Harbourside Shopping Centre Redevelopment

Hello,

I have been a resident of Sydney for 20 years and a frequent visitor of Darling Harbour. It is a favourite attraction for the family and overseas visitors. At first, the redevelopment of the Harbourside shopping centre is a great idea. It should not however, be tied in with the creation of a giant tower.

The tower casts a large shadow over public areas of darling harbour (in the late afternoon). The residential tower serves no tourist or public benefit. This will change the character and feel of darling harbour.

The size and position of the tower also detracts from the beautiful pyrmont bridge. The bridge is historically significant and it's view will be impeded by this tower, due to its close proximity to the bridge.

I have been living in Sydney for over 25 years. Darling harbour has been a favourite of the family for many years. We love to take the visitors from interstate and overseas.


I understand the reason to refurbish the harbourside shopping centre considering its state. However, the proposed tower serves no tourism or public use benefit. The tower will create a large sun shadow over the public areas of darling harbour, as it is located on the western side of the water, in the evenings. Creating strata based private ownership of the tower will make it difficult to redevelop the area in many years time.


Pyrmont bridge is listed on the State Heritage Register. Building a tower so close to a Sydney landmark, will dominate darling harbour and detract from the heritage context of the bridge. The tower should be next to the ICC hotel (as proposed by Mirvac's Southern option), for a more aesthetically pleasing ciity skyline.

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed development by Mirvac of the Harbourside Shopping Centre. I agree this is a state significant site and as such should not proceed in its current form for the following reasons
1. Darling Harbour is predominately a tourist precinct of open space. To now build a residential tower on this site serves no tourism or pubic use benefit what so ever. The tower and in my submission the overdevelopment of the the Harbourside Shopping Complex is inconsistent with the values of the Darling Harbour foreshore.
2. I am concerned the proposed tower will overshadow Cockle Bay and the surrounding public space. The tower will detract the beauty and significance of the Heritage listed Pyrmont bridge. The bridge should stand alone in its current form and not be linked to a development that Mirvac propose. In its current form and in my view the overdevelopment of the shopping complex will only serve to line the pockets of Mirvac by taking from the public domain.
3. If one walks around Darling Harbour and along the foreshore to Barangaroo common sense has prevailed and no other development and tower of this size has been permitted so close to the water and should not be allowed here!
4. The current height of the Harbourside Shopping Complex should not be exceeded if one is to enjoy the feeling of openness and space as we walk around the precinct. To allow multiple stories again so close to the waters edge will create a closed in feeling within the bay also shadowing walkways around the waters edge.
5. To connect the Pyrmont bridge to the Harbourside Shopping Centre should not be allowed and will only serve the tenants of Mirvac whilst detracting from the historic and significant heritage of the bridge.
6. As a resident of One Darling Harbour I am concerned that the proposed development in its current form is a overdevelopment of the precinct. Noise from the proposed roof top terraces and loss of views will impact on all current residents in our building. Shadowing from the proposed residential tower will remove the natural light we currently enjoy.

Darling Harbour is a unique environment with heritage and space amongst the busy and crowded Sydney CBD that people can come to relax, enjoy with plenty of sunshine next to the water without being overshadowed by high rise buildings. Environment like Darling Harbour should be preserved for all to enjoy for all generations rather than destroyed and lost forever.

The proposal with the excessive and humongous tower impacts on the look and feel of this environment heritage and its unique character. This development will set an unwanted precedence for all other foreshore developments to follow which will impact the balance the environment heritage and set the path for the destruction of not just Darling Harbour but all of our beautiful Sydney foreshore will be lost for the enjoyment of all for generations to come. (There is already another development proposal on the opposite foreshore that is even more imposing and excessive.)

The location of the tower will impose onto the openness of the available public space along the water edge. It will have major impact to permanent residences directly behind it in terms of major reduction of direct sunlight and the imposing view of the tower smack directly in front. Availability of sunshine through the day to the public space south of the tower will be reduced substantially. It will be worse in the winter months when the sun is lower on the horizon.

The size of the tower is so imposing and stick out like a sore thumb and so out of balance with the surrounding building and so near the water edge.

Submission of Objection to Mirvac's EIS
For
Harbourside Shopping Centre
Darling Harbour was gifted to the people of Sydney by the NSW Parliament in 1984. It was gifted as a tourism destination, a place for food, entertainment, conventions and exhibitions. A place to showcase Sydney to the world. Today it is regularly used by international, inter state, intra state and greater Sydney tourists and locals as a focal point for celebrations and a place to play, wine, dine and explore.

