Harbourside Shopping Centre Redevelopment

The amended development now up for reassessment does not address the concerns in my original objection. It is still too large and too dominant and entirely inappropriate and unsuited to the area. Whilst the existing Harbourside Centre could certainly do with some upgrading and refreshing, its scale is appropriate for the area in the way that it enables a gradual step up to the larger and higher buildings behind it from the waterfront. The proposed new development will dominate the existing footprint with its increased height so close to the waterfront and the Pyrmont Bridge. The excessively-scaled tower is entirely unnecessary and unwanted. Pyrmont is already the most densely populated suburb in Sydney and, I believe, in Australia and the area does not need the greatly increased influx of people and pressure on existing infrastructure that the tower will bring, let alone its overshadowing of the area and its domination of the skyline. Should the development be approved it will set a dangerous precedent for more and more similarly over-sized towers and the area’s character risks being changed for the worse in coming years; decreasing its appeal for those of us that have made it our home. My objection to this development remains.

1. Having 357 units and 306 proposed car spaces is not good .. As this is a peak location for any festival time the MORE parking the Better
2. Also ..the plans for this development do not show the garaging height ..many vehicles today are SUV with roof racks and often don't fit under less than 2.35 mtrs high.
3. Hence please ensure the parking areas allow for this without increased building height .. easy to excavate deeper.
4. There dosen't appear to be any parking for Tourist Buses , nor Caravan or Motorhomes .. This is after all expected to be a tourist hub.
5. The facade of the proposed high-rise is in my opinion dated and ugly ..and has no relevance to Darling Harbour, Cockle Bay or Sydney its self. Thank you.
glad to see the tower is proposed to the South near the Sofitel.

The Re-exhibition and Response to Submissions and Amended Concept Proposal to SSD-7874 date 24 March 2020 does have many improvements over previous submissions for Harbourside Shopping Centre Redevelopment including:
- more appropriate spacing from water’s edge and pedestrian promenade
- the tower has been moved to a wide part of Harbourside that will be less obtrusive
- moving the tower further south, in line with Bunn Street, has lowered the impact on the heritage listed Pyrmont Bridge and other buildings on Murray Street
- The area around darling drive is more open and less of a canyon effect
The development, however, still is unsuitable and disruptive to the Darling Harbour and Pyrmont locality due to:
- inappropriate height of the residential tower which at RL153.75 is higher than Sofitel and other towers around the Darling Harbour basin.
- the residential tower, even though it is at a better location, is overbearing and only 32 metres from water’s edge versus 64 metres for the Sofitel tower.
- the inclusion of a residential tower at the Darling Harbour waterfront is an inappropriate use of public space and adds little value to the amenity of this key recreational asset to Sydney residents and tourists
- The bulk of the podium with RL 25 is in appropriate so close to the waterfront and is not comparable with other developments such as Barangaroo, King Street Wharf, Sofitel and ICC
In summary, although there have been many positive aspects of the amended proposal, I still object to this development as overly closing in the Darling Harbour basin with an excessively high tower and bulky podium that adds little value and many detriments to Darling Harbour basin.

The reasons for my objections are:
* The size of the centre is to high and large (not the residential tower) it will be overbearing to the water and the the boardwalk area of Cockle Bay.
* The traffic issues around the streets will be enormous, given the increased traffic from the ICC and the new Imax building currently under construction.
* Darling Harbour is a place were residence, tourists, workers should be able to share and enjoy the area as it is now - not have this massive shopping centre that ads no value in terms of the ascetics of the area. It will devalue the area and all other residential and commercial buildings.
* The CBD has been allocated as a shopping precinct not Darling Harbour.
* The Pyrmont Precinct master plan is currently being developed, this proposal is premature and could conflict with the final plan of the area.
Why has this plan been launched now - given the Coronavirus Pandemic that has stopped the nation and the world - are the developers trying to sneak this through without proper consultation from locals, businesses, planning department etc.
* The area is noisy now - (which is part of city living) however the shopping centre will increase the noise levels substantially, concern for residence, tourists,
workers etc trying to enjoy the area for what it was meant to be. This will place extra pressure on services such as police.
* The area is over serviced with boutique retail, restaurants, cafes now these were are all struggling to survive previously and with the current situation of the coronavirus pandemic many won't reopen - the last thing that is required now is more of these - what would the area look like with closed stores, building etc. Whilst it might be said that centre is being built for the future - it will take decades for us to reach the capacity that we already have of theses stores in the area.
* Pyrmont Bridge is heritage listed, the new proposal of the shopping centre is too high, too bulky its going to take away from the bridge - the shopping centre cannot go any higher than its current height.
* My apartment is located on Level 5 of One Darling Harbour and I like many others in the building enjoy the views of cockle bay and the city, these views will be lost and the reason for me living there changes, when I researched at the time of purchasing my apartment there was nowhere in the rules at that time that this sort of development would be allowed, why is this changing now - given my previous comments that the Darling Harbour Master Plan has not been developed or agreed to as yet!!!!
* I am not against development (I am in business myself and a CEO of a company), I understand that progress and development is needed for commercial gains and for invigorating the economy etc - however what should always be a priority ahead of this is the look and feel of the area, what the living standard expectations are (we are not Hong Kong). An example if you are a child care provider - the children should always come ahead of commercial gain, if you are a WildLife Park animal welfare always comes first ahead of commercial gain - if you are in construction you should always build to the standards of the area not think I will make things bigger for commercial gain.

