Harbourside Shopping Centre Redevelopment

I am a part time resident of 50 Murray St, Pyrmont as i have children attending school in Sydney. For this reason i am directly impacted by this proposal and outline my objections for your consideration:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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

Whilst i support the site being redeveloped it should be done in a way that enhances the Darling Harbour precinct and provides a reference point that the city can be proud of. Not just driven by maximising investments of multinational developers

The Goldsbrough Strata Committee requests modifications to Mirvac's proposed redevelopment of Harbourside

I am a part time resident of 50 Murray St Pyrmont as i have children attending school in Sydney. I submit the following objections to the development plan:
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.

Please refer to the attached document as objection to SSD7-874 Harbourside Shopping Centre Redevelopment (2 – 10 Darling
Drive, Darling Harbour).

Regards,

Ivan

City Plan Strategy & Development P/L has been engaged by Colliers International, acting on behalf of the ground lessee of the Novotel and Ibis Hotels. The attached submission responds to the amended proposal submitted by the proponent in relation to the Harbourside Shopping Centre site.

This version of the project is much improved - but support is conditional on Mirvac not gaming the NSW Government and Darling Harbour community by surreptitiously using this as only the first stage of a bigger development. The design of the project looks suspiciously like the first stage of a two-tower project. To have unquestioned support, the open area to the north of the tower on top of the retail area would need to be permanently quarantined from development - handed over to the government for use exclusively as open space.
Mirvac has form on this site of sending forth a stalking horse. The Sydney Council's planning official correctly and publicly called Mirvac's original office tower proposal for the site a ruse, a shroud for what it really wanted to do - build units. And so that proved to be the case very quickly as the second version was indeed a big, primarily residential development.
Similarly, the big open podium to the north of the tower looks like a base for Mirvac to build another tower down the track, having reduced objections to the this first tower by sensibly moving it to the south. Without binding constraint on subsequent intentions to over-develop the site, this proposal is prey to being fraudulent - a con job on the local community.
If Mirvac is genuine with this proposal - and not again hiding its true intentions - it will have no problem permanently forbidding subsequent development of the northern end. If Mirvac is trying to pull a swifty, it will resist quarantining.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Pascoe

We are the Managing Agents for The Vintage, SP 17163, a mixed use building , at 281-287 Sussex Str, cor Bathurst.

The building has both commercial and residential occupants.

Both commercial and residential occupants have been significantly negatively affected by inter alia the noise & vibration of
recent local developments; and also , at times, the impact on traffic flow to the garage of the SP, off Sands Str.

As such, SP 17163 hereby objects to any and all activities that will or may impact on the amenity of the commercial and residential occupants, whether that be:

(i) day time noise from drilling ;
(ii) day or night time noisy truck movements;
(iii) night time noise eg erection of hoardings, drilling , jack hammering and the like;
(iv) any like activity, that has the potential to impact on the amenity of the occupants of the Vintage or its neighbours;
(v) early morning mobilisation of trucks and machinery, prior to permitted me for commencement of the performance of works;
(v) ongoing noise generated by the development site once the construction work is complete, eg
night time loud music or any such activities.

Whilst we support the development of the precinct, we respectfully request that appropriate conditions
be imposed to moderate the effects of the above , including :

--conditions as to proper sound dampening including but not limited to the use of first-class sound dampening ‘curtains”;
--restricted hours for noisy works;
--regular night time patrols by Rangers to ensure there is no noisy night time works;
--such other conditions as Council deems reasonable to balance the interests of all concerned.

To Whom It May Concern
Please find attached the Accommodation Association's response to the Harbourside Redevelopment Proposal.

To whom it may concern,
I am the owner of one of the penthouses in Oaks Goldsbrough building and live there with my husband.
We have been notified of the proposal for Harbourside Shopping Centre Redevelopment (SSD-7874) and object as it will block our views and make our home very congested.
We will lose the quality of living and will be greatly affected by the consequences of a skyscraper in front of our window.
Having Sofitel building already blocks majority of our views (which was the reason I purchases this property), and now having Harbourside Shopping Centre will block the rest.
We have invested a lot of our hard earned money in our residence to be able to enjoy the city views. Having them taken away will cause us emotional and psychological effect.
Hope you understand and also agree.
Thank you.

