Harbourside Shopping Centre Redevelopment - Public Domain and Bridges

I an owner in the One Darling Harbour Building (50 Murray St, Pyrmont), my concerns with the footbridge are:

- The bridge is old/ outdated /archaic and not in keeping with the new development
- It has a negative visual impact on the area, it looms over the street and is an eyesore
- It disrupts the view of the new development, which is already having large impact on the area
- There is an easily accessible alternate route via Murray St
- This will increase noise to the surrounding tenants as foot traffic increases

I strongly support the removal of this pedestrian bridge.

I am the owner of an apartment on the east facing second level of One Darling Harbour.
I am lodging this submission to object to Mirvac's latest DA and the current and ongoing unacceptable noise levels.

My apartment is tenanted.
The tenants have complained bitterly about the level and the duration of noise form the construction site.
They also commented that they can’t keep the balcony clean because of daily grime build up. These long term tenants are leaving in October as they cannot stand the conditions.
I’m not even sure that I would want to live there myself at the moment!
It sounds very stressful.

I understand that noise levels will only increase during further construction and the project is not due to be finished until mid 2027 - if it runs on time!
Your department should have insisted, from the very beginning, that Mirvac offer some sought of compensation which would allow us to replace our windows with triple glazed windows.
Mirvac can then get on with their work while residents of ODH try and get on with living.
Note that Mirvac's own residential tower have the need for multi-glazed windows.
We need them now and in the future.
Previously they weren’t required.
Residents were always aware that noise and dust would be an issue however it is far worse than imagined.
What residents of ODH are expected to endure by the NSW Planning and Environment Department along with Mirvac is unacceptable and affecting residents mental health.
I have been part of the ODH community for over 20 years and have noticed a significant change in
the tone of the people at meetings since Mirvac began their development.
They are more anxious, less cohesive and lack the happiness and pride in their community that was previously so strong.

My apartment is directly above the entrance to the northern bridge and will be affected by the increase in pedestrian traffic. I am very worried about noise levels and security risks.
Is it possible for pedestrian traffic from Bunn St and the Wilson carpark to be directed straight through the complex to the waterfront garden or through to the shops?

I have consistently objected to any complete obstruction to my current view of the Cockle Bay and Pyrmont Bridge for personal cultural reasons.
Mirvac is pushing the height levels beyond what was allowable by The Independent Planning Commission - a 12.5 RL height limit - through their creative proposals of hard landscaping on the rooftop garden.
Please ensure that the 12.5 RL height limit is strictly adhered to.

Finally, Mirvac is proposing in its latest development application to reduce the waterfront public space from 20 M to just 6 M.
This will make it difficult for any use other than pedestrian traffic.
I object because I don't think that it is fair to the community
These waterfront spaces;
are there to be utilised by the community for a variety of creative ideas that benefit the pubic,
enhance the beauty of the environment and
leave room for potential future uses.
Mirvac has had a long time to sought out its proposal and plan within the allowable limits of its envelope without encroaching on the public domain.

The developer Mirvac is trying to increase their profits by amending the approved development and that is not fair nor in the interest of the public. It is only for the interest of their pockets. That needs to be stopped.
1-Mirvac’s DA now asks that its original approved proposal for a 20-METRE-wide strip of public waterfront space in front of its building be reduced to 6 METRES so it can put in a garden and a “Licensed Seating Area” with fixed awnings and seating for waterfront retail. One of the most fundamental issues while Mirvac was trying to get original approval was them increasing the waterfront strip/walkway to benefit the public but now they are reducing the original public waterfront to increase the value of their ground level commercial (cafes and restaurants) so they get more money for them. The only looser is the public. The public waterfront area has been struggling because of overcrowding on weekends for years. Allowing the front strip to be reduced from
20 meters to 6 meters will make it impossible for public to enjoy it and will only benefit the elite and wealthy who can afford paying to sit in one of the proposed overpriced restaurants and cafes proposed by Mirvac. One more time the only winner will be Mirvac who will line up their pockets with more millions. Isn't the project milked enough??
2-The current DA by Mirvac has asked for the hard landscaping for waterfront garden 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. The public fought really hard for that garden to stay at 12.5 meters so it does not over tower the heritage item known as Pyrmont bridge. Pyrmont bridge is one of the most iconic items in the area and letting Mirvac go to heights of 13.3 plus heights of plants will only dwarf the Pyrmont bridge. Moreover, the growth and height of the vegetation in the park could form a hedge screen which will dimmish the views and value of the Pyrmont bridge. The height must stay as original approval at 12.5 meters and the selected plants must have limited height, so it does not dwarf the Pyrmont bridge.
With all honesty what Mirvac is trying to do now is just increase their profit and milk as much as possible of of the project and the only losers are the public and our heritage values.

