Mod 13 - New Hotel & Apartments

MP08_0098 MOD 13 - Construction of a new hotel and residential tower and
alterations to existing building by The Star City Casino, Pyrmont.
I wish to lodge an objection to the proposal for a new hotel and
residential tower development by Star City Casino. My reasons for
opposing this development are as follows:
* The height of the tower at 237m does not comply with the guidelines
set out in the Sydney Local Environmental Plan of 2012 for the height
of buildings to be a maximum of 65m on this particular site. See
attached "Height of Buildings" map from Sydney Local Environmental
Plan of 2012
* At the proposed height of 237m the development far exceeds the
height of all existing buildings in Pyrmont and is aesthetically
offensive to the existing Pyrmont peninsula skyline. The development
as proposed does not accommodate a smooth transition in height from
the Star Casino to the lower-rise nature of the neighbouring buildings
* The height of this development disregards the height guidelines of
the Master Plan for Pyrmont
* Significant overshadowing of the adjacent neighbourhood will occur
as a result of this development. Businesses, residences and public
spaces west of the Star, particularly between John St and Union
Square, will be severely impacted by the loss of morning sun for large
parts of the year while areas to the east will be impacted in the
afternoon. Union Square, a focal point of the Pyrmont community, will
be severely impacted by overshadowing
* I object to this development in that it does not meet the
government's own planning instrument guidelines. The planning
instruments should provide certainty to the community as to how their
neighbourhood will look and function. Any significant departure from
the planning instruments should not be permitted unless there is
little or no impact and overwhelming public benefit to the community.
This proposal will dramatically affect the look and function of
Pyrmont, adversely impacting the village atmosphere and appearance of
the suburb. Despite claims by the proponent, the development also
provides little or no public benefit to the community over existing
community facilities already available within Pyrmont
* Should the development proceed as planned it would set a precedent
for developers to demand the right to build more high-rise towers in
Pyrmont adversely affecting the unique character of this suburb which
successfully blends residential and commercial development within
close proximity to the city. Ultimately Pyrmont would become little
more than an extension of the Sydney CBD.
* The size of this development both in construction phase and in
operation will result in a significant increase in traffic movement
and noise in an already highly congested area. The plans do not
adequately address or mitigate traffic control issues for the short or
long term
* The adjacent residential community is likely to be significantly
affected by lighting and signage components of a tower development of
this height and size
* Due to the size of this development, people control issues readily
in evidence in and around the Star Casino will be exacerbated by a
significant number of additional residents and visitors expected at
the site. People control issues regularly spill out into surrounding
streets adjacent to the casino especially in the evening and on
weekends resulting in loss of amenity to neighbouring residents. An
increase in the frequency and severity of people control issues could
therefore be anticipated due the larger number of additional people
frequenting the area.
* Other buildings, within proximity to the development could expect to
have their NABERS ratings impacted by this development especially
ratings for "indoor environment" with a consequent impact on
desirability of the area for tenants and property values for
commercial and residential owners.
I therefore urge the Department of Planning to reject the proposal of
the Star Casino for this particular hotel and residential tower
development.
I also wish to point out I am not opposed to considering a more
appropriate development by the Star Casino which is in keeping with
the character of Pyrmont.

