Mod 1 - Design Changes

I object because:
Increased boat traffic will jeopardise the future use of Glebe Island Bridge for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport.
Outdoor seating will cause noise to local residents.
Boat traffic will disturb pollution in Rozelle Bay sediments- it is a very polluted bay.
The expanded facility will add to road congestion in an already very congested area, viz the Crescent, Anzac Bridge and Victoria Road.
The area is public land and should be available for use by the public, especially open space along the foreshore. There should be a public path and cycle way from Glebe to Balmain along the shore.

With regards to the proposed marina development at james Craig road, I would like to take this opportunity to register my objections to the controls proposed in the noise impact assessment presented by Ben White of Acoustic Logic.

I regard the following controls to be insufficient:
-No music to be played externally after 10pm.
- All external windows and doors are to be closed after 10pm or during events which high noise amplified voice or music with amplified music.

I note too that there are no proposed noise controls regarding amplified music or amplified voices on yachts visiting the marina.

My primary concerns relate to the fact that the designated restaurant area and visiting yachts will be directly on the water, and thus will expose the residents on glebe point road to excessive noise.

My family and I live directly across the bay at the bottom on the north side of glebe point road in a residential neighbourhood. We have small children and I do not think that the noise restrictions go far enough to protect my family or my neighbours from the anticipated noise pollution that will carry unimpeded across the water.

I propose that the noise restrictions should go further to prevent the playing of amplified music externally at any time, on either the marina or visiting yachts, and that all windows and doors be closed at any time when amplified music is played. I am of the opinion that this measure will protect the amenity that my family and my neighbours currently enjoy.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I object to the proposed amendments on the basis that there has been no proper noise testing and analysis undertaken of any of the proposed changes and given that people live within a couple hundred meters of the marina, we need to be confident that the changes will not increase the noise levels.

Further, the increased size of the buildings, which are already massive compared to the adjoining Maritime Services buildings will negatively detract from the area.

1. This expanded, huge, unavoidably noisy entertainment precinct is right opposite my home. The approved TEMPORARY restaurant on that site, Liquidity, was extremely noisy, but had limited hours. This proposal appears UNLIMITED.
2. There has been totally INADEQUATE community consultation prior to approval of this plan, which completely ignores principles recommended by experts who were consulted re Bays Transformation.
3. Virtually doubling the number of Superyachts mooring at this proposed facility, will preclude and endanger smaller craft, especially rowers and dragon-boat racers who now use Rozelle Bay for training and recreation.

1. This hugely expanded and unavoidably noisy ENTERTAINMENT PRECINCT will be across water, very close to my home. The restaurant Liquidity which operated on the site during the Sydney Olympics and afterwards, was extremely noisy, and with the Superyacht Marina, was approved as a TEMPORARY use of the site.

2. INADEQUATE community consultation, and failure to consider legitimate objections that were made to the smaller, original proposal, destroys trust in Dept Planning and Environment to follow principles recommended for Bays Transformation by experts expressly consulted.

3. Virtually doubling the number of Superyachts from 24 to 43, makes the narrow Rozelle Bay dangerous and crowded for the smaller craft of rowers and dragonboat racers who currently share this public area.

We were supporters of the original proposal for Rozelle Bay, however with the increase in size of the licensed premises, the resultant disruption will turn this project from a community marine facility into a Darling Harbour type or a full-on entertainment precinct.
We understood that this area was nominated as a maritime precinct however the accent on music and alcohol seems to defy the original approval.
We would still support the original proposal but in regard to the modifications we would ask the committee to consider the impact on the surrounding residential areas .
How can the developer lodge this application without consultation with the surrounding community??? The extracts we have seen from the new proposal seem to be misleading, particularly the photograph looking across Rozelle Bay towards Bicentennial Park and the mass of housing that stretches halfway up Glebe Point Road and Eglinton Road... We therefore submit our strongest objections to this modification.

THE PROCESS

1] Considering this submission in isolation ignores the work being carried on by so many people to achieve the long desired Master Plan for the bays, an aim of locals for over 40 years to my knowledge, and the only sensible way to achieve proper development of the bays. Development of the bays in this ad hoc, piecemeal way must stop.

2] Although this proposal is being passed off as a "modification", such is its scale that it should be treated as a new proposal, or at the very least as an appeal against the original approval since many of the "modifications" raise again matters that were rejected in the original approval.

3] The notification of this proposal and the time given for a response were demonstrably inadequate. Locals who were involved in earlier issues concerning the area were not alerted despite their responses to earlier submissions, nor were many people who will be directly affected across Rozelle Bay in Glebe Point.