-.

As a regular visitor with family and friends to the Darling Harbour precinct I would like my objection to the retention of the Murray St pedestrian Bridge to be noted and duly considered.
The pedestrian bridge is VERY out of character and not in sympathy with the new development.
Keep the view of the historic Pyrmont Bridge clear and unobstructed. Please consider my objection.
The new development of the Darling Harbour area is

Please find attached my objection to the proposed amendment to the Harbourside Development proposal.

I wish to lodge a protest about this new Mirvac proposal for the Harbourside Redevelopment on two grounds: loss of view and amenity from the Waterfront Garden and loss of open space on the public promenade.

The decision of the Independent Planning Commission was to restrict the height of the northern podium to 12.5 metres. Unsurprisingly, Mirvac is now urging just a little bit more. I object most strongly to this attempt to circumvent the legal decision and, as the owner of apartment 204, One Darling Harbour, the apartment most affected by loss of views, I object to the disrespect shown by Mirvac to the consequences for me. Not only do I resent the attempt to increase the height of the garden, I also fear the height of planting, possibly even hedges of trees, will impinge substantially on the height limit and thus on my views. It seems unfair that my view for which I paid a premium on purchase can now be taken away bit by bit by a mega rich company with no regard for me and no compensation for the decrease in value of my home, my only asset.

In regard to the promenade this is public land. When I first came here it was roomy enough for the ferris wheel, the circular wading pool, a permanent wharf for an old Manly ferry-turned-restaurant and even a train which provided fun for the children and a form of transport around the bay for the old or infirm, a group I now belong to. It was a place for public enjoyment. The train has gone, the ferry has gone,the space around the pool is significantly reduced and the Sofitel bulding looms threatenly over it, the fate of the ferris wheel, long put away is as yet unknown. All of this has caused a sad decline in public access and enjoyment and now,incredibly, Mirvac wants three quarters of the promenade in front of Harbourside to be given to them. Unbelievable effrontery! I trust the Planning Department will treat this with the contempt it deserves.

As a long time resident of One Darling Harbour (23 years) I object to the changers Mirvac are requesting.

1 Mirvac accepted Independent Planning Commission ruling of a deck Hight of 12.5 metres for the Northern Podium (Garden deck.)

2 Mirvac is the owner of the site, as such should demand a miner player in the designe process respect the IPC ruling and generate a Landscape Plan that is compliant with the IPC wishers (namely the citizens of Sydney)

3 Will you ask, why is there a need to have such large growing trees and shrubs. Very early in the consultation forums that Mirvac set up I spoke with a very senior executive and it was expressed that the main failure of the Old shopping centre was “No obvious entrance existed to entice people in”. Mirvac are intent to repeat this mistake by over planting with large plant types and forming a barrier to the general public.

4 Lighting has not been mentioned and ALL LIGHTING SHOULD BE DOWN LIGHTS. As a general aside light pollution and noise pollution is the main problem for residents of Sydney as no authority will take responsibility. We had the demolition contractors making a noise level of 115dsb and the police would not take any action, just pass the ball.
WA has a planning code of no upward lighting a very goog code.

5 Outside speakers from venues need to be prohibited, all speakers of venues must be inward facing. (check your records as this was an agreement reached with ODH committee previously by SHFA .

6 There is a process that has been followed by all participants now it is the departments turn to rise to the occasion and ask Mirvac to return to the original ruling of IPC.

I am on the east facing side and since January 2023 have been badly affected by noise ( starting at 7.00am 6 days a week ) and dust. They also have been moving equipment in the middle of the night and my sleep patterns have been badly affected. This will continue for at least another four years, which I understand there is very little that can be done about that.
However, I was very surprised to read noise levels are expected to get even louder, and that when the 24/7 rooftop park is open that foot traffic from Bunn Street will be directed along the front of ODH.

We hear music and crowd noise from the city side of Cockle Bay already, so I hate to think of the noise that will come from drunken revellers right in front of our building at all hours of the night once the bars and restaurants are open and foot traffic goes past our windows.

