Harbourside Shopping Centre Redevelopment - Public Domain and Bridges

To who it may concern. We live at 50 Murray st pyrmont. The construction is in front of our unit. We object to any construction work being done on the weekends, especially Sundays. Saturdays up to 2 pm, Mayby. As the development will take until end 2027!!! We believe Mirvac should install double glazed windows in our apartments facing directly Harbourside. We also object for the construction being more than4 to 5 storeys high!!!
My husband and I are objecting to to the noise by Mirvac. We definitely do not want work or noise on Sundays. If they need to work Saturdays then up to 3 pm latest. We would like Mirvac to install double glazed windows due to the inconvenience they have caused ODH ( 50 Murray st) . We also do not want the height of tge new harbour side to exceed over 4 floors.

My name is [redacted], a part owner of [redacted]/50 Murray Street Sydney 2000, and I wish to add my support for the demolition of the northern foot bridge. I clearly remember the very noisy environment which existed before the bridge was closed and I would not like to go back to how it was then, especially at night.
If the bridge is to be retained, please improve its appearance, especially the very ugly iron roof. Could there be a better use of design, including use of glass? Surely the rest of Harbourside deserves better!

My name is [redacted].
I am a part owner of [redacted]/50 Murray Street.
I would like to object to keeping the northern footbridge and support the demolition of the bridge.
Before it’s closure there was constant noisy foot traffic even in the middle of the night. With the new development, I am very concerned there will be a large increase in the number of people using this access.
Also there is security problem. We have already had a burglar.

I would not like to experience this again.

I strongly object to this mirvac development at Harbourside

We purchased this property as an investment for our retirement. This development will obstruct the majority of our apartment city and water views.
This development does not suit the rest of the infrastructure in darling harbour.

The noise and the reduction of in public space on the water front. Mirav had changed the plans when submitted last year. The raise of the height of 12.5 to 13.3 m had increased to block the view from ODH residents.

I object to the retention of the Murray Street pedestrian bridge.

As a frequent visitor to Darling Habour I have always been struck by the ugly concrete construct (as a tacked on, ill-conceived legacy of the monorail) against the majestic sandstone Prymont Bridge.
Its removal would significantly improve the aesthetics of this urban space - for a vast populas of walkers who cross the bridge daily. This area is a popular tourist destination and its removal is in line with urban renewal projects on a world scale where the old and new are juxtaposed. Just as the Murray Street bridge is an eyesore adjacent to the historic, heritage-listed swing bridge, it presents as a similar eyesore against the new development.
Further, as there is an easily accessible alternate route via Murray Street, there is no practical reason for its retention.

I strongly object to the changes proposed for the Public Domain and Bridges for Harbourside
1. Reduction of the PUBLIC waterfront that was promoted as a benefit of the design is now reduced in the plans from 20 to 6 metres. This is unacceptable use of public land that was reserves to counter overshadow on the higher building and tower.
2 24/7 operation of the elevated park very close to existing residential building was NOT part of the original design. Extra noise reduction measures such as glass walls a are required if this is to operate 24/7

I would like to support the removing of the remainder of the northern Murray St foot bridge, this was erected to give access to monorail which has gone, half of it was removed for safety reasons & now it has made me realize what an ugly eyesaw it is, so it seems reconstruction will detract from the rooftop garden that is to be built & it is no longer needed as the Bunn St. footbridge will be further north, but it is a pity the Bunn st bridge only has stair access to the waterfront, then you have only stairs going up to the garden park, this surprises me as there is no access for disable people to get to a public facility, there could easily be an access given on bridge & garden level, instead of it all be given to office or cafe space. It also looks as if a vast proportion of the waterfront walkway has been taken away from the public & given back to cafes etc for outdoor eating.
I'm also sorry we were not able to see final plans to be able to comment further, instead of beautiful concept photos, not sure if height level of public park area has been raised or the trees are being put in are a lot higher, & also the nth & sth walkways are being included in 3500sqmtr public area. The raised area in front of the tower which is not open to the public could also be included in that area . This area will also contribute to much more noise & with another large carpark & the tower having balconies, now have more glazing to prevent them receiving the noise, it would be great if this could be considered for ODH building as well as removal of footbridge, (this will save money) if it remains will have a much larger volume of traffic on it as well as detracting from what I hope is a beautiful public park area & I hope the disable will be able to have easy access from the Bunn St footbridge.