4] The display copy supposedly available at Leichhard Council was not available when I went to view it (I thank those in Planning involved for ensuring it became available as soon as I pointed the problem out, and thank them for granting me eight extra days to make the submission, but alas it was of no use to me as I couldn't get back to Leichhardt Council and I won't be around to exploit the extra time granted. This difficulty must apply to others as well).

5] I, and i suspect most other people, need clear and accurate visual representation to understand the impact of any proposal. This can be achieved through accurate artist impressions, photographs and models of the project. I'm afraid most of the artist impressions and photographs presented on your website were at best meaningless and at worst misleading. And there was no three-dimensional model available anywhere! Given the scale of the proposal, it also warranted proper presentations by the architects/developer at, perhaps, a public forum.

BACKGROUND

1] Blackwattle and Rozelle Bays are the most polluted in the harbour. They are small in area, shallow and with very little "flushing " available. Heavy, toxic chemicals and metals from earlier industry are laid so thick in the sediment, government policy is not to dredge them up for fear of creating hazardous water. Rather the remedy depends upon keeping the water still and not stirring up the sediment. The fewer motorised craft we have in the bays, the better.

2] The size, stillness and the tiny entry to the bays have made them safe for non-motorised craft. Thus their long history for sporting and leisure rowers, and more recently, paddlers. The local professionals operating the fishing fleet, the heritage fleet and the working boats kept in the bays are well versed in working with the rowers/paddlers. Much less so those in the leisure power craft.

3] Without a proper Master Plan each project is allowed to increase ambient noise in the area, the assumption being if you're surviving now a little bit more is ok. Twenty years ago, pre-Anzac Bridge, the area was very quiet. The coming of the bridge has raised the ambient noise to a very high level exacerbated by the failure to erect the concrete baffles originally intended for the western (Glebe) edge of the bridge. This, of course pre-dates all the CSR/Jackson's Landing development on the eastern side. Each subsequent project in the bays has been allowed to raise the ambient noise a little. It should not be allowed again with this "modification".

4] The heritage listed Glebe Island Bridge is in shocking repair. Let's not even consider the authorities might have a cunning plan to demolish it by neglect. It is too valuable a facility to be wasted as it is. Its potential as a cycleway, footpath or even a road for local traffic is too great to ignore. Unfortunately the biggest of the super yachts, those with the widest beams, do struggle to get through, trussed as they are with their protectors, but I can't imagine even the soft bumping by these boats does this fine old bridge much good. Naturally, the more super yachts, the less likely it is to achieve an equitable outcome for opening/closing arrangements for the restored bridge.

THE SPECIFIC ISSUES

1] The consolidation of land and water based components must be rejected as a cynical ploy by the developer that can have no other purpose other than to make future proposed expansion easier for the developer.

2] Reconfiguring the marina to accommodate nearly double the number of boats will have a disastrous effect on Rozelle Bay. Already these boats dominate the activity and amenity of the bay. When berthed the largest of the them stick well out into the bay with their securing ropes fixed even further into the channel. Their reversing into their berths and their exits from the berths are inevitably clumsy despite the usually professional activity of the crew for this activity. When there are minor problems (two boats arriving together, no immediate assistance from the shore or the authority's dingy, a boat waiting on others to get through the bridge, a boat waiting to be berthed at the repair facility ...) just by their sheer size these boats effectively disrupt all other activity on the bay. Add to this double the noise from double the boats and it is just unacceptable. While the boats themselves are not unduly noisy, their crews sometimes are, and their foghorns always are.

3] On land, the proposed massive increases in floor space, terrace areas and seating areas, and in the car park's bulk and height, will help to destroy what little remains of the visual appeal of that northern shore from the Glebe side. Where once we had, and should have again, small labour intensive maritime industry such as still remains down the end of the bay from the Heritage Fleet to White's Creek, we will have massive buildings, this last one being effectively a hotel in what should be a maritime working area.

4] The proposed increase in the size and capacity of the parking station is an admission as to the earlier understatement of the traffic impact and a concession to the considerable effect it will have on the surrounding areas. Just another reason why the whole process should start again.

