Harbourside Shopping Centre Redevelopment

29th October 2020

Dr Muddappa Prabhu & Dr Savita Prabhu
Apartment 1003 level 10
50 Murray Street
Pyrmont
NSW 2009
Australia



Re objection to proposed Harbour side tower and podium Development
Ref: Application No SSD-7874

Dear sir
We are resident of an apartment 1003 50 Murray street One Darling Harbour
I bought the property with good intention of enjoying the Darling Harbour vista view and the heritage view of the beautiful Pyrmont bridge

Recent submission changes of modified development application of Harbourside by Mirvac group undertaken very small part of podium level changes on the northern side close to the Pyrmont Bridge compare to previous proposal
I have to bring your kind notice changes made to recent application by Mirvac only eye washing reducing the podium height to very small portion of northern side close to Pyrmont Bridge, where as bulk of the podium height still maintained without any changes

Please note main views of the northern side apartment residents of the 50 Murray Street is not towards the main side of the Darling Harbour
Main views of the Darling Harbour is for eastern side apartments of Murray street residents like our apartment
The new limited height reduction of northern section of podium is not addresses the issue which has been raised in our previous objection letter

In fact Mirvac new proposal gaining more height to the tower ignoring the main bulk of objection to the Murray street residents appears corporate money grabbing proposal

As we have pointed out in our previous application the height of podium which is equivalent to 7 story (25 to 30 meter) should also be reduced to the same level proposed northern podium height giving the residents of Murray street view of the Darling Harbour which we feel are entitled after spending considerable investment in the Murray street properties to enjoy the beautiful view of the Darling Harbour

We strongly object to new Mirvac proposal claiming they have taken into consideration of Murray street residents objection while reducing podium height by meager part at the northern side

Pyrmont Bridge is listed as state Heritage registered key feature of the Darling Harbour
Over development of buildings would diminish the heritage context of the bridge
Any Development with in this area should serve to enhance the tourism and entertainment attractions keeping in mind over development like Mirvac proposals May result in clusters of buildings loosing the open feeling of Darling Harbour

It is also my understanding a Pyrmont precinct Master plan is under development.
Taking this view into consideration the current Mirvac proposal is premature
Like all Development in the Pyrmont precinct, redevelopment of Harbourside shopping Centre should be undertaken in accordance with unified, contemporary and transparent system of planning controls that has been developed in consultation with community

It is with above information I strongly object to the Mirvac current proposals more so with Podium height which is in excess, should be limited to 15 to 16 meter giving the 50 Murray street residential to enjoy the view of not only Heritage Pyrmont Bridge but also the Darling Harbour views

Kind regards

Dr Muddappa Prabhu

Dr Savita Prabhu

Size/height of the building is too high, this spoils the character of the area/ side of the harbour which is mostly low rise. (already spoiled by the Hotel!)
The height of the building will shade not only the western side, but also reach the eastern side, its a playground where people like sunshine. this will make it unattractive in winter in particular.
The extra accommodation and office space will increase traffic, both vehicles and foot. The road leading to that side has been reduced to a single lane.
There is already enough tall buildings surrounding this beautiful harbour ...please no more!

As a long term Pyrmont resident, it is refreshing to see the next iteration of this development proposal. I am pleased to see the previous concerns addressed, including moving the tower away from Pyrmont Bridge. I also very much support the overall look of the development, extension of the public walkaway and I really like the greenery to be planted as part of the new building.
I support this proposal and very much hope it is the first step in much overdue revival of Harbourside as well as Pyrmont Peninsula

harbourside shopping centre locate on the water edge. any high rise building shouln't build on this location.but the redevopment proposal keep try put a super high residental building on as we already objected before. this time they in accordance with the draft pyrmont peninsula place special consideration as excuse. the draft pyrmont peninsula place against public interest. try put tall high rise into pyrmont .special in land approach to the water. as pyrmont community members. we strong objected the draft considerations.
we wish any building develop on the water edge should be dedicated all rules and strict control on low rise limit.

