IMAX Redevelopment _ Stage 1

1. The proposal will overshadow numerous existing buildings, including restaurants, plus some proposed ones as well as the playground and oen spaces enjoyed by the public.
2. Views from The Peak and other buildings will be obscured.
3. The playground was recently upgraded and it would be a waste of money to go over it again.
4. It will add to the already approved proposals to adversely change the nature of Darling Harbour by cluttering it up with high rise buildings.
5. There is no need for such a building.

I wish to object to proposed redevelopment of the IMAX Cinema on a number of grounds.

I believe that the proposed building is totally out of character and out of scale with its existing surroundings and will dominate the southern Barangaroo precinct, making it unfriendly and unappealing for tourists and locals alike. It appears as a monument to capitalism and 'greed is good with extravagant expanses of glass and a bulbous shape that protrudes like a beer belly towards the city proper.

1. The EIS does not justify why the proposed building is required with the significant amount of office space proposed at Barangaroo South.

2. The justification given for the scale and height of the proposed building is that it 'frames' the harbour. This shoudl be changed to 'dominates the harbour'

3. I am very concerned as my daughter uses the child's playground and water park in Darling Quarter on a daily basis that the amount of available sunlight to this park and Tumbalong Park will be significantly reduced not just during winter hours, but during autumn and spring also. The developer has only provided shadow diagrams at 1pm on June 21st which is misleading as this is the LEAST amount of shadow on that day. Industry practice is to provide diagrams at 9am and 3pm on June 21st which would reveal the true extent of overshadowing of the public domain and nearby street.

4. We bought our apartment at Millenium Towers at 289-295 Sussex Street in 2012, partly for the views of Darling Harbour. This building will totally obliterate the views from our balcony of Darling Harbour and hence devalue our investment. We do not see any reason why the proposed building needs to be as tall and as bulbous in an easterly direction towards the CBD. It seems to be an attempt buy th developer to compensate for perceived' loss of floor space by pushing the building towards the city. There has been no assessment of views from privately owned apartments in the vicinity, however the photomontage from Bathurst/Day Street illustrates the impact which can be summed up in two words 'totally dominant'. In that respect the Visual Impact Assessment submitted with the application is only partially complete and needs an assessment of the impact on views from private property in the vicinity. We would support lowering the height to be more compatible with recent developments such as the Commonwealth Bank buildings in Darling Quarter.

5. There has been no assessment of the reflective heat gain impact of the building with such vast expanses of external glass is likely to generate through reflection in summer towards the public domain and nearby residents.

6. The inclusion of an above ground car park on the first few levels does not constitute good urban design and will result in an ugly view from ground level whilst walking around teh Darling Harbour Foreshore.


Sydney does not need more commercial office space and over-development of its foreshore with the nearing completion of Stage 1 of the Lend Lease Barangaroo South development .

The proposal is not justified. I submit that the proposal should be modified with a lower overall height (in comparison with the existing Commonwealth Bank buildings) so as to minimise overshadowing, the bulbous curve be pushed back from the city face so as to minimise impact on Darling Harbour views from Millenium Towers and nearby residential buildings and to minimize perceived bulk and that the exterior materials to be redesigned to be less reflective, possibly resulting in a decreased floor plate depth so as to minimise reliance on artificial lighting and heating.

I object to this development on the following grounds:

1. Bulk and height

The building is far too bulky for its surrounds and in the endeavour to limit further overshadowing to the newly built - and popular - children's playground, the building has been reduced in height on the western side. This is visually odd. The whole building is out of character with the existing buildings on the eastern side of Darling Harbour and with Chinatown. To state that the height is justified because Lend Lease intends to build high rise buildings in the area is simply opportunistic.

The government has a once in a generation opportunity to revamp Darling Harbour into a architecturally cohesive and coherent whole and to make it into a vibrant, pleasant and visually pleasing PUBLIC space. Instead it appears to simply handed the reins over to two and possibly three different developers (if Harbourside is redeveloped by Mirvac) and put commercial gain before public good.