5] The noise issue was raised earlier and is significant to my whole objection. Earlier I gave it some historical context. Now I must relate it to this specific proposal:

a) The first point i must make is that broadly the issues of outside seating, new terraces and removal of airlocks are items dealt with in the original approval of this development. Surely this application must now be treated as an appeal against the earlier decision or perhaps a new application.

b) Incremental ambient noise with each new development is one thing, but it is the issue of entertainment noise that advises notice of this application SHOULD have been delivered to every person residing from at least Ferry Road to Glebe Point on the north-eastern side of Glebe Point Road and Wigram Road to The Point on the south-western side. Further every effort should have been made to alert users of Bicentennial Park and the walkway. Those residents and park users who have been here a reasonable period will recall horrific noise a couple of times rock concerts were allowed to be delivered from barges on Rozelle Bay; and, every Saturday and Sunday during the last few years of operation of the White Bay Hotel (now demolished) on Victoria Road when live bands provided entertainment. The noise from "Liquidity" which existed on the very site of this proposal until a few years ago, penetrated almost as far on a bad night, presumably when they had a function on rather than operating as just a restaurant.

CONCLUSION

Changes proposed in this application are of such a scale that the developer clearly feels its approved size is inadequate. The effect on the amenity of the residents of Glebe and the users of Bicentennial Park and the bays matches the scale of the "modifications". The original approval should be scrapped and the developer should start the application from the beginning.

Sydney Superyacht Marina has applied to modify aspects of its development on Rozelle Bay. In particular it seeks to reduce noise restrictions, remove airlocks and increase outdoor space, including adding an outdoor deck. It also seeks to add an additional level to the carpark. This application should be rejected for the following reasons.

This development is just 250 metres from residences and Bicentennial Park. The developers already plan to operate licensed venues with live music on this site seven days a week until mid-night. This will adversely affect park users and residents. The approved outdoor space is already half the size of an Olympic swimming pool.

This development is an entertainment complex on public land zoned for maritime use.

The creation of this facility has happened by stealth. What was supposed to be a temporary marina for a few boats during the 2000 Olympics is now being promoted by the developers as the largest Superyacht facility in the southern hemisphere.

There has been inadequate community consultation at all stages of this $30 million plus development. Placing an advertisement about the marina amid the sex ads in the Inner West Courier is inadequate notification that such a substantial development was planned.

Noise testing for the initial development was inadequate. This was conducted during the day. But sound travelling across water is far more noticeable at night. Further testing should be undertaken at night.

Sound from a previous licensed venue on this site, Liquidity, caused considerable disruption to residents in a wide area of Glebe and was the source of repeated complaints. Yet this venue operated with noise restrictions.

The development of this marina could impact the future use or existence of Glebe Island Bridge. The NSW Superyacht Industry Association has argued that the bridge should be demolished for the benefit of maritime and commercial interests.

Public benefit should be paramount. According to the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan: "The public good has precedence over the private good whenever or whatever change is proposed for Sydney Harbour or its foreshores." The changes proposed by Sydney Superyacht Development put commercial development ahead of the public good, in particular the public users of Bicentennial Park and foreshores.

The public is concerned at the scale of the boat storage facility erected last year on Rozelle Bay. This has impinged on the visual amenity of the area. Views across the bay from Glebe Point Road and Victoria Road have been obstructed. The size of this facility, together with the lack of community consultation over its construction, have increased concerns about the future development of this foreshore area.

Urban Growth has noted that the Bays Precinct represents possibly the highest potential transformation opportunity in the world: "The realisation of that potential will offer something for every Sydneysider". The transformation of Rozelle Bay should not be into a playground for the super-rich to the detriment of the public.

A proposal has been made by the developer to expand their proposed commercial development opportunity at Rozelle Bay Super Yacht Marina foreshore. The changes suggest they are refocusing the space from mostly marine to an entertainment zone. The area is zoned Marine not entertainment.


The basis for the requested amendments to the DA are justified by the developer as improving their investment outcome due to the impacts of the changing commercial situation.


The development is on public land and the developers commercial concerns should not allow them to improve their position at the cost of the community.


The developers went through a consultative process and reached an agreed position with the community. Amending the site specific constraints should give rise to a further detailed assessment not a few words from the developers own consultants saying "it will be ok".


The residents went through a consultative process with the developers particularly in relation to noise control. The proposed amendment wish to remove the controls and expand the entertainment facility size.


The Bay is used by many small craft, kayaks, dragon boats, rowers and sailing Catamarans... The proposal to now expand the super yacht marina by around 70% will obviously impact their ability to use the bay.


The original proposal after consultation with the community included constraints on out door Dining areas. The developers now propose to dump this agreed constraint and expand all outdoor dining and rooftop areas for entertainment. They also wish to remove all agreed constraints on events and noise.


Minister, this is clearly a case of developers wishing to create maximum commercial return at the expense of the community on community land and waterways. It's quite plain to see and easy to understand their short term profit motives.


We have planning rules to protect the community from commercial interests. Public good is not being served in this instance and I would ask your department to review and restrain these private interests.



A full review of the major proposed changes by independent consultants is required to ensure transparency and protect the valuable foreshore precinct from unrestrained development.



