the Department

Dear Madam
I live above a construction site. Dust, noise and the 'unknowns' abound in front of me. Mirvac is trying to push the boundaries of what was approved by the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) SSD7874 on 25.06.2021 when it determined the maximum Gross Floor Area (GFA) was not to exceed 87,000m2. Mirvac's current proposal certainly exceeds IPC's ruling.

Mirvac have split the project into components to ensure the cumulative impact of the development is difficult to understand. Mirvac needs to define the 'public' spaces and commercial/private spaces so that local residents (like me) understand what they are trying to achieve.

NORTHERN PODIUM - WATERFRONT GARDEN - LANDSCAPING
Soft landscaping of the northern podium will raise the approved height limits set by the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) and will affect views.

This is compounded by the intended addition of mounds/retaining structures and trees. The proposed mounds will exceed the height limit by up to 1.2 metres. Add to this taller trees & shrubs which when mature will add a further 12-15 metres to the height of the podium.

View loss to 'One Darling Harbour' residents, some of whom have lived in the building over 28-years, will be significant especially to the upper floors.

What was once going to be what looked like a grassy rooftop, is now proposed to be public space only 40-odd metres away, with noise generated 24/7. Large trees will exceed the building envelope previously approved by IPC.

FOOTBRIDGE
Why is Mirvac quietly lobbying to NOT reconstruct the footbridge over Darling Drive which forms part of a designated public walkway connecting 'local' Pyrmont/Ultimo residents from Bunn Street to the CBD via Pyrmont Bridge. Despite asking Ethos Urban for the Engineers Report to understand the reasons for partial demolition, the report has never been provided. One key feature of IPC's approval (2021) was an upgraded footbridge over Darling Drive.

Surely with the addition of 279 carspaces to be built within the reconstructed 'Harbourside' development plus the extra traffic generated by a 'new' commercial/retail/residential building, reconstructing the footbridge over Darling Drive will ensure the safety of the public.

NOISE
The current closing hours for Licenced Premises in the Darling Harbour Precinct is 3.00am. These licenced bars/music venues are mostly located on the City side of Darling Harbour/Kings Street Wharf/Barangaroo some 500 metres-800 metres from 'One Darling Harbour' (ODH). I hate to think of the impact on residents in ODH (and even the newly constructed 'Harbourside' residential tower) if the rooftop bars remain open after 12.00 midnight on the proposed podium some 40-odd metres from the building. Surely the closing hours for proposed licensed premises on the podium will be restricted to 12.00 midnight.

We can always hear revellers walking across Pyrmont Bridge 'yahooing' after midnight.

The potential for people to sleep, hold a party or BBQ on the podium if it is allowed to remain open 24/7 will certainly have a devastating impact on the lifestyle of permanent residents living around Darling Harbour. The acoustic report provided by Mirvac cannot be taken seriously. Noise from future waste collection and deliveries won't be known until the 'centre' is built. Noise breaches after midnight since 2015 have been constant. If ownership of the 'podium' is to be retained by private enterprise then why is it classified as 'public' domain.


STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE HERITAGE LISTED PYRMONT BRIDGE - PUBLIC DOMAIN IMPACT
A key feature of Darling Harbour is the State Heritage listed Pyrmont Bridge. Additions to the proposed height, bulk & scale of 'Harbourside' will significantly change and diminish the heritage context of the bridge and Darling Harbour.

I'm concerned about the structural integrity of Pyrmont Bridge - please refer to the attached photos. When Mirvac dislodge the sandstone bridge rails after demolishing the inner footings will we just receive a 'sorry - we didn't think that would happen'.

PUBLIC WALKWAY IN FRONT OF THE NEW HARBOURSIDE
The public domain forecourt in front of 'Harbourside' prior to demolition was 4,326m2 (approx) with a variable width forecourt of 11-metres to 29-metres.

Restricting the public walkway thoroughfare to 6-metres in front of the proposed development is a joke. The existing waterfront walkway currently stands at 6-metres wide from the rail to the 'Harbourside' construction barricade. Now Mirvac is chipping away trying to narrow it to allow outdoor dining into their development. Outdoor dining should be encouraged within the confines of the development only, NOT on public land. There is a public safety issue if allowed.