I support the proposal to remove the footbridge

It will create obstructions in view of the area. It will have significant negative visual impacts and disrupt the view. It will create a loss of park and community space as well.

Despite living out of the area, I am a regular visitor to this Darling Harbour area and have been for many years. I object to the retention of the pedestrian bridge. I feel it will detract from the aesthetic of the whole project without adding any useful benefit. Pyrmont Bridge with its heritage value and beauty deserves to be unobstructed by an ugly and otherwise unnecessary walkway.

I have lived in the area for may years and visit friends who live in darling harbour.
In regards to the pedestrian footbridge I object to the footbridge being retained.
Its obtrusive and unnecessary, negatively impacting on Pyrmont Bridge.

I live locally and regularly visit Darling Harbour. The removal of the old pedestrian bridge improved the appearance of the precinct. This bridge was of limited utility to people visiting Darling Harbour and consequently there is no justification for it to be rebuilt.

I would like to submit an EOI for Labour Hire works on this project

I object to the retention of the murray st pedestrian bridge, I'm a regular visitor to Darling Harbour, the foot bridge is an unnecessary and ugly eye sore only used by elder residents of the nearby residential building. These residents and quests of the hotels can easily walk on the footpath to Harbourside and have no need for the bridge.

Its bridge is old, outdated and not in keeping with the new development. There is significant negative visual impact and will disruption the view of residents and the public park onto of the new development. there is also a loss of park and community space due to the lift and stairs. There is an easily accessible alternate route via Murray street.

I am a resident of One Darling Harbour, which has been and will continue to be directly affected by Mirvac's redevelopment of Harbourside.
I am very concerned about noise issues during the construction that Mirvac has forecasted will last until the completion of the project in 2027.
I am also extremely concerned about the noise from the completed project as Mirvac is planning in this latest submission. The proposed 24 hour Waterfront Garden and the Pedestrian Bridge are things that we will have to live with permanently and Mirvac needs to rethink it.
I strongly object to the retention of the Monorail Pedestrian Bridge.
My understanding is that the footbridge was built for the monorail. That is now gone.
There are significant concerns that the Pedestrian Bridge will become a thoroughfare for people in transit to the city, as well as the Waterfront Garden, at all hours of the day and night.
That is because the Bunn St footbridge, as designed by Mirvac, will terminate at the waterfront. Any of the people entering via Bunn st or the car park who don't want to head to that part of the waterfront, will be diverted past our building.
The result will be constant noise from people passing directly in front of our building. This will be a significant escalation from what we have experienced in the past.
There are also light pollution and security issues that will have a negative impact on all One Darling Harbour residents and their neighbours. There will be a significant loss of privacy. The result will be a disruption to the peaceful enjoyment, comfort and privacy of apartment owners and tenants.
Mirvac notes that 'the Waterfront Garden is a premium arrival experience to Harbourside'
However the Pedestrian Bridge is old, ugly and not in keeping with the world class development. Or as Mircvac notes 'the character of a local park set on a global stage'.
It is a visual eyesore and negatively impacts on the aesthetics of the new development and the heritage values of the Pyrmont Bridge.
The footbridge, lift shaft and stairs block the vista, disrupt the skyline and take up valuable park and garden space.
There is an EASILY ACCESSIBLE ALTERNATIVE to Pyrmont Bridge, Mirvac's Waterfront Garden and other spots on the Northern Podium - it is MURRAY ST.
Mirvac says it wants to be "a good neighbour" and yet, it is proposing a Waterfront Garden that will be open to the public 24/7. This means there will be constant noise that will affect my building at all hours. There has been no proposal about how Mirvac will mitigate this problem which directly affects every resident in our building.
There is also no concrete plan or consideration for view obstruction - we are at Mirvac's mercy in terms of both its nature planting (on mounds), potential umbrella locations, awnings and other structures that it may deem necessary, despite any view loss to our building, which was deemed worthy of protection by the Independent Planning Commission.
I expect that NSW Planning will give the above issues the same , serious consideration as the Independent Planning Commission has.
Regards and thanks.

