Mod 13 - New Hotel & Apartments

The 60-storey building will be not appropriate to the look and feel of
Pyrmont. The process of construction will last many many years, which
will damage the environment seriously and also influence the residents
peaceful life. Definitely NO to the project.

MP08 _0098 - Modification - The Ritz-Carlton Hotel I am a resident of
Pyrmont and writing in support of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel. I've viewed
the display on site at The Star and was impressed with the information
to hand. I think it's wonderful to see the Ritz-Carlton returning to
Sydney. Further, I am impressed by the design of the tower that The
Star is proposing to add to its property. The design is unique and
will be a welcome addition to the Sydney skyline and to Pyrmont. I'm
sure the height of the structure will be the subject of debate - this
is not of concern to me. In years to come, I'm sure there will be more
such developments in the Pyrmont area as the precinct continues to
evolve. The argument should be focused on strength of design rather
than height. I would like to see strong green elements incorporated
into the design. The Star will be transformed by this development and
I am looking forward to the new restaurants that are also part of this
proposal. I understand that there will be a new outdoor area as part
of this proposal and this will be a welcome addition. Everyone
benefits from this proposal - locals and travelers alike. We need
better hotels and more quality entertainment and dining options in
Sydney. We claim to be a global city but beyond the beautiful harbor -
once a visitor has ticked off the harbor bridge and opera house - we
need to become a destination with many diverse reasons to stay. Strong
architecture with interesting and entertaining venues does this. Then,
of course, there are the benefits of more jobs for locals and the
government, the city and the local community benefits. I support this
development and am looking forward to the day it opens.

Dear Sirs

I am a long-term resident of Pyrmont and have recently become aware of
the two massive developments in Cockle Bay and Pyrmont. Frankly, I am
appalled by the scale and impact that these two developments will have
on the surrounding areas.
Whilst there are probably some reasonable arguments regarding the
increase in height for an apparently 'state significant development'
in Cockle Bay, given the already high buildings in the area, I do not
consider that increasing the height restrictions relevant to
development at the northern end of Pyrmont to be at all appropriate.
The sheer scale of the Star Casino's proposal completely ignores the
nature of the surrounding buildings, ie already high density living
and numerous businesses, and is clearly an attempt by this listed
company to assist its market-driven battle with Crown Casinos on the
other side of Darling Harbour.
I urge you both to resist the temptation to approve this development
which, as we all realistically know, will herald further development
applications, mainly residential, to the north and south of the
proposed Star Casino development, with the result that the western
side of Darling Harbour will then look as uninviting and over built as
the eastern side.
Pyrmont is a largely residential area and is, according to CoreLogic,
the 3rd most densely populated suburb in all of Australia, being
marginally behind another Sydney suburb, Potts Point. Access in and
out of Pyrmont is already problematic and will only be exacerbated by
any large scale developments which will undoubtedly be approved,
should you actually allow Star Casino to obscenely breach the current
height restrictions, rather than stick within the current guidelines.
For the sake of all the current and future residents of Pyrmont,
please do not allow the interests of a public company to ride
roughshed over those of the 25,000 or so residents of Pyrmont and
condemn Darling Harbour to be just a poor inlet surrounded by a ring
of skyscrapers. Lendlease's development of Barangaroo was a travesty
and completely ignored the will of the people. Crown Holding's
egregious manipulation of the planning process for its own ends to
gain approval for its self-styled 'iconic' casino building should have
been stopped. Please do not allow this to happen again.