Application Number SSD-7874
Assessment Type State Significant Development
Development Type Residential & Commercial
Local Government Areas City of Sydney
Exhibition End 04/11/2020
Contact Planner David Glasgow


Re:
Objection & Comment - Amended Concept Proposal and Stage 1 Early Works – Harbourside Shopping Centre Redevelopment (SSD-7874)

Having read and understood the amended concept proposal and stage 1 early works - Harbourside Shopping Centre redevelopment (SSD-7874). It is noted that further adjustments have been made to previous proposals. We have made previous submissions to this site and feel obliged to again address key design elements that are missing, and make comment to the items as follows:

Public Domain that is accessible by and for public - identified weakness/opportunity.
- Not enough public land dedicated to the local, business and tourists to be/enjoy the great outdoors.

Integrated Planning - Missing.
- Inclusion of public accessible water drinking fountains at human & dog heights. (Residents will have dogs).
- Outdoor public fitness equipment, publicly accessible (both static and non static). Sea water is not an obstacle, see exemplar City of Sydney new public domain space, Pirrama Road, Pyrmont Park.
- Many residents homes and local offices will loose natural solar access.

Urban Environment.
- More large and medium native trees need to provide organic shelter/tree canopy and less structures.
- The amount of planting in this design does not off-set the building or the construction of it.
- The amount of planting in this design does not off-set or mitigate wind tunnelling.
- The amount of planting in this design does not off-set or mitigate refection from glazing.
- The amount of planting in this design does not off-set or mitigate white noise.
- The amount of planting in this design does not off-set or mitigate increased traffic air pollution.

Foot Traffic integration.
- The public need numerous pedestrian access links that are public and consistently open 24/7 both directions City > Harbourside & Harbourside > Pyrmont/Ultimo.
- Integrated foot paths, not gated and locked like the ICC Sydney access from Quarry St, Ultimo > Tumbalong Park, which is closed more hours in a day than open during the months of winter.
- Increased foot traffic way finding signage is needed and safety lighting at all pedestrian pathways.
- Access to Harbourside across the Pyrmont Bridge is currently a dogs breakfast of pedestrians, scooters, bikes, prams and other. Additional active transport on the bridge brings further chaos and lack of organisation.

Local 389 and 501 bus needs significant improvement to support this development.
- Traffic, when moving workers and tourist, plus locals on a public bus from Harbourside to George Street City, to link up with light rail, trains, other buses and the ferry - The 389 public bus stopping at Harris and Allen Street is full to the point of it does not stop. People have to know to walk several stops down into Pyrmont if they want to get onto a bus, and this will not guarantee a seat. Tourist and workers will not think this is good enough or smart planning for a significant site.

More building = more people = more white noise = more noise reverb.
- Lack of smart design building material choices, negatively impact the local neighbourhood of residents and workers.
- Lack of external building, sound absorbing and non reflective/reverb noise barriers in the design as it stands.
- Missing/opportunity for cultural or artistic external wall paneling and green walls, to mitigate noise for the health of current/future residential and workers in historic and non-historic buildings in Pyrmont and Ultimo.

Thank you

Object to the project as detailed in the attached letter.

4 November 2020

Mark Constantine
1002/50 Murray Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000


e. [email protected]

The Director
Key Sites Assessments, Planning and Assessment
Department of Planning, Industry and Environment
Locked Bag 5022
PARRAMATTA NSW 2124

Dear Sir/Madam
Harbourside Shopping Centre Redevelopment (SSDA-7874)
I wish to object to the amended concept proposal.

The grounds for my objections are

• the height, bulk and scale of the proposed building has not altered from a GFA of 87,000m2 throughout all Mirvac’s submissions. The GFA is out of proportion to the site.
• the proposed northern podium height does not significantly reduce the impact of views lost which are valuable to all owners in ‘One Darling Harbour’ and my own.
• the latest proposal does not provide significant setback to improve the relationship with the heritage listed Pyrmont Bridge.
• insufficient open space (irrespective the proposed Guardian Park is tiered & unusable)
• the proposed site work hours [6-days x 6.00am-6.00pm] and resulting noise will lead to mental instability and decline in health of all residents in ‘One Darling Harbour’.