I object to the height and scale of the project.
For the overall benefit of the community I feel there should not be any additional shadow cast upon public space.

Subject: Walkway Over Darling Drive


The Walkway over Darling Drive is a must to be restored to the original status of a sort.

Our building was promised that the lift and walkway would be reinstated when the new Mirvac building was constructed.

The Bridge walkway over Darling Drive is part of the original structure of the One Darling Building 50 Murray Street and Ibis Hotel 70 Murray Street which Are both connected with each other when they were developed 30years ago

The Original Walkway Bridge has always been a connection to the Pyrmont Bridge and the Old Harbourside Shopping Centre

The Walkway Bridge is also a rear exit in case of fire in the front of our buildings.

This Walkway Bridge is a major artery to connect residents of One Darling, Ibis and Novotel and Ultimo locals. By removing this walkway Bridge it increases more foot traffic on Murray Street, Darling Drive and Pyrmont Bridge Road
This intersection is extremely busy with Trucks Cars Cyclist’s and Pedestrians with only a small crossing and no lights to make it safer to cross over to the other side.
It is only by a miracle that no one has been seriously injured or killed on this crossing as the vehicles are not able to see very easily when turning left on to Murray Street.

Please take these comments in to consideration when making your decisions please!!!

Harbourside Public Domain and Bridges proposal (SSD-49653211) – Northern pedestrian bridge

We are writing to you in regard to the current discussion on retention of the northern pedestrian bridge. As background my wife and I have lived in One Darling Harbour (ODH) since 2004. I have served on the Strata Committee on a number of occasions over the years including a period as Chairperson.

We have followed, and been engaged with, the successive design and approval iterations for the redevelopment of Harbourside. We support the redevelopment and the current (ie final) negotiated and approved Mirvac design.

The key points we’d like to highlight and ask if you could please convey to the relevant team members in the Department of Planning are:

• We strongly oppose the proposal to possibly remove the northern pedestrian bridge. The retention of the bridge has been a feature of every design proposal and approval and one which we - and other ODH members – have followed closely. It is extremely disappointing to learn that there is now a suggestion that it might be removed.

• As Pyrmont/Ultimo residents we want the bridge retained because the bridge is an important part of the connectivity in and through our community – conforming with the planning objective of safely and efficiently connecting people to places.

• As residents of One Darling Harbour, we constantly use it. It is a safe way to cross the adjacent major roads and it provides disabled access. My wife (who is mobility impaired) and I have used the North Bridge every single day for 20 years – ie until it’s closure and partial demolition in early 2023. It has provided an amenity and convenience for us and countless others - Pyrmont / Ultimo community members and visitors to Sydney – to enable easy and safe pedestrian travel to and from the city – as well as enjoyment of Pyrmont Bridge.

• The current temporary alternative arrangement since January 2023 requires all ODH residents, nearby hotel guests, and other Pyrmont/Ultimo community residents being channelled across a busy high-volume intersection that includes negotiating one of the most dangerous pedestrian crossings in Sydney - traversing a poorly signed blind corner. We have witnessed multiple near misses of vehicles (including vans and trucks) either driving through or having to make urgent braking to avoid hitting pedestrians.

• The removal of the Bridge will continue this inconvenience, but more importantly the constant danger to members of the Pyrmont/Ultimo community and visitors to the Darling Harbour precinct. It is only a matter of time before there is a serious injury or fatality. Retention of the Bridge removes this risk ie the community will have a convenient and safe alternative – like they previously had for nearly 30 years and which the community had a reasonable expectation would continue.

Annika, – in summary, my wife and I believe it makes no sense to demolish the Northern Bridge. The proposal, if successful, reneges on what was previously promised to the community (bridge retention and enhancement) and instead removes an existing community amenity without any clear rationale/justification or consideration of what the broad Pyrmont/Ultimo community wants and needs.

Thanks and regards