Regards

Mark Reilly

Dear Minister,
I write to especially object to the proposed Star Casino tower in
Pyrmont and the Cockle Bay Wharf tower.
This proposal is a ridiculous attempt to subvert and override the
current height controls by a huge margin and would surely set a very
unwanted
precedent.
The proposal seems to be a pathetic response to the opposition tower
in Barrangaroo which should never have been approved anyway.
This height of this ugly building would be an extraordinary eyesore
and would considerably reduce the existing amenities in Pyrmont with a
large
increase in traffic, many more noisy drunken patrons all through the
week and would cast a very long shadow over existing buildings and
homes.
An even bigger casino and hotel is the last thing we need in Sydney.
Crime levels are very likely to increase and there is no social
benefit
whatsoever despite pathetic token gestures to allow community use of
the basement.
I can't believe that any responsible government would approve this
development
The Cockle Bay Wharf development would overshadow many community and
residential facilities in the area and would make the little
overcrowded pond that Darling Harbour has now become look even sadder
than it is already.
Sincerely
Les Csenderits

Dear Ms Berejiklian
I am writing to you as a concerned resident of Pyrmont where I have
lived for nine years. I am deeply troubled by the proposal by the Star
Casino
to construct a 237m tower.
The original development of the Star Casino was granted with height
restrictions no higher than the smoke stacks of the preceding
building. It is
outrageous that a tower can now be constructed with a height increase
of nearly 900%! The Star is intentionally utilising a loophole which
allows
them to amend their existing planning permission instead of applying
for new permission which in itself is just plain wrong.
Pyrmont is primarily a residential area. The proposed tower will have
significant overshadowing impacts throughout much of the peninsular
and I
have a photo from my roof terrace. The building on the right is the
current Star Casino with nine storeys. The proposed tower is 64
storeys and
would not fit into this photo.
Pyrmont is not part of the Sydney CBD and is the most densely
populated suburb in Australia. The building heights in Pyrmont should
not be
comparable with Barangaroo. This is a residential suburb.
The plans show a RitzCarlton
hotel as well as luxury apartments so
the developer can make money. Have you ever travelled on public
transport
from Pyrmont into the city at peak times? The buses are packed and
often fill before the last stop, leaving commuters stranded. The light
rail is also
packed, I cannot recall the last time I managed to acquire a seat.
Adding hotel rooms and apartments places more strain on the services
in
Pyrmont.
On a personal note the tower would be devastating on my quality of
life. My light would be significantly reduced, my privacy severely
impacted
being overlooked by 64 levels of apartments and hotel rooms. This is
without mentioning the noise and dust during construction.
I am begging the NSW government to consider the residents of Pyrmont
and prevent this tower proceeding.
Regards
Claire Tan

As a concerned community member I am writing about the proposed tower at
the Star Casino. As this exceeds by far the current height length
limits for the community, I would hope our suburb will be respected
and this application will be firmly rejected.

Dear Premier,
Firstly, congratulations on your recent win in the NSW State election.
I trust that now you and your government will turn its attention to
ensuring
that sensible planning policies are implemented in NSW.
I wrote to you in 2018 to express my concerns about the proposal for
the RitzCarlton
tower in Pymont which is now before the Dept of Planning.
My objection and that of many other Pyrmont residents, to the height
of this development, has not abated and in fact I believe The Star's
final
application for the development proposed an even greater height than
that previously communicated, now at 237m.
Despite the Star's claims that it held community consultation when
developing the plans, our strata building in Point St nearby was one
of a number
that was never approached at any time to attend a presentation.
Regardless, our concerns remain about the inappropriate nature of this
development in Pyrmont. I wish to be clear that I am not opposed to
The
Star undertaking further development of the existing site if it sees
fit, however any development needs to be in sympathy with the planning
guidelines, the existing skyline of the area and genuinely sympathetic
with the needs of the community. The effect of overshadowing on
Pyrmont,
particularly the central Union Square precinct, is unconscionable and
pays no regard for existing planning laws.
Pyrmont/Ultimo is often touted as one of the great urban success
stories in Sydney, but the proposed Star tower is totally at odds with
the
continuance of the vibrant village atmosphere and the potential
environmental effects are of great concern; particularly impacts
on:
* Shadowing of the surrounding environment (businesses, residences,
public spaces) in particular the overshadowing of Union Square; a
significant
central feature of Pyrmont village
* Increased traffic movement and noise arising from a venue of this
size in an already busy/noisy complex
* Lighting/signage impacts on the adjacent residential community
* An exacerbation of existing people control issues already in
evidence at the Star particularly in the evenings and especially on
weekends
It is also worth noting that there are a number of other buildings,
such as the Google Building in close proximity to the proposed site
which could
have their NABERS ratings impacted by this development;
especially ratings for "indoor environment".
I understand that at this time a final decision has not been taken,
however I would implore you to take action to express in strongest
terms the
concerns of the community to the Department of Planning in relation to
this development and to overturn any decision that may be announced in
favour of the proposal.
I look forward to receiving your response to this objection and
welcome your government's close scrutiny of the Star's proposal.
Yours sincerely,
Tim Crozier