I can be contacted anytime to discuss anything I have said or to clarify.

Tony Chiefari
0412 258 650.

Whilst I support the redevelopment of the site, I object to the tower included.
Darling Harbour is being enclosed on all sides by towers to its detriment. A low rise redevelopment should be allowable with a slightly higher envelope then current building, but not a high-rise tower.
A residential tower is also out of place in that vicinity.

A huge building, standing in the front row near the water will block the view, interfere with the fireworks, ruin the look of our Darling harbor. We do not need another monster - as the tower at the Molsles Point. We must not make the same mistake.
I was under the impression that Sydney architects are very carefully looking after the first row of buildings keeping them low. Creating "bucket effect" in Darling Harbour will spoil the place.

My apartment is located on the third floor. I principally purchased it because it gave a partial view of Darling Harbour and a full view of the city scape.
The proposed Northern podium is excessive and inconsistent with the values of the site.
It will spoil the aesthetics of Pyrmont Bridge.

From Bruce Saunders Campbell.
50 Murray St Pyrmont
Room 1202
24 April, 2000
To Director- Key Sites Assessment, Department of Planning
Concept Proposal – Harbourside Redevelopment
In formulating this submission, I would like to note the following:
The Harbourside site is owned by the people of NSW and its usage, stipulated in its 100 year lease, signed in 1988 Residential usage is not included in the lease (which has 71 years left to run). In the parliamentary debate leading up to the establishment of Darling Harbour, it was clearly stated that this, and the other Darling Harbour sites were to be gifted to the people of Sydney. Quite clearly, the construction of the 45-storey (or more) residential tower on this publicly owned waterfront site, is contrary to the terms of the lease. If allowed to proceed, it will not only have a huge negative impact on adjacent Pyrmont, but will take away this gift to the people of Sydney.
DARLING HARBOUR TOURISM PRECINCT.

HISTORY OF DARLING HARBOUR AUTHORITY
The Darling Harbour Tourism Precinct Project was the vision of Neville Wran (NSW Premier) and Laurie Brereton (Minister)
The Darling Harbour Authority Act was approved through Parliament in 1984.
The Darling Harbour Authority (DHA) was the Government instrument formed to control and administer the development, planning and development consents for the Darling Harbour Precinct.
The Darling Harbour Authority had its own extensive planning and development consent powers over its own land. Local Government had no powers over planning or development consent on DHA land under the Darling Harbour Authority Act 1984
Darling Harbour opened in 1988.
The Darling Harbour Authority Amendment and Repeal Bill were passed through Parliament at 2.47pm on the 2nd of June 1998.
Whilst this bill puts in place a process to dissolve the Darling Harbour Authority this will be done by a sunset clause which will not take effect before the 1st January 2001. The reason for this provision is that the Darling Harbour Authority will be needed in the interim to manage the second largest Olympic Precinct.
The decision to dissolve the Darling Harbour Authority is in line with the Government's decision to consolidate all planning authorities and planning powers around Sydney’s valuable harbour foreshore.
It is anticipated that the provisions of this bill relating to Darling Harbour Authority’s planning powers will be proclaimed to take effect on the same day as the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Act 1997, namely 1 July.
The repeal bill led to the creation of Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority.
DARLING HARBOUR HISTORY
Transformed in the 1980s from a derelict dockyard into one of the world’s great waterfront destinations, Darling Harbour is a must-see for visitors and a favourite playground for Sydneysiders and their guests. It offers a host of excellent attractions, world-class museums, exceptional shopping, modern restaurants and cafes, superb accommodation, a park with children’s playground, a year round calendar of free outdoor events and magnificent views of the harbour and the city’s skyline.
Darling Harbour

