Mod 3 - Public Access

Mod 3 - Public Access to the White Bay Cruise Terminal Site
Submission from the Balmain Precinct, 29 June 2012.

The local community supports at least three access points to the foreshore and waterfront at White Bay, together with public amenity and recreation areas, pedestrian paths and cycleways along the foreshore connecting with the Glebe Island Bridge and Rozelle Bay.

The local community also supports the provision of public ferry services at White Bay and an extension of the light rail service to a new ferry wharf to help alleviate increasing traffic problems in the area.

The Community position was made clear at the workshops conducted by Sydney Ports Corporation.

Meaningful public access to the harbour foreshores in a high-density inner-city residential area should be paramount.

The community remains opposed to the Cruise Terminal relocation from Barangaroo to the suburbs of Balmain/Rozelle at White Bay.

The function centre at White Bay must be abandoned - reference the Barangaroo Review.

Under the proposed plan for the Cruise Terminal, Robert St is the sole entry point for all service vehicles and trucks to the port area, including petrol tankers and other vehicles accessing the Wharf 6 site at the Eastern end of the foreshore.

There is no proposed provision of a separate exit point from the foreshore, thereby forcing all traffic, pedestrians and cyclists to turn around on the foreshore to travel against incoming traffic from Robert St.

Along with this traffic will merge thousands of passengers arriving at and departing from the same foreshore area when ships are in or attendees entering and exiting a function on the foreshore.

There is therefore no safe pedestrian or cycle access, nor safe traffic access to the White Bay foreshore under the modified plan. This includes passengers, crew, service vehicles and the general public accessing the Terminal area and attendees accessing or departing from the function centre by various modes of transport.

We request that the NSW Government revise its Cruise Terminal plan for White Bay, remove the function centre from the plan, and find a solution that provides a number of public pedestrian and cycle access points to the foreshore and waterfront
.
Further discussion with the local community is needed.

Public amenity and recreation areas must also be provided for the fast-growing residential community that has been shut out of the foreshore for far too long.

Regards
Christina Ritchie
Chair Balmain Precinct

As a resident of the Balmain peninsula I have watched the community grow and become the 4th densest populous in Sydney. I find it offensive that promised access to the foreshore of White Bay was an `open space and foreshore' is being choked.
I believed Sydney Ports are purposly killing the promised opportunity of much needed to offset the current growth of population in this area.

Having reducing the access via one entry and choking ability to free access is tantamount to `excluding' the residents and visitors from the foreshore of White Bay.

If anything more access points are required, if it a true offer of `public access' has been given to the community, Having a one access point can only be considered a public exclusion of what was a promised public amenity and benefit.

Richard Gould

Our group has consistently maintained that multiple entrance & egress points should be available.
Limiting access to Robert St alone is another example of Sydney Ports involvement in ad hoc decision making. Poor planning & total disregard for the community have been aspects of this redevelopment. Port traffic ( heavy service vehicles ) use this local road, Robert St, instead of an internal port road. Restricting access to this congested intersection is hazardous for pedestrians & cyclists. Not providing an exit for pedestrians from the end of the site increases a disregard for the safety of passengers,staff & local users.
Community needs have been ignored & no provision made to support future infrastructure eg ferry terminal at White Bay.

No receipt for the submission was received so it has been sent again.

Please find attached. Previous submission did not receive a receipt.

see attached submission