I acknowledge that the current proposal from Mirvac for the redevelopment of Harbourside shopping centre responds to many of the objections raised heretofore. The relocation of the tower away from Pyrmont Bridge and the lowering of the podium in its vicinity have eased the assault on its heritage value that previous proposals had made. It is still an obtrusive and insensitive neighbour. Whatever the vaunted Guardian Square is guarding, it is certainly not heritage values.

I object to the crowding of our foreshore by overlarge developments. Cockle Bay is a very small inlet and has been kindly treated in the past by low lying buildings and wide public promenades. These enabled a little passenger train to run around the bay to the delight of visitors but this has of course been cast aside and the little winding pool now has a huge building looming over it. The current proposal would multiply the disadvantages already suffered.

In regard to my own situation I see that the effect on my views is regarded as ‘serious’ but not, thank heavens, as ‘devastating’.

It is acknowledged that I will still be able to see the sky and the top of Centrepoint Tower. The proposal is incorrect in its description of my present view as being half composed of Darling Driveway and the shopping centre with minor glimpses of water and Pyrmont Bridge with the remaining view predominantly consisting of the skyline. If this were the case, the proposed changes would have little effect and would not have been classified as ‘serious’.

I cannot see Darling Drive at all from my unit. I see the roof of Harbourside, the water and marina with its boats on the far side, the promenade and cafes with people strolling and pennants waving and the full extent of the Bridge except for its westernmost exit. I have the delightful scene at night of the city buildings’ windows alight, the neon signs blazing above and the ferris wheel twirling in its kaleidoscope of colour. I can see Gowings sign, the dome above the QVB Tearooms, and even the trees in Hyde Park at the top of Market St. All of this would be taken from me and my Level 2 neighbours by the gross extension of the shopping centre’s height.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Objection to Harbourside Shopping Centre redevelopment - northern podium in particular

I bought my apartment in "One Darling Harbour" 50 Murray Street on a lower level 3 in 2007, and I strongly object to the dramatically increased height of the proposed northern podium and the closeness of this development to the historic Pyrmont Bridge

The impact that the new much higher proposed development will have a devastating negative impact on my apartment which enjoyed far ranging views to the east and south east of the city sky line and view into Cockle Bay itself. It will cause significant, unreasonable and unjustified view loss contrary to the requirements of the Tenacity principle and those expressed by the Independent Urban Design Review.

The proposed northern podium is 6 storeys, practically double the height of the existing shopping centre and there is no justification for this dramatic increase. The northern podium structure potentially will totally dominate the historic Pyrmont Bridge, and is way too close to the actual bridge.

This heritage pedestrian bridge which is the busiest in the southern hemisphere should be seen as a separate structure from all view points in Darling Harbour and not be overwhelmed and encroached upon by an oversized new building

The proposal's new height and closeness to Pyrmont Bridge detracts from the values associated with it's State heritage listing, and it entirely inconsistent with the aims and principals of the SREP relating to forseshore and waterway scenic qualities, enhancement and protection of views and Heritage Conservation.

The increased height proposal and resultant significant view loss in excess of what is caused by the existing shopping centre is unnecessary and unreasonable and there is no justification for the proposed dramatic height increase and increased massing of the northern podium.

I hope that you will curb the greed of the Harbourside developer and consider the people who actually live in Darling Harbour and all those who enjoy the Darling Harbour foreshore and the air and space around the historic Pyrmont Bridge.

Yours faithfully,

Name Withheld

Dear Sir/Madam,

Objection to the proposed new Harbourside Shopping Centre

Whereas I understand that the existing building could do with updating, I object to the huge increase in mass and height of the proposed new shopping centre.

The harbour forseshore would be hemmed in by these new big buildings and the new proposal seems to be right on top of Pyrmont Bridge. All buildings so close to the water should be low rise and stepped back to allow as much light and space so that pedestrians can enjoy walking around the promenade and not feel overshadowed. The bridge should be separate and be seen by all around Darling Harbour.

There is no need for the new development to be so big and high, it looks like it is double the height of the existing shopping centre. There are already so many new retail centres so close, do we need another one so huge?