The Department of Planning and Environment nor any Planning Assessment Committee does not have the right or the authority to override an Act of Parliament. Parliament's intention is demonstrated in the reading of the Bill into Hansard "This land is a gift to the people of NSW.....". If you look at Hansard, you will not find that it was the Parliament's intention to gift the land to Mirvac for a private residential tower. If I have read Hansard wrong, please correct me and let the people of NSW know that Parliament meant for Mirvac to have free rein over such prime harbourside public land.

No one I have spoken to denies the need that the shopping centre that Mirvac bought as an economical going concern (Letter to Mirvac Shareholders boasting about having purchased the Harbourside Shopping Centre as a currently profitable asset adding to their portfolio), needs a freshen up. That does not automatically translate to a massive 'land grab' of the scale Mirvac is proposing.

Any development needs to be done in a way that enhances the tourism and public utilisation of this area. Any tall building above the current roof line must detract from the sunlight, amenity and openness of the area. Any development that brings in larger numbers of people (such as a massive increase in the shopping centre) must equally allow for more open space to handle the larger crowds. Narrowing the area between the building and the waters edge will not accommodate adequate space for movement of people through the area.

If you consider the broader development of harbourside land in the vicinity, there are no towers within 100 metres of the waters edge. All waterside buildings are low rise and any towers are set back. This conforms to good town planning principles and aids the feeling of open space that actually attracts people to the area. Mirvac need to realise that the site they have purchased is not big enough to allow that to happen. They need to develop a proposal that is appropriate to the site they own - small scale waterside building.

My wife and I met and married in Bourke in far western NSW. We have throughout our working career been making our way east. Six years ago we purchased in the building at 50 Murray Street known as One Darling Harbour. We purchased here because of the location and the wonderful view, the sunshine and amenity shared by all residents from the roof top terraces, gym and pool. The Body Corporate is in the process of calling for tenders to upgrade the amenity of this area with about a $2mil spend. The proposed tower being located right in front of the building will totally destroy the amenity, casting great shadows over the area and destroying privacy. The roof-top terrace is used by residents to sunbathe in privacy and the area would be totally visible to the top 23 floors of any tower development.

From any perspective, Darling Harbour has open vistas. From the southern end people can look down the length of the harbour with unobstructed views of the beautiful and historic Pyrmont Bridge. The proposed podium and tower will obscure the western end of the bridge and give a 'hemmed in' feel to the area.

The proposal to cut into the handrail of such an historic bridge to put a 'glass joiner' from the overdeveloped podium to the street level of the bridge is not only an outrageous snub to the heritage value of the bridge but I would suggest, an engineering nightmare to deliver as pictured. I have read somewhere that this redevelopment is an opportunity to correct the mistakes of the past. One of those mistakes is covering up a unique part of the bridge on the western end. It is an engineering piece that is the last of it's kind in Australia. It is still there but covered by the building envelope. If Mirvac is genuine in wanting to correct the mistakes of the past, here is a fabulous opportunity to do that - move the entire podium development back (south) 50 meters and uncover and display the unique beauty of this State Heritage listed bridge.

Another past mistake that can be corrected, is allowing another tower to be built in such a beautiful open space. The mistake that is the ICC Hotel tower does not have to be repeated! The heat that the tower generates actually will (sun)burn you if you stay in the reflected sunlight. The added congestion when it finally opens will mean hours of traffic delays. Any suggestion that the majority of people movements will be by foot or by overcrowded light rail isn't demonstrated by the reality of existing hotel transfers. The majority of arrivals at the Ibis and the Novotel are by private car or taxi. The roads around Pyrmont can't handle the traffic now, let alone when the ICC Hotel opens. To allow another tower to be built would be environmental vandalism.

As the current proposed podium stands, it is a huge over development of the retail space and not at all in keeping with the aim of the site as a tourism precinct. The original lease of the site indicates that the shopping area should be along the feel of the Boston Markets. An overdeveloped podium does not have the same feel as the Boston Markets. There are already large shopping centres located in the CBD and at nearby Broadway (also owned by Mirvac). Huge retail space is not required in a tourism precinct.