Regards


Mark Burgess

Dear Sir/ Madam,
We are strongly against any further expansion of this project, we live directly opposite the site in question and have had grave concerns of the original project let alone this request for expansion.
Outdoor extra seating....more noise, increased births.....more noise, additional car parking....more noise.
When the tests were set up for noise control the results were well above the accepted limitations, to my knowledge the project was approved without properly addressing this issue. Clearly the developer is attempting to get all that he wants by way of stealth, not acceptable.
Peter & June Candler

The changes proposed in this `modification application' involve a close to 80% expansion of the originally approved plan for the size of the marina and its noise controls. This is preposterous. That plan was finalized after extensive public consultation and scrutiny. This is essentially a new application, and it should be subjected to the same rigorous planning and consultation process for major developments in NSW. Not to do so sends out a disquieting message to the community about deals done behind closed doors.

This blatant example of intended `developer creep' (SMH 16 May) directly violates the general principles of the Sydney Harbour Region Environmental Plan. It poses a serious environmental threat to the Blackwattle Bay parkland, to the foreshore regeneration area directly opposite the existing marina, and to the well-being of the local community.

I am writing to express my deep concern about the proposed modifications to the Sydney Superyacht Marina. When this development was originally proposed, I was one of the community members who expressed their concern about its size and potential impact on local residents and visitors and users of the bays (such as rowers, dragon boat racers and the Heritage fleet) - particularly in terms of safety and noise. Independent sound testing of outdoor live music from the existing marina foreshore was carried out: when found to exceed acceptable levels, the plans were modified. Now we learn that the Superyacht Marina wants to increase in size and scope, which will certainly impact on the quality of life and leisure and safety in this unique part of Sydney. Let us preserve the 'working harbour' character of Rozelle and Blackwattle Bays and not turn it into an 'entertainment precinct' for the rich and famous!

My concerns relate to the following issues:
1. This area is zoned maritime use and not as an entertainment precinct. A hotel, function centre, restaurants and cafes seem to indicate an intent beyond a maritime usage.
2. The removal or reduction of noise constraints that were imposed by the Planning Assessment Commission, together with increased seating capacity, removes or reduces the possibility for noise management if changes go ahead. PLEASE GIVE THE RESIDENTS NEARBY THE OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE IF THERE ARE NOISE PROBLEMS. GIVE PEACE A CHANCE.
3. Protect the bay for the future. We want the bay to be a vibrant, working and enjoyable place. Enjoyable for all - visitors and residents - and we know that means compromise - and it means a long term view on how we can all enjoy the bay. What happens here doesn't just impact the residents of today - it has huge implications on how the plans for the bay over the next 20.30,40 years will be implemented. Don't give in on critical noise controls.

I object that this public land has been given to a private group to develop a huge business complex masquerading as a Super Yacht club. The real function is not to continue the promise of a "working harbour" but to install a shopping centre, including offices, food outlets, restaurants, combined with a gigantic Pub with outdoor seating balconies and terraces of more than 2000 sq. metres, and a car park for more than 300 cars. The Super Yachts, initially 12 in number are to be increased from the proposed 24 to 43, stealing water space from more diverse and deserving users, such as the Heritage fleet and passive rowers, kayakers and dragon boats,who depend on this still water area. The Super Yachts have such large entertainment areas, dining facilities and accommodation, built in on board, that the need for the so called Club is minimal. It is actually to serve the usual purpose of every large Pub in Sydney. I have an apartment directly opposite the oversized proposal. My balcony is a mere 36 sq.m and I have entertained 20 people there. I can't imagine the noise coming from more than 2000 sq.m. Sound travels across the water from the yachts and boat repair works already, sufficient to disturb the peace. The threat to our future peace is real. The foreshore walk on the Glebe side of Rozelle Bay is very popular and should continue around the entire bay with only genuine marine related work and activities, plus green spaces for public peaceful usage. All housing development will expect the same set-back from the water, without the noise generated by this unnecessary inappropriate outdoor Pub/Club.

When this development was first approved I objected because I thought it would result in a loss of public space on the harbour foreshore, especially a loss of an "open space" feel that you can still get when walking along the foreshore of Rozelle Bay.

The open air seating, large car park, etc. will see this very much needed harbour space (especially now with residents occupying Harold Park) alienated and transformed into a Darling Harbour type facility.

Please do not permit an expansion of an already intrusive development.

While I agree we need to develop our city we must do this with true and thorough public consultation. Unfortunately, due to the poor track record of the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority our trust has been ruined.