I believe that Mirvac has recommended glazing upgrades to it's proposed residential tower to mitigate the noise that will be created from the Waterfront bars and retail and the Gardens and I think that it would be only right and proper if they paid for the same upgrades on the eastern side of One Darling Harbour, the sooner the better.

I also wish to register my concern about Mirvac trying to increase the height of the vegetation on the rooftop garden. The current level of 12.5m RL height limit will cut out 50% of our water views horizontally, plus we lose about 30 % of the total water views once the tower is built on our right side. I fear that if approval is given to increase the height limit that once trees etc grow and get established, that we will lose the majority of water view, which is totally unacceptable.

I also read that Mirvac wants to decrease the public waterfront space in front of its building from 20 metres to only 6 metres so that it can yet again maximise its profits by jamming in a load of bars. This is totally unacceptable as it will decrease the space for families with elderly, prams etc to stroll along and enjoy the amenities due to it being rammed with people partying and not leaving enough space for visitors to move. It will also greatly increase noise levels that will of course affect ODH residents.

I wonder how many more times Mirvac will get planning permission only to come back again and again to move the goalposts?

Please find attached my submission letter that disagrees with the latest Mirvac application.

I strongly object to the new proposals by Mirvac for the plans regarding the new development at Darling Harbour. As a resident & owner in ODH I believe it will greatly impact the value ,view & noise from my apartment (our home) this is our life investment in our apartment & I am deeply distressed that these changes will make.
Mirvac cannot be trusted as they keep changing their plans without any consideration to the home owners at ODH.
I also believe the original proposal for a 20-metre wide strip of public waterfront space in front of the building being reduced to 6 -metres will greatly impact the space for visitors & the return of the ferris wheel.
The proposed changes to the height of the Waterfront Garden on the northern podium along with the landscaping will greatly impact the views from our unit & effect the value.

The continuing changes to the Mirvac development proposal for the Darling Harbour site have rsulted in a complete lack of trust in this development . Of major concerned the subject of objection are:

1. The reduction of public waterfront space from the initial 20-metre widestrip of public waterfront space to the new reduction to 6 METRES. This results in a major restriction to potential larger public events, compromise to weekend public traffic flow and the return of the Ferris wheel. This public interference is requested to allow their addition of a “Licencsed Setting Area” with fixed awnings and seating for commercial activities. I consider that there should be no expansion of their commercial activities beyond what has already been approved, and made public in prior submissions.

2. The proposed changes to the height of the Waterfront Garden (on the northern podium), along with the chosen landscaping, will have a direct effect on the views from One Darling Harbour (ODH), and exceeds the allowance by the Independent Planning Committee. As on owner at the northern end of ODH, the requested increase in hard landscaping from 12.5 meters is a definite threat to our existing views, and there is no level of trust at all in this non-specific request. Obviously, the choice of chosen vegetation and its positioning has further potential for obstruction. There are major inconsistencies between these proposals and the models of the development previously proposed and depicted in photomontages.
This concern is amplified by the distorted level of trust in any Mirvac proposals.

3. I have serious concerns about the noise levels that will be inflicted over the prolonged period of the development, now considered to extend through to at least mid-2027. Acoustic treatment of the windows of our building would be the only way to modify this major disturbance. In fact, Mirvac has recommended acoustic attenuation measures be installed on its proposed residential tower.
The added noise insult to our residential building will result from the 24/7use of the public park area and Mirvasc’s lading dock and 279 space car park, as an ongoing and permanent noise assault, and so a demand for glazing upgrades to our windows as an initial mitigation must be considered.

As an owner/occupier at One Darling Harbour apartments I would like to comment and object to Mirvac's sudden change in their development plans (DA) as to what was authorised by the Independent Planning Commission.

My main objection is to the type of foliage they are planning for the Northern section podium which is the use of large trees which is totally not necessary, smaller bush type vegetation would be much more welcoming and not cause view obstruction to the water from One Darling Harbour. I live on a lower floor in the building and feel everyone has the right to be able to see the water and enjoy it. I note in Mirvac's current DA they want to exceed the height limit from 12.5m RL to 13.3m RL with this taller type off landscaping.

In my previous submission to the Independent Planning Commission I brought up the problem of having 24 hour access to the Northern stepped down gardens (podium), what about noisy groups of people using these gardens as drug venues, drinking areas. I can invisage problems already and the need for added security, let alone the noise factor.