Pyrmont is not the CBD and it seems to be the aim of the developers to destroy the charm and heritage of the Pyrmont area and the historic Pyrmont Bridge.

Please give Darling Harbour back to the people of Sydney and not to the developers

Yours faithfully,

Name withheld

The project is commercial profit driven but sacrificing local residents’ right to enjoy a nice and quite living environment.

The project is likely to increase the number of travelers, backpackers and level of business activities around the area, which will worsen the already deteriorating situation of late night noise, illegal dumping and disrespectful driving and parking of Uber, taxi, delivering bikes and rental cars.

As a home owner in Pyrmont, I am strongly against the proposal of the redevelopment of such scale and maintain that local residents’ benefit should be considered.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Objection to the proposed Harbourside Shopping Centre development.

I wish to object to the size of the proposed new shopping centre. The foreshore around Darling Harbour should be enjoyed by all Sydneysiders and this new development is massive and too close to the water’s edge.

Any replacement building which is so close to the foreshore, should be rebuilt to the same size and not be allowed to be any bigger. Greedy developers want to squeeze every available inch of land to retail/residential/office space, and the foreshore around Sydney should be protected .

So much of the Sydney Harbour foreshore has already been gobbled up by private ownership and this limited land should be enjoyed by everyone. The amenable foreshore space should be protected by Sydney Council and the State and it should be as wide and open and airy as possible.

Looking at the plans, the proposed development is right on top of Pyrmont Bridge, which is a tourist attraction in itself. So much of historic Sydney has been destroyed already so this historic bridge should be protected and it should have space around it, to be seen in it’s entirety from anywhere in Darling Harbour

I hope you will consider my objection

Yours faithfully,

Name withheld

Very pleased to see this redevelopment proposal refined to the current form.
Harbourside is a desperate need of revival and upgrade and this proposal works very well for the immediate area as well as surrounding Pyrmont Peninsula.
I like the new bridge links to the Pyrmont Bridge as well as to Pyrmont. Also,the location of the tower now makes more sense, compared to what was previously suggested.
Overall a great architectural design and as a nearby resident I fully support for this to go ahead.

*The proposed tower at 166.95m is far too high. This height will cause considerable shading of the public area infront (eastern side) of the building making it unpleasant during the cooler months and dissuade use of the area , as well as reaching the bridge and other side of the Harbour. People come to sit in the sun and enjoy the view of the Harbour which will be overshadowed by this new building if it goes ahead.
*A building of this height is out of character to the lower rise buildings along this western side of Darling Harbour (except for the other ridiculous tall Sofitel Hotel already built). Retaining a low rise character in keeping with the Convention Centre and Exhibition Centre and those buildings on the eastern side would be far more preferable and aesthetic.
*More residential space will also provide extra foot and car traffic to an area that is already one of the most densely populated in Sydney (namely Pyrmont),making it more crowded and dangerous crossing roads in the area. Darling Drive has already been reduced from 4 lanes to 2, and extra residential and commercial traffic will create unnecessary congestion.

Project Objection

Our comments are outlined in the attachment.

I strongly object to the proposal. Another large tower together with the significant height of the podium will be detrimental to the historic and tourist precinct of the Cockle Bay area.

My submission is to OBJECT based on the grounds that the minor changing to the northern podium do not:

1. Reduce the view impacts to 50 Murray Street;
2. Not significant setback to improve the relationship with Pyrmont Bridge;
3. The provision of Guardian Square is not significant public open space and of limited functionality.

My full submission is set out in the attachment

Submission on the October Amended Concept Proposal
Harbourside Shopping Centre Redevelopment SSD-7874

I wish to object to the amended Concept proposal as the minor changing to the northern podium does not :

1. Reduce the view impacts to 50 Murray Street;
2. Provide a significant setback to improve the relationship with Pyrmont Bridge;
3. Provide significant usable public open space.

View impacts to 50 Murray Street

My views are east to Cockle Bay. These views are water views and are valuable to me. The amended concept still totally obstructs all water views of Cockle Bay from my apartment 803.
The amended concept provides for a corridor view platform to the north which in no way reduces my easterly views of Cockle Bay. Further the building is curved and I live on the southern side of the curve and providing a corridor platform at the northern extreme of the proposed development provides no functionality at all for me.