My next objection is the sloppiness of Mirvac's EIS. For such a proposal to be considered professional leaves me gobsmacked! Either the staff of Mirvac are incompetent or they hold the State Government, it's employees and authority in complete contempt and are only going through this process as a tick a box because they already have an agreed outcome. Just two examples:
The proposal refers to the value to a corporation of having the Commercial Tower located at such an iconic location as 1 Darling Drive. A Commercial Tower is no longer proposed!
The SEARS required meaningful consultation with nearby residents and others affected. Mirvac completely failed this requirement. Appendix J, Section 6.2 failed to bring to the public's attention the email I sent on July 28 after Mirvacs one hour session of lecturing the owners of One Darling Harbour, totally opposing their options as our concerns had not been addressed. I have attached that email to this objection. For Mirvac to say that they considered our input as demonstrated by moving the tower back 25 meters, is an outright lie and takes the State Government and the general public for fools.

In closing, the area was a gift to the people of NSW. Those same people are NOT requesting Mirvac build a `private for profit' huge shopping centre and associated residential tower in the middle of Sydney's premier tourism destination and greater Sydney's playground. This proposal has no merit, has not met the advertised SEARS and should be rejected outright.

Yours sincerely

Department of Planning and Environment
Attn: Director - Key Site Assessments
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001

To Department of Planning and Environment,

About: Redevelopment of the harbourside shopping center #

I am writing to object to the above redevelopment of the harbourside shopping center.

We truly believe there is not any place alike Sydney. Because Sydney has great regulation over city and suburbs planning, establish and maintain an iconic and unique international image, protect environment and heritage and respect their residents. Therefore, I have a great respect to Sydney and its government.

However, recent tower building along darling harbour and this new proposal really makes us worry about Sydney planning and environment and further implications it may lead to. I raise up this objection from both personal perspective and residents of Sydney.

I'm the owner of the apartment in One Darling Harbour building, facing the cockle bay. I purchased this apartment only because of its relaxing and open view. The redevelopment will affect all rooms and living areas and balcony view. The amount of noise will be unbearable for area residents. I also concern the privacy impacts from the proposed high building.

Most importantly, the above proposal will damage the character of Darling Harbour and its international icon. Darling harbour is a place for everyone to share, and doesn't serve to one side benefit. It is a designated touist precinct. It is described as sydney's great celebration space and a playground for all ages, especially for kids. Any development within this area must align with this purpose and values.

By allowing Mirvac to build a high tower on their existing pieces of property, it will sacrifice the air quality, relaxing feeling, dominate the feature of cockle bay and overshadow the public domain and significantly destroy iconic views of darling harbour/city skyline.

Redevelopment of a shopping center is unnecessary. Within 15mins walk circle, we have QVB, Westfield, David jones in Townhall, The Star in Pyrmont, Broadway shopping center in Ultimo, and maybe new shopping in barrangoo.

As a representative of city residents, tower buildings create a threatening feeling, when people walk along the darling harbour, especially for kids. Up to now, there is no other tall towers this close to the water in Darling Harbour. This redevelopment will alter this unique chatterer of the darling harbour . If it happens, we believe there is no long a Darling harbor any more.

Overall, we feel the amendment that would allow this to take place is not in the best interest of the citizens of Sydney, and we strongly urge you to reconsider your decision.