When the 'Ribbon' was developed it did not encroach on public domain and the width of the forecourt/public walkway was retained.

IMPACT OF THE TOWER
'Sofitel' has a height of 133.55 metres. The proposed height for a redeveloped 'Harbourside' is approx one-third higher.

By raising the height of the 'tower' it will
• further shadow the State Heritage listed Woodward Fountain
• have harsh impacts on wind
• reduce solar access to Darling Harbour foreshore
• result in further overshadowing of a narrower public promenade

For reasons listed above, I lodge my objections to modifying what was approved by the Independent Planning Commission NSW (IPC) in 2021.

Kind Regards
Mark Constantine

I strongly object to Mirvac's current DA

I am an owner/resident of 50 Murray Street, Pyrmont

The current plan to keep the Murray Street bridge that leads onto the park infront of our building is a real issue. A high and constant number of people will be funnelled directly in front of our building because that will be the fastest and easiest way to get to Pyrmont Bridge or to Mirvac's rooftop garden which will be open 24/7.

I would like Mirvac to consider the impact on our building and I advise that I support the removal of the northern bridge - it was built only for the monorail which is long gone.

We will get enough noise from the park alone let alone more noise from people walking in front of our building onto the monorail bridge.

This is the reason I support Mirvac in REMOVING the MURRAY STREET Bridge.

Also, I’m very disappointed that Mirvac wants to narrow the walkway in front of the promenade to just 6 meters from 20 meters. This will just make the park bigger and add more people gathering and having large events which will add to the noise we will already face. I strongly disagree with taking away so much public space at what is a major destination for Australians and tourists alike.

The proposed height of the vegetation is also contrary to what was outlined by the Independent Planning Commission.

The current height is 12.5m RL and the proposed hard landscaping will at that height to 13.3m.
Depending on the height of the trees this will block views, again contrary to what was ordered by the independent planning commission.

I hope you take my concerns on board and we have a better outcome for all of us to enjoy.


Kind Regards,

Hi annika

My name is (redacted) owner of apartment 205/50 Murray Street Pyrmont
I have tried many times lodging my objection
On line can you please submit it on my behalf it will be much appreciated. Please see below


My objection
I objet change in plans from what the independent planing commission has already determined

I am are very concerned that the buns street bridge will create higher number of people will be walking front our building and the noise that comes with people trying to access Pyrmont bridge or roof top garden
I object, to the noise coming the 24/7 roof top garden and kindly ask for security guards to patrol this area

I object to Mirvac exceeding the height limits which will happen with the planting of tall trees there is many other options of trees that don’t grow so high.

I have worked so hard most of my life to by my apartment paying my home loan for many years and to have my it ruined because of this development is really unfair.
I am putting my hope and trust in the planning committee to help me and my fellow homeowners at 50 Murray Street with this case

Thank you for all your time with this matter





Regards

Dear Annika

I am a resident of One Darling Harbour, ODH (unit 1412) facing east.
I write to object to Mirvac’s SSDA 3 (SSD-49653211) - Fit out and use of public domain spaces within the built form and surrounding public domain area.

A. Noise created in the northern podium -
1) The 24/7 accessible “Waterfront Garden” on the northern podium (in front of our building One Darling Harbour) and the retail outlets that open out onto the Waterfront
Garden have the potential to create noise that will affect most of the eastern apartments. Mirvac’s own acoustic assessment indicates that noise from the Waterfront Garden and
retail areas at the waterfront will affect the upper east facing apartments more than the lower levels. Mirvac’s expert has recommended acoustic attenuation measures (e.g. glazing upgrades). But Mirvac, which creates this problem, does not offer a solution to ODH.

2) Bunn Street Bridge access to Mirvac development -
Mirvac’s proposed bridge/entry from Bunn Street will only steer people towards the waterfront, and does not provide any connection/access to the Waterfront Garden or the Pyrmont Bridge. This is totally different to the original plan and the previously shopping centre. That means, people who are coming off Bunn Street or from Wilson’s Car Park, who want to head to the Waterfront Garden or Pyrmont Bridge, will be force to use the existing walkway directly in front of our building and then the old monorail bridge (rather than walking through the Harbourside shops as they used to) to access Pyrmont Bridge and the Waterfront Garden. This will pose serious noise issues for walking traffic, and also security issues at night time.