Relationship with Pyrmont Bridge

The podium setback to Pyrmont Bridge is only some 25 meters where the RL rises from 13.75 to RL 25 which still significantly overpowers the State listed Pyrmont Bridge. The Cockle Bay side of the Pyrmont Bridge has an RL of 12 for 65 meters.

Public Open Space

The new amended concept provides for 1,500 sqm of public open space – Guardian Square. The space is on two levels which require families to walk up nearly 4 meters of stairs /ramps to enjoy. Further the lower area provides for the entry to this community destination and is better described as a site through link rather than a quality public open space. The actual area for people stay and enjoy is very limited. This further limits the function as quality public open space.

Amendments to meet objection

The norther podium needs to be further reduced. The RL 25.0 element of the podium is of most concern and reducing this to the RL of the second tier of RL 17.6 and setback to at least 75m from Pyrmont Bridge would be a minimum to achieve the objectives set out above.


Submitter: Linda Joukhador
Relationship to development: occupier of unit 803 50 Murray Street Pyrmont
Contact: [email protected]

See attachment

We live adjacent to the proposed development site and are writing to ask that NSW planning to refuse this planning application from Mirvac.

Herein are our comments and objections relating to this planning application:
1 Impact to Residential: This proposal will influence very negatively to our living and lives in Pyrmont as residents and our community.
1.1 The proposed building will overlook our property; this will lead to a loss of privacy and will certainly impact on the peaceful enjoyment of our home and balcony.
1.2 Parking/shopping centre will be adjacent to our home causing noise, pollution and dust at all times of the day and night. This additional concentration of traffic and roadside parking will cause traffic problems and create a safety hazard for other residence.
1.3 It will impact our property value dramatically

2. Impact to all other business:
2.1 All existing business is designed to serve Darling Harbour for family and popular with kids: Such a high tower at the edge of water will create threatening feeling and ruin the relaxing feeling which Darling Harbour always bring.
2.2 A high tower also causes lots of dark shadow over all other surrounding building. This will impact all other businesses.

3. Impact to Darling Harbour: Darling Harbour is a designated tourist iconic site. The proposed building will be visually overbearing. It is an inappropriate design for this part of the darling harbour. Such a large building would be totally out of keeping with the neighbouring properties, which are mainly open flat and lower store. I strongly disagree with this proposal, which is inconsistent with the values of darling harbour foreshore.

3.1 Pyrmont Bridge is listed on the state heritage register and is a key feature of the darling harbour area. Any development must preserve and enhance the heritage values of the bridge. The proposal will dominate Darling Harbour and significantly change and diminish the heritage context of the bridge.
3.2 This new modern development makes darling harbour inconsistent with the values of the site and detract from the character of Darling harbour, a big playground for everyone, controlled with lower buildings and open area.

4. Impact to City Planning
4.1 It is inappropriate to building such high tower at the edge of water. This would ruin the eco-system of healthy darling harbour planning. It also will set future planning out of order.
4.2 The proposed tower serves no tourism or public use benefit and is inconsistent with the values of the darling harbor foreshore. There are no high towers to the water in darling harbour. This is for a reason, it creates a sense of openness and maximize the sun and light to all the public areas around darling harbor and allows the harbour, open area and Pyrmont bridge to manifest its own beauty and character.

We invite you to visit our apartment, harbourside centre and darling harbour to assess and verify that these objections are valid.

Therefore, we ask you to refuse this Planning Application and more sensitive to the character of Darling harbor, as It is a extremely critical matter for future city planning.