Also II dont understand why people coming from Wilsons Carpark and Bunn Street will be directed to use the path in front of our building and not be directed to go straight into the shopping centre from there. Surely the retail shops would be affected by steering people away from the shops!

I am very concerned about the noise factor, especially as apparently we have another 4 years of development on this site and feel the noise level will undoubtably increase as the project goes on. Does Mirvac intend to pay for the cleaning of our windows from all the extra dirt and dust or will they pay for our windows to have a special treatment applied? Its all very concerning.

Can you please take onboard my objections and comments.

NAme: Kerry keogh
Suburb: Sydney
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.

The application breaches Development Consent Terms of Approval for the following reasons:

- A13 (i) and (ii) in that 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”

-C15 (d) in that it does not incorporate minimum appropriate soil volumes and depth within the structure of the podiums for taller trees and shurbs … The Application calls for soil to mound up to 1.2meters above the podium level. Providing a well within the podium structure will allow appropriate soil volumes to house trees and thus meet the Consent Terms but Mirvac has not explored this and thus cause visual and view imacts on One Darling Harbour residents.

-C25 in that the Visual and View Loss Assessment, which assesses public and private view impacts has not demonstrated how consideration has been given to minimise such impacts. It is noted that the Visual and View Assessment uses tress that are 8m tall whereas the plans identify trees on the Western boundary are 15 to 18 meters at maturity. If the assessment used these heights the impact would be considerable more.

-A16 in that the proposed soft landscaping will have more than minimal detrimental impact on views for One Darling Harbour residents to the harbour and the Pyrmont bridge. The impact of visual and view loss from One Darling harbour to the East and NE is determined by the height, nature and location of the proposed tress on the northern podium. The planting schedule proposes a line of 19 trees 10-18m high. This has the potential to form a hedge screen causing visual and view loss of water views for residents at levels 1-5 and for high levels some areas of water in Cockle Bay and or parts of teh water interface of Pyrmont Bridge visible to the East and NE over the old Harbourside development.

The Acoustic and Wind Assessment reports state that the proposed development will create adverse noise and wind impacts. It is recommended that mitigation measures to address the adverse impacts include double glazing be installed in teh new residential tower. However, the application does not address how it will address the same impacts it will have on the existing One Darling Harbour residential building. The DA, if approved, needs to be conditioned to require Mirvac enter into discussion with One Darling Harbour to obtain agreement on how these adverse impacts can be addressed.

Unit 803 One Darling Harbour
50 Murray Street Sydney

I live in a lower level apartment in 50 Murray Street, which is across the road from the Harbourside Shopping Centre Redevelopment. I have some concerns about the project:
The demolition and construction noise is already loud enough to wake me up in the morning. I heard that it's only going to get louder as the project progresses.
Dust and debris from the project could blow onto my balcony.
Reduced public public space on the waterfront: 6 meters seems very little. That's not much space to do much apart from walk by.

I object to the loss of public space on the waterfront. The original DA approved 20 metre wide strip, now reduced to 6 metres.
Public Space should not be appropriated by private concern. The original 20 metre strip should be maintained to give full flow to public use, which is likely to be crowd like in number.

We are residents of the adjoining residential building – One Darling Harbour – and obviously will be affected potentially both positively and negatively by the redevelopment. We support the redevelopment and the work of Mirvac in the long process of getting the necessary approvals and now the commencement of construction.

Our concerns are twofold:

1. Possible excessive/intrusive Noise from the Waterfront Garden.

We believes that the garden is for the quiet enjoyment of the public. It is not clear what retail outlets (if any) will be operating in or adjacent to the garden. We would ask Mirvac to clearly state the nature of any proposed businesses and the hours of operation. If any future outlet causes noise (eg a bar, or club) that will obviously affect adjacent residential dwellings. We would ask that there be no retail establishments permitted that will cause external noise liable to disturb adjacent homes.

2. Loss of public space on the waterfront

We cannot understand why Mirvac, at this late stage, is now proposing to reduce the previously approved 20 meter wide strip on the waterfront by an astonishingly huge amount to become just 6 metres. Mirvac needs to explain and justify how a licenced premise can benefit the majority of the general public. We believe that the original 20 metre width approval must be honoured and maintained.

Thanks for your consideration.

