MOD 6 - Events and Functions

Regarding MOD 6 - Events and Functions: the proposed increase in noise limits by 5 Db, coupled with the half-hour extension in hours to 12.00 and the increased number of patrons may have little effect on residents most of the time, but will increase the chances of intrusive late-night noise affecting the residents closest to the WBCT.

It is already difficult to access in and out of Balmain. The road that goes directly from the cruise terminal to the M4 should be open to all vehicles coming and going from Balmain and not exclusive for their use as there are not many roads that we can use as residents living in in the area. I have noticed in the last six months that the traffic congestion has worsened significantly in and out of Balmain (Mullens st and Darling St), partly as more apartment blocks have come into use and thus contributed to the traffic congestion.

Also the noise exemption that is being sought for functions at white bay is very concerning. The terminal sits right next to a residential area (in fact one of the oldest residential areas in Sydney!) within a heritage conservation area and thus highly impacts the surrounding amenity in terms of noise, traffic and other uses (eg parks). Please do not allow functions of 2500 (or even 500 should not have been allowed!) as the area is on a peninsula and can not deal with more people or traffic.

I strongly object to this sucmission. This is a residential area and the numbers projected does not sustain a residential area without causing major detrimental effects on our residential area- that being major noise damage and disregard for the locals.

I object to this proposal in line with the views expressed by Jamie Parker & by my local Councillor John Stamolis.
I’m concerned that:
• Increasing the allowed capacity to 2,500 will create excessive amounts of noise that will unfairly impact the peace and amenity of local residents (including myself)
• Operating hours will be extended by half an hour to 12:30am;
• The permitted sound level will be increased to allow for louder music; and
• This proposal will push more and more cars into local streets that are already at capacity. The Port Authority will also only provide a parking places for 8% of guests, meaning attendees will be forced to use residential parking on Robert St.

re the Port Authority White Bay Cruise Terminal
I object to the proposal to increase the patrons and exempt noise for New Years Day and Australia Day
The current limit of 500 patrons must not be increased.
The hours of operation must not be increased.
The level of music must not be increased.
The allocated parking is not adequate.
This area is for the benefit of residents and controlled Cruise Ship use. The local residents and businesses must be considered a priority. The village of Balmain must be preserved for it's uniqueness and not given up for entertainment for a few people for outside companies to make money.

Patron allocation has not just doubled but increased 5 times. There's no guarantee that patrons will leave the area quietly upon closing, and later hours means even later departure for party-goers. Carparking allocation is insufficient esp. for high profile events where patrons are less likely to use public transport. Respect for local residents has been minimal re ship-shore power 24/7 so rejecting this modification would at least provide some small compensation. Let's consider local residents' quality of life in their OWN HOMES over money making for the Port Authority!

This development will have too many negative impacts on the surrounding residents. There is already enough trauma and congestion being inflicted on the area by major developments like WestConnex. Too much noise, not enough parking, not enough preservation of natural surroundings, not enough effective public transport. The government, even when working with private delivery partners, is also unable to deliver major projects within budget, or anywhere close to the originally promised timeframe. One only needs to look at the light rail project.

This is a multi-use area, catering for many different goups doing many different things. Having the area taken over by one business, in order to proliferate in numbers and noise, to the detriment of all others is not acceptable.
The already agreed numbers and sound level should be adhered to without change, for the benefit of all.

Hi everyone
The White Bay Cruise Terminal is now under way of severe noise restrictions from December. I would kindly ask you to drop your plans to create a party spot and a theme park with noisy rides along with party hours extending to 12:30 am. The people of White Bay deserve peace and quiet at night as it is extremely important for their sleep routines. A better alternative is to allow smaller parties e.g. a music festival only about 400 square metres in area to restrict noise from loudspeakers. And anywhere beyond 100 metres should there be peace and quiet for residents.
Thank you for your concern

Yours sincerely from Patrick Li

I have learned that the PA seeks to modify White Bay Cruise Terminal to permanently increase the number of allowed patrons from 500 to 2,500! This will mean:
1. Much greater noise as the music and drunk noises is amplified across the water.
2. Only a 5 db increase in sound levels. Surely you can do better than that - you know very well the db scale is logarithmic
3. A multiplier of 5 on the headcount
4. Time limit extended to 12.30 a.m.
5. Parking mayhem
Despite the premier's proclamation that Pyrmont is "Open for business", more importantly Pyrmont, Balmain etc are supposed to remain open for residents.
Mixing party boats & 2,500 people in "celebration" mode with the concrete batching and bulk goods terminal - what a ludicrous idea.
A coherent planning exercise is long overdue for White Bay/Pyrmont.

Your in regret

Martin McAvenna.