Property NSW owns and manages the 60 hectare Darling Harbour site, which includes 28 hectares of water, known as Cockle Bay. The oldest surviving electrically operated swing span bridge in the world, Pyrmont Bridge has connected the eastern and western sides of Cockle Bay since 1902.
The precinct is a family oriented playground for all ages. Alongside a fine array of waterside dining, fashionable nightspots and spectacular fireworks displays, the area also boasts some of Sydney’s most compelling attractions including:
• Madame Tussauds
• Sea Life Sydney Aquarium
• Wild Life Sydney Zoo
• Australian National Maritime Museum
• The Chinese Garden of Friendship, and
• The Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences (Powerhouse).
Darling Harbour Quick Facts:
• Named after Lieutenant-General Ralph Darling, Governor of New South Wales (1825 –
• 1831)
• 1812 - became a major industrial and goods-handling precinct
• Mid 1970s - a series of empty warehouses
• 1984, NSW Government announced the area would be redeveloped for leisure, culture and business for the people of Sydney.
• Re-opened in 1988 by Queens Elizabeth II, during Australia's Bicentennial Celebrations
• Waterfront location
• Easy walking distance of the heart of the city
• Shopping - over 120 retail outlets at Harbourside
• Food & Wine – More than 100 restaurants and cafes

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

The moving of the proposed tower to the southern end of Darling Harbour is certainly a step in the right direction if a tower must be part of the redevelopment.

The proposed retail podium is excessive and inconsistent with the values of the site. The
podium is an equivalent height of a 7 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.

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.

I purchased my apartment in One Darling Harbour off the plan in 1994 whilst I was NSW Tourism Commissioner 1992 to 1996.
My apartment is on the 12th floor overlooking Darling Harbour with 180 degree view of the harbour and the city and it was the views that made my decision to make such an expensive purchase. If this development was to proceed it would remove at least 30% or more of my view of the water that I have enjoyed for 26 years. I was assured this could not happen and after reading the Darling Harbour Shopping Centre's lease and the tender documents for the lease before purchasing, I was confident this could not happen.

Conclusion

In summary the whole of Darling Harbour Precinct including Cockle Bay is a tourism precinct with in excess of 100 restaurants/ cafe's with numerous shopping outlets and 1,000 plus accommodation rooms including a few residential buildings at the rear of the precinct.
It provides 52 short term berths for visiting boats 15m or less and many cruise boats for visitors wanting the cruise experience.

The Darling Harbour tourism precinct is the playground for international, interstate, intrastate and Sydneysiders and has been since it was given back to the people in 1988. The whole tiered design of the Harbour foreshore has aesthetically blended in with the tourism open space concept for all visitors.

The Darling Harbour precinct is without doubt one of the most iconic and desirable tourism attractions for NSW and certainly Sydney.

Any planning decision to allow such density on the waterfront over the footprint of the Darling harbour shopping Centre would be a serious planning error. People of Sydney and NSW require of planning to keep high rise in the CBD and not expand it into their tourism playground. The Mirvac proposal is a severe over development of the precinct with such a density that the precinct does not need.
The whole precinct requires a master plan with building restraints that relate to the original tiered design before it is terminally damaged by bad development approvals.

The magnificent existing development of Darling Harbour has been a credit to the NSW government and the billions of dollars being spent on its redevelopment should not be jeopardised by one major planning error to suite a single developer for the purpose of profit at the expense of the people.

Bruce Campbell FAIM

Thank you for referring SSD-7874 to Sydney Water, please see our response attached.

I live in the building behind harbourside shopping centre. I bought in the area because of the lifestyle it offers with shops and the harbour foreshore, and the heritage features of Pyrmont.

The northern end of the podium is too large for the area. It will be as high as a 5 story building, towering 25 meters over the harbourfront. The taller podium should be at the southern end with the tower, and the ICC hotel. The podium should not take away from the heritage listed Pyrmont bridge.

I'm also concernded about privacy with the rooftop space being able to look into my apartment in 50 Murray St.

I welcome the decision to move the tower away from the bridge. The current position is acceptable to me. My only objection is the height of the commercial podium on the north side which is lot higher than the original suggestion of 2 levels. My unit is in level 4 on the south side of Darling One apartments ( 50 Murray st).
The Podium in the amended plan will completely block the view from my unit. For that matter, I understand that the view will be blocked for all those living below the 8th level / Floor.
Please understand that all of us bought the apartments for the view more than anything else. My dream of spending my retirement years (soon) will be ruined if the view is blocked. Above all there will be a tremendous loss in value of my retirement property.
Please reduce the height of the podium which is right in front of the apartments below level 8 of Darling One.
Thank you
E.S.Seelan - Unit 404