Sincerely,


Christy Jie Liang

Harbourside - Staged Development Application (Concept Proposal)
I have numerous concerns
about this development application in view of its scale, density and the impact on the local
community. Details of our concerns are listed below.
First and foremost, we remind the Government that Darling Harbour is a gift to the people of
New South Wales and that in 1984 the then premier of NSW, Neville Wran, announced the
Government's decision to redevelop Darling Harbour and "return it to the people of Sydney" in
time for Australia's 1988 bicentennial celebrations. Accordingly, public access and interests
should be at the forefront of all planning decisions that affect this area.
Scale & Building Form
The proposed podium and tower will result in a massive and unacceptable increase in
development compared to the existing low rise building.
The podium is bulky and imposing and would create a four-storey wall along the waterfront with
its back to Pyrmont. The tower is excessively high and would dominate the public domain, water
and adjacent Pyrmont. The bulk and scale would cause significant impacts within and adjacent
to this prime waterfront location.
The fact that there have been replacements of low rise buildings with taller and denser buildings
like the CBA office blocks is not a justification to build more high rise in Darling Harbour. Two
wrongs do not make one right! We need to stop this inappropriate "change in character" which
will make Darling Harbour no longer a pleasant place to visit with easy open access to the
waterfront for all instead of the select few who can afford the expensive waterfront apartments!
View Impacts & Overshadowing
The proposed podium and tower are large and bulky and will significantly impose on both
public and private views.
As mentioned above, Darling Harbour is dedicated public land and one of its vital roles is
providing public access to the harbour, blue skies and a varied skyline. No particular
development should dominate outlooks.
The proposed Harbourside tower will dominate immediate to long-distance public views,
blocking or imposing on the sky, including from Cockle Bay, Pyrmont Bridge, Tumbalong
Park and King Street Wharf as well as Market Street, Darling Drive and the Barangaroo
foreshore. This will impact severely on the character, amenity and attractiveness of these
public spaces. The outlook from Pyrmont Bridge is particularly concerning as the heavy
imposing tower will impact on the experience of walking on this heritage bridge.
A large number of adjacent residents will also suffer from significant to devastating view impacts
from the proposed development, especially in One Darling Harbour, the Oaks Goldsbrough
Apartments and the Gateway Apartments, as well to a lesser degree, the Renaissance
Apartments, Arena Apartments, The Phoenix Apartments, Harbour's Edge Apartments and 16-
30 Bunn Street. Views are important to the wellbeing of apartment residents, who live with no
private open space. A view can connect someone inside an apartment with the outside world
and create a sense of space. Loss of views to existing apartments should be avoided and
minimized.
Traffic & Public Transport Impacts
Ultimo and Pyrmont are amongst the most densely populated suburbs in Sydney, yet the public
transport available is appalling. There is only one bus 389 that connects these suburbs to the
Central Business District and there are often long waits for this bus even in peak hours. With the
increase number of residents from the new residential tower, how is the public transport going to
cope?
Furthermore, providing for 295 residential car parking spaces is excessive and will adversely
impact on Harris Street which is already congested and will make the situation worse.
Pedestrian Access
Despite the close proximity to the city, there is lack of direct pedestrian access between Ultimo
and Pyrmont to and from the city, especially after part of the previous walkway attached to the
Western Distributor was removed for new lanes as part of the 2004 Cross City Tunnel changes.
Residents who want to go to the city are now forced to go via indirect routes into Darling
Harbour and make their way to the city, despite promises that the Sydney International
Convention, Exhibition and Entertainment Centre Precinct redevelopment would improve
access.
With the redevelopment of Darling Harbour including this development and the Cockle Bay
development, it is an ideal opportunity to reinstate direct pedestrian access from Ultimo/Pyrmont
to the city.
Conclusion
I submit that the proposed development, in its current form, will result in a development that
is overbearing in size and does not appear to offer any public benefits that might help justify
such a substantial redevelopment. I therefore request that this development proposal be
rejected.

I write this submission in order to object to the approval of the development application SSD 7874.

In so doing, I will not attempt at address the myriad shortcomings of the application regarding incursions on open space, impacts on the heritage value of Pyrmont Bridge and deleterious effects on neighbours should the development proceed - I know that very detailed technical submissions have been made by others itemising these concerns.

Rather, I urge the Department of Planning & Environment to consider this proposal in the wider context, not just of the immediate location, but that of the wider precinct of Darling Harbour, from the bridge back to the Haymarket.

Over the past four or five years just about every structure in the area has been demolished (Harbourside and Cockle Bay across the water being the last ones still standing), and replaced with massive, characterless mountains of steel, concrete and glass.

Every one of them has encroached on the open "people's park" that was the vision that drove the original Darling Harbour redevelopment on the 1980's.

There is precious little of that vision to be seen today. Quite the contrary, Darling Harbour is now home to some of the most impersonal, unwelcoming, and indeed intimidating architecture in New South Wales.

The buildings are too big for the site, wedged together like shipping containers on a Botany wharf, and with similar aesthetic appeal.

The overall effect reminds one of the brutalism and alienation found in the works of painter Jeffrey Smart - had he lived to see it I'm sure he would have recognised the Darling Harbour of 2017 as his nightmare visions wrought as hideous sculpture, on a vast and overwhelming scale.

The Harbourside proposal is, to my mind, simply an extension of this astonishing act of unrestrained vandalism. Perhaps more than an extentsion - when combined with the equally ghastly suggestion being put forward for Cockle Bay, it represents the completion of one of the most ill-conceived, badly thought out and seemingly unregulated orgy of shabby construction the State's history.