3) Noises created by vehicle access to Mirvac’s loading dock and its car park for both commercial and residential tenants –
All this will happen right on Darling Drive (and via the side street adjoining ODH) in front of ODH, day and night. This will certainly affect our amenities.



B. Waterfront Garden - soil mounding and height of trees being planned -

1) Soil mounds on northern podium to hold shrubs and trees -
Currently the application calls for soil to mound up to 1.2meters above the northern podium level. It breaches Development Consent Terms of Approval for the following reasons. The proposed mounds will exceed the required deck level for the Northern Podium of RL 12.5 and it will not achieve “one single accessible level”. The mounds should have been built and included within the structure of the podium (not to exceed RL 12.5). Mirvac has not considered to incorporate the soild mounding. This will have visual and view impacts on ODH residents.

2) Choice of trees too high -
It is noted that the Visual and View Assessment uses trees that are 8m tall (2 storeys high) whereas the plans identify trees on the Western boundary of the podium are 15m to 18m ( 4 to 5 storeys high) meters at maturity. No other trees on the other side of Cockle Bay and also King Street Wharf are of such heights. Trees of 15m to 18m should not be allowed as there will be severe visual and view impact for the lower floors of ODH residents (up to level 6).

Thank you for your attention.

Best regards

Objection to:
Harbourside Shopping Centre Redevelopment - Public Domain and Bridges

I am an owner and resident of 50 Murray Street, Sydney.
I would like Mirvac to respect the determinations from the Independent Planning Commission regarding heights, views and noise.
Mirvac remains vague about its plans and has not done proper testing/surveys for the noise and view impacts that will affect our building and others
The IPC was very clear on the 12.5RL limit on the public rooftop garden – that is not to be breached.
Mirvac should not be enabled to have the IPCs determinations changed, thereby going against what was decided was best for all.
Mirvac is providing a new bridge/entry from Bunn Street – it will only lead to the waterfront on the eastern side of the development, thereby funnelling people wanting to access the rooftop garden or Pyrmont Bridge traffic along the front of our building.
The raises significant noise and security issues for all the residents of 50 Murray Street – these issues have NOT been considered by Mirvac.
Having said that, I would support the removal of the northern monorail bridge.
50 Murray Street is now facing addition noise issues from Mirvac’s planned car park with its entry under and to the side of Darling Drive – that is, right in front of 50 Murray Street.
It would mean HUNDREDS more cars a day – at all times – as residents, shopkeepers, office workers etc drive on to the site – not to mention taxis, ubers etc.
Please do the right thing as dictated by the Independent Planning Commission and abide by its determinations

Noise, Noise, Noise every minute after I wake up in my bed. I feel it gets louder and louder each month during the project's progress since January this year. The noise is really a serious problem even with glass doors closed. Our apartment does not have windows. The glass doors are the only way to exchange fresh air for the apartment. Not to mention, the air is no longer fresh. It always comes in with clouds of dust. However, whenever we opened the door, we have to shout to each other in order to be heard.

According to the new architecture plan, Mirvac has proposed a bridge, which does not link to Waterfront Garden or the Pyrmont Bridge. In this case, visitors from Wilson car park or Pyrmont, will walk in front of or around our apartment building. This will create more noise. What is more, it will pose risks and security issues for our building. I think the proposed new development must put the safety of surrounding apartments as a priority!!!

We strongly oppose the development application of lifting the height. We also strongly object to the proposed vegetation. This DA will significantly affect the view of our home. Asking for lifting again and again is a crazy and greedy action, which significantly affects public benefits and interests. It will only increase more shade on Darling Harbour. What is more, the trees on the waterfront garden will also restrict our water views.

On top of all of these, this new DA proposed also causes a loss of public space on the waterfront. There will be confined space for large public activities e.g. ferris wheel… Darling harbour is popular for kids. This would ruin the signature features of darling harbour.

I do not think this development has a careful and ethical plan for the public and the surrounding community. Hence, I strongly object to it!!!