Mirvac’s response to submissions

INCREASE TOWER HEIGHT
The latest proposal in fact increases the tower height further to RL166.95 and then to use the additional GFA gained from increasing the height of the tower to reduce the height of a small part of the northern podium by the same amount. This is unacceptable. The GFA should be lowered to no more than 60,000m2.

REDUCE PODIUM HEIGHT
The podium height should be lowered to RL12 from Pyrmont Bridge to 100m south then rise to no more than RL18 to the proposed ‘residential’ tower. The RL levels recommended above would maintain the integrity of Pyrmont Bridge and enhance the views of residents in ‘One Darling Harbour’ as well as negate further objections.



OPEN SPACE
In its latest proposal Mirvac has made a song & dance about creating a 2-level ‘park’ (aptly named ‘Guardian Park’) which has limited function and use particularly for families frequenting Darling Harbour because of its tiered nature & size. It would appear the ‘park’ (a non-dedicated area which can be changed at the whim of the owner at anytime) has a size no more than 1,500m2. By creating two areas (RL12 & RL18) the ‘green’ space becomes more ‘useable’ for visitors to stay and enjoy Darling Harbour. This proposal will also reduce height objections from residents in ‘One Darling Harbour’.

SITE WORK HOURS
May I ask the question of those reviewing this submission & to Mirvac personnel (contracted & employed) – ‘have you ever lived behind a building site’? For the record most current residents in ‘One Darling Harbour’ went thru the demolition & rebuilding of ‘ICC 1’.

The noise generated during the 2-3 year construction/demolition process did not engender a healthy lifestyle. At present residents already put up with excessive noise generated from the grease trap being emptied in Harbourside loading dock upto 2-nights each week 9.00pm-10.30pm.

Work hours should be limited to | Monday-Friday 7.30am-5.00pm & Saturdays 8.00am-1.00pm.

For the record, the sale of any east-facing apartment will be impossible during the reconstruction period as buyers will be totally turned off by the noise & loss of privacy.

Precedents have already been set to all my objections above by the approval of the Cockle Bay development directly opposite on the east side of Pyrmont Bridge.

Name of submitter: Mark Constantine
Relationship to Application: Owner Unit 1002, 50 Murray Street Pyrmont.
Email: [email protected]
Declaration of political donations: Nil

This document is submitted by Mark Constantine on behalf of fellow owners

A Abdo 203/50 Murray Street Pyrmont | e. [email protected]
G & J De Benedetto 988/50 Murray Street Pyrmont | [email protected]
D Veloskey 1011/50 Murray Street Pyrmont | [email protected]
G Carli 1111/50 Murray Street Pyrmont | [email protected]
A & M Maggiotto 1112/50 Murray Street Pyrmont | [email protected]

Written confirmation from all owners can be obtained on request.

I am writing to object to the above redevelopment of the harbourside shopping centre.This proposal will influence very negatively to our living and lives in Pyrmont as residents and our community. Particularly, building a tower up to 166.95m and tree removal. Darling Harbour is a designated tourist iconic site. The proposed building will be visually overbearing and creating lots of shadow. 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.

Careless developing towers without careful planning as whole is impacting the reputation of Darling Harbour and Sydney. NSW planning would focus on protecting environment of Sydney for future and developing Sydney become an international iconic city.

I am the owner of an apartment on level 2 of One Darling Harbour. I still object to this latest proposal. Whilst Mirvac have addressed some of the problems regarding my loss of amenity I still have issues around the loss of connection to Cockle Bay. Although my view of water is quite small I highly value it and my view of Pyrmont Bridge as it swings open to allow the passage of watercraft is the reason I bought my unit in the first place. It has historically cultural significance to me. Mirvac is after all taking my present amenity and selling it to somebody else. I hope a compromise can be found soon.

Please see attached.

A copy of the TfNSW response letter is attached.

Heritage NSW comments for Aboriginal cultural heritage matters attached.