See attached

Submitted in PDF

attached

It is with great sadness that I write to object to a development which
should not have reached this stage of submission. The monstrosity
proposed at The Star is completely out of place in the Pyrmont
Peninsula and dwarfs everything in the area. My understanding is when
the casino was first approved it was a government promise that the
height would never exceed the height of the stacks of the Pyrmont
Power Station, the site on which The Star now stands. The height of
the proposed tower of 237 metres is so far above that original stacks
it is laughable. It is outrageous this is not being considered as a
new development application as this proposal significantly differs
from the original approval.
I will lose significant views and light if this development proceeds,
photos attached. Overshadowing from this abomination of a tower would
be extensive for me personally as well as for all of Pyrmont. The
oversized structure is completely out of place and spoils what is
currently a beautiful skyline. It does not belong in a residential
area. In such a densely populated suburb, these views and access to
light are crucial to the wellbeing of residents. This applies to both
private and public areas.
The current casino is exempt from lockout laws in the CBD and there
are regular incidents of alcohol related violence and extreme
anti-social behaviour. It is a rare weekend when I am not woken in the
middle of the night to anti-social yelling on the street and police
sirens as a direct result of casino patrons. The expansion of the
nightclub will only increase these incidents.
Traffic is an existing problem in the area and the (lowballed)
estimate of additional vehicles in Pyrmont as a result of the
development will only exacerbate the congestion. It is unthinkable the
development is requesting a further 220 car parking spaces.
The influx of hotel guests and residents will also add more pressure
to infrastructure in the area such as public transport (try relying on
the 389 bus) and schools. It is also ironic the NSW government claims
to have a focus on affordable housing while the tower apartments will
be anything but.
I implore you to reject this application for the Ritz-Carlton hotel
and apartments. While the casino trumpets a neighbourhood centre the
cons of this proposal far outweigh the single pro.

The height and overshadow consequence is not appropriate and is directly
harmful to our North Eastern orientation for morning sun, and privacy.

Towers of such height in such location ought not be permitted, for
having too severe an effect on our local residential and relatively
low rise amenity. As I write this I am looking out towards the
direction such tower will be. The Barangaroo towers tops seen in the
relatively same direction but at a distance are visually dominant
already. A 237m tower so much closer in distance to us will
detrimentally change both the outlook but also the character of the
visual neighbourhood. On what possible grounds can its approval be
justified? answer only a distorted misapplication of planning rules
and guidelines. It must be resisted for this part of Pyrmont.

See attached letter

We strongly object to the proposal and request it be rejected outright.

See attached

Please see attached letter.

Letter attached refers.

I object to the proposal; briefly: (1.) overcrowding; (2.) alterations of
sunlight; (3.) wind tunnel; (4.) negative impact on views; (5.)
unsightly, large and precedent creating; (6.) impact on property
values; (7.) not consistent with the community.

Please see attachment for further details.

Uploaded

17 September 2018

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

Attention: Planner, Mr Matthew Rosel

MP08_0098 MOD 13 - Construction of a New Hotel and Residential Tower
and Alterations to Existing Building - Star City Casino Site

Dear Director,

The National Trust of Australia (NSW) lodges its strong objection to
the Section 75W modification of the project approval for the Star City
Casino, Pyrmont, particularly the construction of a 237m tower
including podium and basement to provide for 220 hotel rooms,
204 residential apartments, 204 basement car parking spaces and an
overall increase in gross floor area of 48,840 m2 (to 189,040 m2).

In the Trust's view, a proposal for a 237 metre tower cannot possibly
be regarded as a modification to existing project approvals for
Pyrmont's Star City Casino. That such a massive building, the first of
its scale in Pyrmont could be dealt with by the planning system in the
manner currently proposed is totally inappropriate. An approval for
the proposal would set a precedent for massive building height
increases in this suburb with little regard for heritage impacts,
particularly on the broader Sydney Harbour landscapes and view lines.

There are also the broader concerns such as provision of adequate
transport links and overshadowing. It is argued in the Environment
Assessment Report and Heritage Impact Statement that overshadowing is
minimised by the proposed tower design. However, there is no
consideration of the likely cumulative impact of overshadowing that
would flow on from a series of high-rise developments that would seek
the precedent of an approval for this tower as a "green-light" for
massive height increases throughout Pyrmont.

Sydney Harbour is a world-renowned landscape currently defined by its
bush land foreshores and bays and the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the
Sydney Opera House. Should Sydney and its Harbour be identified in the
future by its massive "twin" Casino buildings?

If the proponent does proceed with this development proposal, then the
National Trust calls for the lodgement of an entirely new Development
Application with a considerably longer period of public exhibition and
provision for community comment.

Yours sincerely,

Graham Quint
Director, Conservation

N/A

I dispute the validity of the EAR and particularly the Traffic Impact
Statement. Please consider the attached comments

Please see my attached submission detailing my objection to this
proposal.

Please see enclosed file.

Please see letter attached.

See attached