I urge those who will make the final decision to look not only at the plans and submissions you see before you, but to take the time to walk from Paddy's Market through the desolation of what was once bright, sunny open space, through the shadows of the awful monoliths and their forbidding facades, along the waterfront of Harbourside, then across the Pyrmont Bridge to Cockle Bay.

As you do so, I feel confident that were you to ask yourselves "Would it be a good idea, and would future generations thank us for it, if we permitted another pair of massive towers to loom over this last piece of the people's' Darling Harbour envisaged in the 1980's?" that your conclusion will be "No. It would be an unmitigated disaster."

And when you do, you will be right.

I urge you to reject the proposal out of hand.

- Pat Sheil

I am writing to object to the above redevelopment of the harbourside shopping center.

This proposal will impact our living in pyrmont as residents and our community.

Pyrnont 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.

This new modern development make 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. Therefore, I strongly urge you to reconsider your decision.

This proposal will influence very negatively to our living and lives in pyrmont as residents and our community.

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.

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. Government must interfere this proposal and design Sydney more carefully with rules.

An unsightly development, over-development of space; This will increase the population density of an already over-populated area. Much research has been done on the negative effects of over-population on animals and humans. Any clearing of buildings should be turned into open space for the benefit of the population. I recently read Harris Street is already the second most congested and slowest road for traffic in Australasia. This will make it worse. As a long-term resident and home-owner, of a heritage listed terrace house, in Harris Street, I feel my suburb is becoming increasingly uninhabitable due to ugly over-development. I sincerely hope this unpleasant project is not allowed to proceed. What works for the well-being of people is important; may I say, more important than the avarice of developers. Governments should look-after and protect their people.

I submit that this proposal is out of place and out of character, and should be rejected on a number of grounds as follows.
To place a 45 story Residential tower on the waters edge in the middle of the pedestrian thoroughofare is unacceptable . The foreshore area belongs to all the people of Sydney , and not only to the residents of this tower. It is barely 10 metres at its closest point from the water. It prohibits the flow and access of people along the Harbour foreshore. As a residential tower ,it is a building without any rationale .It appears to have no car parking ! Excavation seems impossible, and in this day and age , an airbnb ghetto will quickly follow .There has been no consultation , but the apparrant linking of the tower to the Heritage Pyrmont Bridge ,is grotesque . The nearby Convention Centre Hotel of 35 floors is over 90 meters from the water ,and although without car park , is a convention Hotel ,with less need for one than this residential tower of 50 floors ( apparently , no details ,no consultation ). The precinct is one for visitors ,tourists , holiday makers, children , entertainment . This Residential Tower is out of place completely .
The Podium proposed appears the equivalent of a 6/7 Level Shopping complex, very similar to Bondi Junction . Again , such a proposal is out of place in this pricinct of Cafes ,bars ,restaurants and speciality shops .
This proposal should be rejected and an alternative proposition that takes into consideration the overall look and feel of the area in its totality can be put forward .
Given the extraordinary Convention Centre Development and its proximity to this current proposal , it would be a mistake to allow it to proceed . It would be a grotesque blot on one of Sydney's showcase locations

The proposed building is too high and too wide, and its demand will cripple the currently inadequate infrastructure for existing residents.

People come from all over the world to Darling Harbour. If it is extensively over developed the site would be like many other places throughout the world with no specific views or experiences to attract the tourists.
There is also a 30+ hotel building being built now and there are no extra transport facilities to accommodate the people staying there or travelling to the area.
The high rise buildings block out the natural light to buildings already in the area which will mean a considerable increase in power needing to be used and power prices are already
sky-rocketing.

As a member of the Pyrmont community, I object to the current redevelopment proposal for the Harbourside shopping centre.

I have been a community member for over 19 years and have seen the large development and redevelopment of the Darling Harbour precinct over the years.

I have no objection of the moving into the future and redevelopment but and believe the shopping centre does need attention and redevelopment but the inclusion of the tower is totally inconsiderate of the local community.

The Darling Harbor is currently having 3 large buildings being built and this one with dramatically destroy the darling harbour attraction. Darling Harbour is a major iconic tourist attraction that is turning into a concrete jungle.
It is a small harbour that os now being fully enclosed and engulfed by highrise buildings. This will ultimately effect the feel of the area and will have economic concequences.

Then there is the impact this highrise building will have on the Pyrmont Community. This building will effect people's sunlight, views and greatly impact on the local infrastructure of the community.