Kindest regards,

Christy

The following are reasons for objecting the proposal in its current form for your attention:
1.0 DARLING HARBOUR EXISTING USE – TOURISM PRECINCT
Darling Harbour is a major tourist attraction for Sydney & Australia. Since this opening it has become a heartbeat for Sydney or its playground as it’s affectionately known. Hundreds of thousands of tourists visit the precinct annually bolstering the economy significantly. The construction of a 40+ story residential tower is inconsistent with the purpose and intention of the precinct. Any approval will irreparably diminish the amenity, character and ambiance currently enjoyed by the precinct. This use services no contribution to the precinct whatsoever.
2.0 EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILT FORM
The existing built form character of the precinct is ‘low-rise’ development on the foreshore of the precinct being typically 2 - 4 stories with larger envelopes set back behind these properties to embody the private open space enjoyed by the precinct while preserving view sharing from all neighbouring properties. This proposal obliterates this notion and highlights an adhoc approach to the precinct and town planning principals applied. It proposes to not only develop on the ‘waters edge’, however it also purports to develop a 44 story tower some 8metres from the water.
The proposal to obtain approval to construct 87,000m2 of GFA is both excessive and unjustified. This significant increase in GFA is not necessary and should be curtailed in to a reasonable scale based on a reasonable and justified development for the area. There is no reasonable justification for a development of this scale at this time. It is clear that in the absence of planning controls, the applicant has lodged their application for the largest scale development in an attempt to maximise its commercial outcome. This endeavour should not be done at the expense of the precinct, its amenity and the people of Sydney. As such it should be rejected or controlled to a far more reasonable scale.
The proposed development will overshadow the entire western edge of the bay and public foreshore areas. The solar access implication to the precinct and surrounding properties is unsatisfactory. This will ultimately provide a poor experience to those visiting the area who will be both in the shade and wind for much of the day. As a result, this will diminish tourism dollars and funds coming in to Sydney. The tower and its location are in my view particularly poorly planned. When analysing the character of the existing built form in the area, the residential building standing at 50 Murray Street will be negatively and irreparably impacted by this proposal in its current form as will the Pyrmont Bridge. It will effectively diminish any views and direct sunlight for four levels of the building These areas will receive the most devastating view loss with the current proposal. These are not short term guests, but permanent residents/inhabitants rate payers/voters of over 20 years
The proposal is totally at odds with all existing development. Mirvac through its agents purports to suggest that the ICC hotel and Barangeroo provide a precedent for built form and envelope heights, however it fails to appreciate or even acknowledge that the ICC hotel is at the rear of the precinct and set back in proximity to both the opening of the precinct being the heritage listed Pyrmont Bridge and the fact that it is also set back 86metres from the water’s edge, behind the harbour side development from the waterline. It is not comparable and should not be used as a reference to support this application. The Barangeroo development is a completely unique area that has had the entire urban form redesigned. These buildings were designed in unison and should not be referenced as a comparable RL to service the applicant’s agenda in this application.
3.0 INADEQUATE VEHICULAR ACCESS AND INFRASTRUCTURE At present there is a light rail station at the south of the site. The monorail was removed and as such, the only vehicular access available is on the corner of Murray Street and Darling Drive. This intersection is one of the most dangerous in Sydney and has been through a serious of accidents over the years including those involving pedestrians. As it is not currently coping with the demands in the immediate area, focusing a built form at this end is both erroneous and dangerous. The development application seeks to enable over 200 additional cars on these roads. The traffic study provided was completed at a time when Darling Drive was closed, and cannot be relied on. This was conceded at the brief consultation completed by Mirvac for its initial commercial tower proposal.
4.0 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL USE & TOWER The proposed residential tower does not service any purpose other than to boost the commercial viability for the applicant. It is at odds with the intention of the precinct and unbearably close to surrounding residential developments. The existing traffic and public infrastructure cannot support a residential building which unlike any other use, ensures occupancy 24/7. The roads are not suitable in the area to support this scale of development. Particularly those servicing the northern end of the site be it Murray Street and Darling Drive as these are currently congested and at a stand-still already.