2. Additional overshadowing

Despite the efforts to reduce overshadowing to the children's playground, in the morning of the winter solstice the playground will have just on 50% of its area in shadow as opposed to the current 38%.

3. Oversupply of office space in the CBD

There has been considerable comment in the media recently about the oversupply of office space in the CBD. It is likely that the Ernst & Young building will be converted to apartments when their current lease expires and they move to Barangaroo. The Central Park development just outside the CBD has not been able to fill its intended office space and there are a number of other buildings in the CBD that can't be filled by commercial tenants and are being considered for conversion to apartments. Lend Lease intends to include some office space in its proposed Haymarket precinct in Darling Harbour. Why then is more office space being proposed?

4. Overcrowding of Town Hall Station

The platforms at Town Hall Station are dangerous already when people crowd on to them in peak hour. This development is only 400m from Town Hall Station and many of the building's office workers will use the station to get to and from work. Many of the additional 4000 people who will be living in the Haymarket precinct by the end of the decade, as well as the additional visitors and tourists expected in Darling Harbour, will also use the station as an entry and exit point. Town Hall Station will be way over capacity and an accident waiting to happen.

Submissions regarding Imax Development at 31 Wheat Rd Sydney.


Our Daughter lives on the corner of Day and Bathurst St overlooking Darling Harbour,
She has a lovely view of all the Icons including Pyrmont Bridge, Old Manly Ferry, Novotel
& Ibis buildings Water views and Cockle Bay.

We visit her often and enjoy the iconic view through the windows & Balcony It is very devastating to learn that the view of fireworks and water views as well as solar in the
Winter time are going to be taken away.

The proposed Imax Development will overhang the Harbour St by 18 metres, as I
understand which under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 is not legal.
This will cause a lot of anxiety for motorists going under an overhang - there are
Possibilities Of paines of glass falling on cars cutting them in half.

***SOLUTION.***
On the drawing ARD-HSL-DA-1077 Lines 14 & 15 (overhang) could be moved back west
And cut Lines1 & 2 Start at Line 3 above the roadway and the building won't overhang
Harbour Street. This would enable some water view for the residents.

With regard of the childrens playground the sun get quite warm in summer which could
Be eleviated by sails and in the winter its nice to have some warmth from the sun.

On the view M3 Bathurst St/ Harbour & Day St the view is completely heavy looking in the face perhaps a ribbon effect on the north east side would improve this look- this too
would improve the view.

Under 5.3.2 Private Views

The apartment is within 150 mtrs and indicates the 4 th step of View Loss.

Grocon said they would be passionate towards residents in this matter - now they are organizing the building process without wanting to meet with the residents.
on Page 99 Visual Impact from Pyrmont Bridge West- Is this the same view as the position stands with the plan from Millennun
Towers With this view position our daughter will still see Manly
Ferry from her 8th floor windows. only 150 metres from new building.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Regards
Helen Thomas.

As a resident living in the Millennium towers nearby the proposed development, I strongly support this application.

The continued development of Darling Harbour, starting with the Darling Quarter project has greatly improved the area both for tourists and visitors, and for residents of the area. The proposed development would further enhance this, especially with the proposed Sydney Convention and Exhibition Centre redevelopment.

In addition, I strongly support the "Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036" and this particular development works well towards the goal of a more compact and better utilized Sydney, reducing the need for Urban sprawl that will impact the environment surrounding Sydney.

Realistically, I do not think there will be significant adverse affects from the development and none will be out of line with what I already deal with as a resident living in a city apartment.

I refer to the redevelopment of the IMAX Theatre and submit the following issues of objection.

The scale, bulk and positioning of the building is completely out of scale with the Sydney CBD. The east-west orientation of the building is at complete odds with the horizontal built form of the city and Baranagaroo.