I am a resident owner unit 1214/50 Murray st pyrmont.I would like to voice my opinion on the noise that is happening at the moment and over the next 4 years from the construction of the new darling harbour shopping centre.I do believe the noise is only get louder so to reduce the noise I believe it would be a lot quieter if Mirvac could compensate the owners to install double glazed windows and doors to reduce some of the noise.

Dear NSW Department of Planning,

As a proud owner of an apartment in One Darling Harbour, I wish to strongly voice objections to the recent development application submitted by Mirvac for the Harbourside project. This application raises significant concerns for us as a company that hosts business travellers in the apartment. Our primary responsibility is to provide a peaceful and restful environment for our guests, many of whom travel for work and require a good night's sleep. The prospect of enduring another four years of construction noise, especially with the project potentially becoming louder over time, is deeply concerning. We urge Mirvac to comprehensively address this issue and implement measures to mitigate the impact on One Darling Harbour residents and guests. I have anecdotal evidence from my team members who have already reported compromised sleep due to the current noise levels from the project's construction.

Furthermore, the proposed changes to the development, particularly the reduction of public waterfront space, significantly affect the overall appeal and functionality of the area. One of the key advantages of our apartment for business travellers is its proximity to beautiful public spaces and the convenience it offers for hosting events. Any reduction in available public space directly impacts our ability to provide an exceptional experience to our guests, making it challenging to host events and utilise the area's amenities effectively. We strongly urge Mirvac to reconsider these aspects of the development to ensure that One Darling Harbour remains an attractive and comfortable destination for both residents and visitors alike.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I eagerly anticipate an outcome that safeguards the beauty and vitality of One Darling Harbour and the local area.

I strongly object to the continual changes put forward by Mirvac to the height limits at the Northern part of the site in front of One Darling Harbour! I have been a tenant on the 5th floor facing East for two years and have just now purchased the apartment.

My understanding was that the height limit would be no higher than the Pyrmont Bridge in a meeting prior to the demolition starting back in December 2022 however I now believe Mirvac has deliberately lied to us of the residential building by going through the back door in proposing changes to the height limits after the demolition has started. This is a total disgrace!!!

Furthermore I have had to take the action of changing to thicker glass on the East facing side between my apartment and my balcony at a cost of just under $10k to try to reduce some of the noise produced by the demolition and construction now going on!

These continual actions by Mirvac to create more changes that will obviously affect those on the Eastern facing apartments of ODH needs to stop now!!!

I am writing to you as a very concerned resident/owner of 804/50 Murray St Pyrmont, One Darling Harbour.
I was born and grew up in Pyrmont in 1954.
I watched Darling Harbour grow to what it is today.
Most of the development has been fantastic and has not had a huge negative impact on ODH and locals up until now.

I feel the original agreement/compromise we had with Mirvac was reasonable for all as progress is inevitable but Mirvac has now thrown that out the window and just wants more and more.

The 24/7 public park/waterfront garden on the Northern Podium, right in front of ODH, the retail outlets that will open out onto the waterfront garden has the potential to create a lot of public noise which will impact not only my apartment but all of the residents of the Eastern end of ODH

Mirvac's proposed bridge/entry from Bunn Street, will only steer people towards the waterfront.
So people who are coming off Bunn Street or Wilson's car park, who want to head to the waterfront garden or our Historic Pyrmont Bridge, will be directed to use the walkway which is directly in front of ODH, rather than walking through the Harbourside shopping centre like they use to. I feel this could cause noise and security issues. This needs to be addressed

Another issue is Mirvacs loading dock and 279 space car park, for both commercial and residential tenants will be right under Darling Drive, via the side street adjoining ODH
The lighting of the waterfront garden which is a 24/7 publicly accessible space and the pedestrian bridges could cause another negative impact to ODH

Mirvac wants to change their current DA to exceed the height limit of the waterfront garden. I strongly object to this. We agreed to 12.5m RL height limit which still has a negative impact on our views.
The extra height they proposed will affect the views of many levels and some will totally lose their views, the views that we love and relax to.

Mirvac DA now asks that its original proposal for a 20 metre wide strip of public waterfront space in front of its new building be reduced to 6 metres so it can put in a garden and licensed seating area with fixed awning and seating.
I strongly object to this as it will not only close this area in but is way too close the water's edge for public walking and relaxing
It will also make hosting large events and for the Ferris wheel difficult. It should be kept open as much as possible, Darling Harbour is getting smaller and smaller with buildings.

It should be fair for all