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Being noted as a place for the people, to gather, meet, reflect on our heritage, traditional owner and enjoy the open
space in an already crowded landscape.... I would like to object to the applicant’s proposal for this development.
I have been to the city a number of times and find this space, the people’s space, a cosmopolitan zone of eateries,
buzz and no less, heritage attractions.
The bridge is a fascination, and the kids love to watch the bridge swing’s to open, and the boat’s go through and
circle in the sparkling harbour side water.
If I may... far less attractive if the water, and foreshore for that matter are covered in darkness, shadowing of
unsightly tall buildings misplaced government/ regulators grandeur for Darling Harbour.
To have this proponent’s application granted will be a disgrace, an eye sore, and just wrong.
Consider too, the people that live in this area already. What about the price they paid for their homes, units,
allotments.
What about the enjoyment of their homes and alike.
What about the value of their entitlements... Who will pay them for their losses on multiple fronts?
Put yourself in their position, the resident’s, rate and tax payers of the electorate, voter’s...... and consider
this...would you want this near you and to the least, the disruption to your life style...? I Think Not.

Kind regards

I object to this project

Please give due consideration to my proposal to open up a new pedestrianised zone to the south of the Novotel carpark (see item 2 in the attachment). Only NSW planning has the authority to look into this as a viable option and it should not be left up to Mirvac alone to respond as it will need to be a collaboration and condition set by NSW planning. This proposal was in my original submission and not addressed by Mirvac in their responses.

Submission attached

Submission attached

The tower has been shifted away from Pyrmont Bridge. Hopefully the tower shift is done to remove any shadow over the middle of the Darling Harbour which is our main concern (There is no shadow diagrams given). Darling Harbour is visited by tens of millions of people every year and is a major attraction for Sydney. We don’t want to ruin the ambience especially when you sit at the harbour and watching the sunset there; we don’t want a big shadow casting over it - like the famous Mussilini Tower in Turin which casts a shadow in the main Piazza, the Italian people are still cursing and swearing to this very day
Gary& Penny Tsen
(also on behalf of our tenants Bunn Street, Pyrmont)

I am objecting to part of this proposal.
- The developers themselves say that they need the residential tower to make the project viable. That would suggest that the Commercial podium at the north of the precinct and the retail podium at the south of the precinct are too big and too expensive on their own. They should build within their means and the existing built form envelope. The impact on the amenity of the precinct of the introduction of a Commercial building into what is traditionally (and intentionally by Parliament) a tourist and greater Sydney tourism destination, goes against why the area was set up in the first place. This is NOT Martin Place, this is Sydney's playground, not work space.
- The Commercial building at the north is far too close and dominating of the iconic Pyrmont Bridge. This is a Heritage Listed item of Sydney infrastructure that should remain as a stand alone item of State Significance. It should not be dwarfed by a huge, unrelated building totally out of character with the bridge. The view loss on the western approach to the area would also be significant by having such a podium so close to the bridge. The view loss from Bunn Street (western approach) would also be complete with the height of the proposed Commercial podium.
- There is insufficient parking planned for the Commercial building. It is 'expected' that people will mostly commute by public transport. There is no basis for this assumption. The approval for the Sofitel Hotel assumed it would be mainly used by 'Fly in Fly out' visitors. It was approved with No parking. The first thing they did on opening was to 'privatise' a large amount of public car park in the Harbourside car park. The untested assumption turned out to be wrong and they introduced Valet parking to correct their mistake. Naturally it has also reduced the amount of public parking available for this project to rely on. So building a bigger Commercial building and a taller retail building (south podium) will increase the pressure on an already scarce resource and add to the congestion in local streets. Prior to the current pandemic, exiting the current Harbourside car park, after an event in Darling Harbour, can go on for hours with impatient drivers leaning on their horns and yelling abuse at each other until the wee small hours of the morning. If you increase the size of the buildings you will increase the amount of traffic generated.
- Residential view loss for the existing residents cannot be justified for the introduction of a Commercial building into a tourism precinct. Mirvac trumpeted to their shareholders that they bought the iconic Harbourside Shopping Centre as a viable, going concern that would provide good returns on investment. They did not say that they bought the site for redevelopment. Please see Mirvac's press release at the time of purchase. Any redevelopment should be in sympathy with the existing built form - low rise by the water and step up in height away from the water.
- I am also concerned about another 'glass tower' being added to the precinct. We have the Sofitel now, the iMax building is under construction and the Cockle Bay tower has just been approved. With the Sofitel alone, you can literally feel the heat walking across Pyrmont Bridge of a morning, of the sun being reflected from the hotel onto the foot path. To have all of those towers acting together, Darling Harbour will be come an uninhabitable 'Darling Spit' - the place to get roasted!
The public (and I should say the Department) should be left questioning as to why Mirvac are trying to get the jump on the Commission for Greater Sydney's current Master Plan for Pyrmont/Ultimo that is under development. The Government requested that this be undertaken to avoid such ad hoc planning determinations. The development of the Harbourside Shopping Centre should be undertaken in the broader planning controls covering the entire peninsular.