Once again we are already seeing requests to increase the carpark from 4 to 5 levels, extensive outdoor seating, increase in the number of berths for the superyachts and tenders (justification for the changes based on financial viability and impact of the GFC is NOT relevant). Furthermore, (notwithstanding all the promises made at a public meeting held in the old Liquidity site) we now know of a consent being sought to use all decks and balconies for outdoor seating and part of the wharf-level forecourt. How can we trust the process?

For a city to develop it must have affordable housing, New York allocates 24% to affordable house while Sydney currently allocates only 2%. We also need to encourage sustainable transport so why demolish the Glebe Island Bridge, it must be maintained and used for pedestrian and cycle traffic, this is how we develop a city maintaining its heritage and fostering sustainability.

The development of the Bays Precinct must also include true access to the foreshore by the community and not only for the rich and famous ie it must not be an entertainment precinct full of bars, outdoor dining etc. Unless I'm mistaken the Sydney Harbour Plan and Bays Master Plan this area is zoned for Maritime use and not an entertainment area.

Noise abatement is a must as all know that noise travelling over the water increases exponentially on the opposite side of the bay. To this I might add that I insist that airlocks not be removed and there be a need for specific consents re events and noise. Furthermore any measuring of the current ambient noise should be done also at night and NOT only late on a Saturday afternoon when the sporting groups are paying on the fields, the children playing in the park and the birds are screeching.

I vigorously oppose this proposed development, its stands to have an enormous impact on the physical environment in Rozelle Bay, it is extremely out of character with the remainder of the Bay and is a misuse of land that has been deemed for Maritime use, not and entertainment precinct.

Apart from the visual impact, noise travels seamlessly across the bay and no mechanisms to prevent and police excessive noise seems to be in place.

Thankyou

Dan Walsh
Glebe

I oppose this development.on the basis of size and noise.

This proposal pre-empts the strategic plans for the Bays Precinct being developed by UrbanGrowth and thus its timing is inappropriate. Further, under the Sydney Harbour Plan and Bays Master Plan this area is zoned for maritime use, not as an entertainment precinct. The proposal, with extra outdoor seating, extra car parking, extra berths and less noise controls, will have major implications for amenity of the area.

The impact will be felt by hundreds of residents, by park users, by foreshore walkers, picnickers, kayakers, dragon-boaters and rowers. The subject area on the northern side of Rozelle Bay is just over 200 m from the Glebe foreshore; noise travels remarkably well, and unimpeded, over water.

The proponents have not demonstrated their credentials as "good neighbours"; nor has the community forgotten the noise imposts foisted upon us by the old Liquidity Restaurant which operated from the same location. The modifications proposed will exacerbate these problems.

The proponents have shown themselves to be insensitive to the issue of public foreshore access which is a cornerstone of the UrbanGrowth plans for a foreshore promenade from White Bay to Pyrmont. An increase in the size of the marina will lead necessarily to more boat movements in the bays and a maritime push-back against the stated aim of re-using the heritage-listed Glebe Island Bridge as a pedestrian, cycle and light rail conduit to help relieve Sydney's congestion difficulties.

The proposal appears to provide little justification for the increase in building and car park levels and no corresponding increase in public benefit or amenity. The silken text of the modification proposal makes light of precisely those issues which the community was so concerned about previously. The photo montages provided are grossly misleading.

I urge that any further development of this site should be deferred and only proceeded with following full consultation and integration with UrbanGrowth proposals for the Bays Precinct.

To whom it may concern

On behalf of my family, I strenuously object to any modification of the existing development consent that:
1.Extends the scope of development
2.Extends the permitted hours of operation for the site.

As residents who will be directly impacted by any extension in scope and/or permitted hours of operation of the site. Intrusion of noise into our neighbourhood beyond 10pm each evening is not acceptable - families living in the near vicinity have school aged children that are entitled to an uninterrupted night of sleep on all nights of the week.

As a resident of Glebe Point since 1998 it is the Marina intruding on my quiet enjoyment of my home and surrounds, not the other way around. It is unacceptable that commercial interests take precedence over the rights of residents to quiet enjoyment of their properties. It is unacceptable to grant venues such as this license to operate beyond what is reasonable in residential areas.

I submit that the modification to the existing proposal be rejected on that basis. Alternatively, should the proposal be accepted, it should come with a condition that requires noise mitigation works so that the ambient level of noise to be experienced by local residents is no greater than that currently being experienced and that the permitted level of noise be such that it varies across time of day, to ensure that local families lives are not disrupted due to lack of sleep. This is particularly critical for those of us that have school age children - their ability to perform at maximum concentration and potential day in day out whilst at school or at home should never be compromised for the benefit of non residents who wish to use local facilities.