While the broader community supports the redevelopment of the site in its entirety, this should not be done in an adhoc haphazard form which is currently being proposed. There is a once in a generation opportunity to ensure this development enhances the Darling Harbour precinct and provides a reference point that the city can be proud of. This fact appears to be lost to this applicant and as such a push for the largest GFA possible is clearly evident in this application. The material Mirvac provided and from their own admission, they require a tower to maximise their investment. The precedent that this development will set will highlight an adhoc approach to planning in Sydney and cannot be entertained in its current form. If development of foreshore property in this scale is approved, this will pave the way for all foreshore properties, particularly those in the bays precinct and on the water front to be ‘over-developed’ to whatever scale an applicant sees fit. It is a dangerous precedent. For these reasons, the application in its current form is not justified and should be rejected.

I currently reside at 50 Murray st in Pyrmont to access medical facilities in Sydney. As a resident I am directly impacted by this proposed development and the following are reasons my objection to the proposal in its current form:
The existing built form character of the precinct is ‘low-rise’ development on the foreshore of the precinct being typically 2 - 4 stories with larger envelopes set back behind these properties to embody the private open space enjoyed by the precinct while preserving view sharing from all neighbouring properties. This proposal obliterates this notion and highlights an adhoc approach to the precinct and town planning principals applied. It proposes to not only develop on the ‘waters edge’, however it also purports to develop a 44 story tower some 8metres from the water.
The proposal to obtain approval to construct 87,000m2 of GFA is both excessive and unjustified. This significant increase in GFA is not necessary and should be curtailed in to a reasonable scale based on a reasonable and justified development for the area. There is no reasonable justification for a development of this scale at this time. It is clear that in the absence of planning controls, the applicant has lodged their application for the largest scale development in an attempt to maximise its commercial outcome. This endeavour should not be done at the expense of the precinct, its amenity and the people of Sydney. As such it should be rejected or controlled to a far more reasonable scale.

The proposed development will overshadow the entire western edge of the bay and public foreshore areas. The solar access implication to the precinct and surrounding properties is unsatisfactory. This will ultimately provide a poor experience to those visiting the area who will be both in the shade and wind for much of the day. As a result, this will diminish tourism dollars and funds coming in to Sydney. The tower and its location are in my view particularly poorly planned. When analysing the character of the existing built form in the area, the residential building standing at 50 Murray Street will be negatively and irreparably impacted by this proposal in its current form as will the Pyrmont Bridge. It will effectively diminish any views and direct sunlight for four levels of the building These areas will receive the most devastating view loss with the current proposal. These are not short term guests, but permanent residents/inhabitants rate payers/voters of over 20 years

The proposal is totally at odds with all existing development. Mirvac through its agents purports to suggest that the ICC hotel and Barangeroo provide a precedent for built form and envelope heights, however it fails to appreciate or even acknowledge that the ICC hotel is at the rear of the precinct and set back in proximity to both the opening of the precinct being the heritage listed Pyrmont Bridge and the fact that it is also set back 86metres from the water’s edge, behind the harbour side development from the waterline. It is not comparable and should not be used as a reference to support this application. The Barangeroo development is a completely unique area that has had the entire urban form redesigned. These buildings were designed in unison and should not be referenced as a comparable RL to service the applicant’s agenda in this application.

At present there is a light rail station at the south of the site. The monorail was removed and as such, the only vehicular access available is on the corner of Murray Street and Darling Drive. This intersection is one of the most dangerous in Sydney and has been through a serious of accidents over the years including those involving pedestrians. As it is not currently coping with the demands in the immediate area, focusing a built form at this end is both erroneous and dangerous. The development application seeks to enable over 200 additional cars on these roads. The traffic study provided was completed at a time when Darling Drive was closed, and cannot be relied on. This was conceded at the brief consultation completed by Mirvac for its initial commercial tower proposal.
While the broader community supports the redevelopment of the site in its entirety, this should not be done in an adhoc haphazard form which is currently being proposed. There is a once in a generation opportunity to ensure this development enhances the Darling Harbour precinct and provides a reference point that the city can be proud of.
If development of foreshore property in this scale is approved, this will pave the way for all foreshore properties, particularly those in the bays precinct and on the water front to be ‘over-developed’ to whatever scale an applicant sees fit. It is a dangerous precedent. For these reasons, the application in its current form is not justified and should be rejected.