Many of the photographs taken for the visual impact statement seem to be from a distance that does not reflect the true impact when being closer to the site.

The proposal will take away the city skyline when viewed from Cockle Bay side of Darling Harbour due to the length and height of the building. To this effect, views from Meriton Tower and World Tower will be significantly obstructed.

We would not normally object to development in the City, however, on this occasion, the building is so out of character and creates a substantial impact, which has required this response.

I have seen the proposal and I am fully supportive as it will enhance the Darling Harbour area and it is a vast improvement in appearance on the current building.

This will also create interest and improve the visitation into Darling Harbour.

I am writing to you with regard to the proposed redevelopment of the IMAX site at Darling Harbour.

I own a unit in Millennium Towers which has a panoramic view of the Cockle Bay/Darling Harbour and Pyrmont Footbridge precinct. I am very concerned that this proposed building will dominate my view, remove my water and iconic precinct view and limit my afternoon sunshine dramatically. This will all have a detrimental effect on my health, lifestyle and the value of my unit in which I have invested everything I have.

I note that the DGR's under the Environmental Impact Statement do not take into account 'a view analysis from surrounding residential buildings (which include Millennium towers)'. The Environmental Impact Statement goes on to say that "there will be changes to and impact on some views from some nearby residential apartments'. I believe this is an understatement given that approximately 200 of our 330 apartments currently have specific, open, static and significant views through to full panoramic vistas of the water in Cockle Bay and iconic views of Pyrmont Foot Bridge.

In the Visual Impact Assessment it states that 'no views generated a rating of devastating'. Whilst the Assessment did not take into account residential buildings as stated above, I, along with many of the owners here in Millennium Towers, believe that the view loss we will incur would rate as devastating. I stand to lose my entire water view for which I paid a premium price when buying this unit, as the only way in which I could be built out in that direction was for someone to change the law in order to build out over the road. I believe from my discussions with Grocon and from the DA that this is exactly what has happened in this case. Due to the proposed building being hung out over Harbour Street I will lose my Water view - for which I paid premium price!

I am also concerned by the proposed height of the new structure with regards to loss of sunshine particularly in winter. The height will affect the amount of sunshine my unit receives during the afternoon, which currently assists in keeping my unit warm naturally. Losing sunlight in winter will considerably adversely affect my heating costs.

The Developers will stand to benefit considerably from this project, while people like myself, having invested my life savings in this unit, will lose much. Will I be compensated for losing my view? Probably not! This is hardly fair. I don't object to the site being redeveloped by any means. It is just that the proposed development as it stands now will have a very devastating and detrimental effect on my quality of life, my view, my sunshine and the investment I have made with my life savings.

As such I would like to work with the developers, SHFA and NSW Planning and Infrastructure in finding a resolution to this situation that will benefit all parties. I am asking that consideration be given to simply moving the proposed building westward, keeping the new structures eastern end closer in line with the current Imax buildings position. This would again open up the view corridor which we currently enjoy from Millennium Towers (and other buildings nearby).
Perhaps consideration could also be given to slightly lowering the overall height - removing just the top two floors I believe would make a significant difference to the path of winter sunlight that would be achieved. These two simple alterations to the proposed building would alleviate many of the concerns of myself and other owners in Millennium Towers and other units nearby. Lessening the issues with regards to loss of view and allowing us to keep our levels of sunlight to as many units as possible and would go some way to protecting our investments.

I understand from the Development Application and my discussions with Grocon, that the bulk of the building has been moved eastward to allow the playground and green spaces at Darling Quarter to be bathed in sunshine all day. The response to the DGR's states that 'The building does not cast any additional shadowing of green space at 1pm on any day'. Should this not be a concern regarding protecting children from the dangers of too much sun and the long term consequences of skin cancer? Are we not supposed to protect our children and ourselves from direct sunshine at 1pm? I do not see the sense in positioning a building so that it blocks views and sunlight to local residential developments (in which owners have invested heavily) yet allows full sunshine on a children's playground at 1pm increasing their risk of skin cancer. Again, by simply adjusting the proposed development by lowering it slightly in height and positioning it further to the west would alleviate many of these concerns.
I hope that common sense will prevail in this situation and that serious consideration would be given to my suggestions to;
a) move the proposed building westward keeping the new structures eastern end closer in line with the current Imax buildings position thus opening up the view corridor to residential buildings in the city's southwestern precinct.
b) lowering the height of the proposed new structure by approximately two floors to allow for more sunshine during the winter months to nearby residential buildings.