I am writing to you because I strongly oppose the development of the
Casino on Pyrmont as I have a apartment in Point St and the
development will block out my views and devalue it

The proposed 237-metre tower will create serious problems for current
owners and renters in Pyrmont & Darling Harbor areas.
This severe overshadowing will result in:
* Health issues due to growth of mould and vitamin D deficiency
* Extra expenses for tenants & owners due to extra heating needed to
sustain similar climate control
In addition to the above, majority of neighboring residents will be
affected by:
* Oversupply of apartments
* Reduced rents
* Reduced house/apartment values
* Extra traffic
* Elevated level of noise and dirt for current occupants during
construction

I object to the height of this proposed construction. The height is
excessive and does not respect the existing low rise community area.
I also object to approximately 200 apartments included in this tower.
In this small pocket of Pyrmont it seems excessive to allow a vertical
new community to add significant pressure to infrastructure, transport
and the community.
Other recent completed hotel constructions (Sofitel ) have been
restricted or were sympathetic to their location and their height is
only half of this proposal.
I do not want this very high tower to become a precedent for
additional high rise.
Pyrmont has remained a low rise community -it is already a high
density / over developed area - It is not Barangaroo or the Sydney
CBD.

Finally, I am not opposed to the Star requirement to create a tower
but am passionately opposed to the excessive height.

I wish for the Minister of Planning NSW to reject this construction of
an excessively high tower.

see letter attached

F16/5119-99

Matthew

CASA has assessed the building at 20-80 Pyrmont Street, Sydney to a
height of 237m AHD under the Airspace Regulations and makes no further
comment.
Please note enclosed.

It is assumed that `construction of a 237m tower' in the EXHIBITION OF
MODIFICATION REQUEST refers to AHD and not AGL.

See attached

I am resident of Sydney Wharf Apartments at 56 Pirrama Road, directly
opposite the proposed development. I appreciate the scale and iconic
nature of this development and am very much in favour of the proposal.

The Star has engaged and consulted the local community in the
development of this proposal which has been appreciated. I feel that
the outcome is a truly iconic building which will be of benefit to the
local community, the city and visitors to Sydney alike. The design of
the building is of high quality and I appreciate how the Star and the
architects involved listened to our feedback in arriving at this
design, and rejected other unsuitable ideas proposed during the
process. I feel they are engaged with us, open to listen and take
feedback on board - something which cannot be said of many other
developments in the area in the past.

The only one concern I have is that no entertainment-related noise is
introduced from open areas and terraces within the development. It is
therefore critical for local residents and neighbours that there are
strict limitations to sound levels produced by any speakers at open
bars and that operating hours for outdoor areas including bars and
outdoor eating areas are strictly controlled so as to reduce
night-time disturbance. The proposal considers 2am closing time for
the outdoor areas which is much later than the current premises are
allowed to stay open until and we would like that restricted to close
much earlier.

Overall, I hope the proposal is accepted as I think it will bring much
value to the community and this city.

Please see submission attached

See attached

Submission attached

submission attached

Submission attached.

See attached