There is local building that are submitting to change the location of the building so it does not effect their views but it more the point it is not a building that anyone in the community wants and least of all needs.

Pyrmont is the most highly, densely populated area in the southern hemisphere and the building of a another 30+ residential building on the foreshore of one of Sydney's most iconic harbour will only add to the currently crumbling community infrastructure of Pyrmont.

Pyrmont public transport, hospital and schools are barely coping and this will be a tremendous strain of these service.

The building of this building is only benefiting the developer and the purchasers. The pyrmont area has already lost the Power house to developers and now they are destroying the Darling Harbour.

This building will directly impact my family as it will become a significant part of the skyline from our family home, it will impact on the sunlight that we will get. My children live in an apartment and don't get to have tree and and grass and now our skyline will have a large building built right in front of us.

I ask that you reconsider this application, the redevelopment of the shopping centre is needed but the large residential highrise is not needed or wanted.

The community has considerable concerns about this and we would like to be heard and considered, not just the people that are going to make money from this application.

Building too many high rise buildings will over develop the area and cause crowding in the tourist and transport facilities.
Too much emphasis is being placed on the tourists and not enough on the local community. eg The local school is over crowded the younger residents are having to enrol at schools out of the area to ensure they can get an education.
There have been 3 high rise buildings at Barangaroo with more to be built and there is currently a hotel being built on the Darling Harbour edge. These towers dominate the scenery and detract from the water views currenty being enjoyed.
Many local residents have lost their views due to the high rise buildings and may choose to move elsewhere as it was the views that attracted them to the Darling Harbour area in the first place.
The recreation areas are also being diminished.
The Power House Museum and the Monorail have all disappeared.

I wish to submit my objection for the redevelopment of the harbourside shopping centre.

This large building being built will lead to both shading to local residents homes and will lead to more overcrowding. darling harbour is the most populated suburbs and this residential building will only cause more overcrowding and strain on local services. Currently the local school is at capacity and Pyrmont has very little public transport.
This large highrise is only going to become an eyesore for the community with no benefit at all.

The Pymont community has recently lost the powerhouse museum, monorail and now you are destroying the darling harbor precinct by enclosing it with high rise buildings and isolating the Pyrmont community.

This development is being put forward without any thought about local residents and it's effect on the community.

We the community, do not need or want any more high rise buildings.

1. Darling Harbour is a place for everyone to share. It is a designated tourist precinct. It is described as Sydney's great celebration space and a playground for all ages. Any development within this area must serve to enhance the tourism and public purpose values of the area.

2. The proposal will fundamentally change the character of Darling Harbour.

3. Describe how proposal will impact on you personally, ie:
a. Where is your apartment located?
b. Why did you purchase this apartment/ why do you live at ODH, how will the proposal change this?
c. What views do you currently enjoy, from what rooms/living areas and how will these views be affected? Please include photos of current views. (An expert view impact assessment is currently being prepared for One Darling Harbour by Richard Lamb & Associates and that information will be shared to supplement your submissions when it is available.)
d. Are you concerned about any other impacts - e.g. privacy or noise impacts from the proposed roof top terraces in the retail podium or further loss of views from vegetation or umbrellas, etc.

4. There are no other tall towers this close to the water in Darling Harbour. This is for a reason - it creates a sense of openness and maximises the sun and light into all the public areas around Darling Harbour and allows the harbour and Pyrmont Bridge to dominate and define the area.

5. The proposed tower serves no tourism or public use benefit and is inconsistent with the values of the Darling Harbour foreshore. The tower will:
a. overshadow (create a sun shadow over) the public domain - and thus detract from the amenity and public values of the area;
b. detract from the significant heritage values of the State Heritage listed Pyrmont Bridge; and
c. significantly impact and in some cases completely destroy iconic views of Darling Harbour/city skyline from private residences to the west of the proposal

6. The proposed retail podium is excessive and inconsistent with the values of the site. The podium is an equivalent height of a 9 storey residential building and the retail space will be more than doubled under the proposal. Such a large retail space is inappropriate and
unwanted in this area, particularly given the close proximity of similar retail spaces throughout the CBD and at Broadway shopping centre and within other redevelopment proposals at Darling Harbour.

7. 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.

Whilst I am not opposed to the redevelopment of the shopping center itself, I am strongly opposed to the construction of the tower.

The tower would impact adversely on the light and amenities of the area. It would put significant pressure on already stretched local roads and services. It would also have an adverse impact on the visual appeal of Darling Harbour