I am more than happy to discuss these suggestions and assist in finding a way forward that is agreeable to all parties.

Yours sincerely

The CBA has undertaken a desktop review of the documentation on exhibition for the IMAX Entertainment, retail and commercial development. The outcomes of this review have highlighted areas of concern which we would like to submit for consideration:

There is concern that reflectivity may pose ongoing excessive glare into the public domain and Commonwealth Bank Place. Please provide modelling and evidence that demonstrate that reflectivity from the complex geometry of the façade is not a concern.

There is concern that the new development will impact daylight levels on the Northern and North Eastern façades, the Northern Atrium and the photo-voltaic panels on the North Western leg of the Northern building at Commonwealth Bank Place. Please provide a daylight assessment using an annual sky rather than uniform of overcast sky (which is the traditional analysis method) as the daylight profile is heavily influenced by the northern location of the proposed development which will not be captured by the traditional methods.

There is concern that the noise assessment report does not model the current plant and equipment design. Please provide modelling of potential nose emissions carried out at a noise sensitive receiver located at the nearest façade of the Commonwealth Bank Place, that an assessment of demolition and piling activities be presented, that the correct noise parameter is used, and that the time period between 7am - 8am be included in the assessment.

There is concern of the loss of views from the northern and eastern facades of the Commonwealth Bank Place.

The height of the proposed building is too high.
This will spoil the low rise look around the harbour foreshore.
The demolition of another site in this area.
Wasteful and unnecessary. The IMAX is hardly ever full.
Noise, rubbish and disturbance to this area again on top of the ICC and Exhibition centre's destruction and rebuilding.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have seen the proposal. It looks out of proportion compared to other buildings (eg. Commonwealth Bank, Darling quarter). The proposed building is 20 storey, it will cast bigger and longer shadow in the morning than other adjacent buildings. As the building is inside the park and very tall comparatively, it does not look harmonious with the area.

Yours Sincerely,

Lawrence Fung

Submission attached.

I strongly object to the redevelopment of the Imax Site and the apparent ongoing attempts at WRECKING Darling Harbor.

I strongly object to Darling Harbor being wrecked by this proposed development.

I strongly object to the over development and wrecking of Darling Harbor by this proposal.

See attached PDF submission.

Dear Sir /Madam,

I am writing in support of the proposed redevelopment of the IMAX Entertainment and retail complex by the Markham Group.

I have taken the opportunity to acquaint myself with the proposal and I support the architectural direction, as well as landscaping vision and provision for new public playground facilities.

I believe the proposed landscaping treatment and new playground options put forward by the Markham Group significantly enhance the family offer in Darling Harbour; what's more they positively build upon what has already been achieved particularly by the Darling Quarter development. The new playground amenities the Markham Group are proposing are particularly important for a Museum like mine, as we are a very family-focused institution and committed to supporting projects that look to positively enhance the family offer in Darling Harbour. I am also aware that the Markham Group has entered into a detailed consultation process around the architectural approach for the "Ribbon Building." Through this approach they have engaged stakeholders and adapted their original architectural and landscaping proposal to produce a holistic solution which I believe can help ensure Darling Harbour remains a world class tourist destination.

Yours Sincerely


Kevin Sumption
Director & CEO

Please refer to attached file SSD 5397 Submission - IMAX The Ribbon.pdf

The attached submission is made on behalf of Anson City Developments Pty Ltd