This proposed development is a wind-back of conditions agreed when the Port Authority first applied to hold functions at the site (2011). As a local resident, the disruption to our community, by functions that currently are held, already is significant. Our home overlooks the White Bay Cruise Terminal. Noise from functions at the terminal does impact the sleep of my kids. More significant are the impacts of traffic: The volume of traffic, and the loudness at night of people coming and leaving the terminal is significant. Ridiculous driving, and the numbers of cars passing by late into the night means we cannot leave open our windows or doors.
Multiplying those impacts by a factor of five, and for longer hours, will be cause for us to have to move from an area we love, and around which our kids have built their community.
The idea that the Port Authority will provide parking for only 8% of all possible guests is ridiculous: Our streets already are filled with people coming to the Terminal, and we deal with drunken people coming to and leaving events walking past our windows too regularly.
What next? In their original proposal, the Port Authority wanted to include an amusement park on the site: This is a community, with lovely, successful schools, parks, and an environment where kids can play in safety. These changes will push life on the Balmain peninsula back to times when it was a harder, less family-oriented place to live.
I urge the Government to reject the application, and in doing so signal to our community the value of the effort we've put in to build somewhere people are proud to live, and where kids feel and are safe.

I object to this proposal, and insist that a co-ordinated overall strategy for the entire Bay Precinct be formulated before any future such applications be made. Residents nearby deserve peace and quiet without their amenity ruined by excessive noise from White Bay Cruise Terminal (WBCT), in particular the 10 hours of continuous outdoor music proposed. Permanently increasing the number of allowed patrons from 500 to 2,500 is monumentally excessive and will have an enormously detrimental affect on the peace and amenity of local residents. Aside from the noise issues, the proposal will bring exponential amounts of traffic into local streets which already cannot cope with vehicular volumes. As parking places for 8% of guests is proposed, and no adequate public transport in place for such numbers, guests will park in residential streets such as Robert St. This application reneges on an existing agreement about curtailing use of WBCT in 2011.

As stated this proposal demonstrates the ad-hoc approach to planning in the Bays Precinct. A co-ordinated strategic plan for the future of this precinct is vital to put people and the environment first - not the cruise ship companies.

The WBCPT might have been constructed with the ability to accommodate events and functions for up to 2,500 persons, however it was for good reasons not used in this capacity in the past. The traffic situation is not better today, but rather worse through 'road works', in connections with the new tunnel. (The closure and
removal of the GIIF has not brought any visible effect.) If the impact is from a certain point of view "lower", the overall picture does not allow even a "lower" increase which it is. How the situation will be after the opening of the tunnel (and the underground distributor) should be the decisive argumentation which cannot be figured out beforehand.
The surrounding is still that of urban living area for families which would not appreciate operations until midnight.
There is enough pressure on the community. At least I would suggest to wait with these changes until all the other changes/trouble from the tunnel (underground distributor) has come to an end and the effects of this change are visible.

I’m writing in support of the application to increase the capacity of the venue for events. I work for Red Jelly and we’ve run several events for corporate clients at the White Bay Cruise Terminal. It’s an amazing space and one that could be utilised much more if the venue could allow larger numbers.

We work on corporate events, trade shows, conferences, dinners and charity fundraisers. White Bay Ferry Terminal would be perfect for many of them. But most of our events range in size from 1,000 to 1,500 people and as such White Bay misses out on them. They have the space, facilities and onsite car parking - making it ideal for larger events.

My objections are :
. Unacceptable increase in noise. There is already enough noise pollution around white bay and the harbour in general with cruise boats and party boats.
. Inappropriate increase in number of people . What extra safety precautions and facilities will be provided. Who will pay for this, not the tax payer I hope
. Increases traffic into already congested narrow streets. This will be even worse with the Bunnings development on the access corner.
. Parking, already at a premium. Where will the other 92% of people find a park when locals continue to have difficulties.
. Public transport does not go to the facility.
. Impact on local needs to be prioritised

In regards to the Port Authority's proposal to permanently increase the capacity of the White Bay Cruise Terminal from 500 to 2,500, I’m concerned that:
1. Increasing the allowed capacity to 2,500 will create excessive amounts of noise that will unfairly impact the peace and amenity of local residents;
2. Operating hours will be extended to 12:30am;
3. The permitted sound level will be increased to allow for louder music; and
4. This proposal will push more and more cars into local streets that are already at capacity. The Port Authority will also only provide parking places for 8% of guests, meaning attendees will be forced to use residential parking on Robert St.

We have suffered enough in this area. Thanks to the M4, just about every tree has been removed to make room for yet more cars on the road. Increasing the allowed capacity of the White Bay Terminal to 2,500 will create excessive amounts of noise. I note that the Port Authority dropped its plan to have increased noise in the holiday period. That would not have bothered me, as noise is expected at this time of year. And although its plans to revisit this sound level is unlikely to affect me personally, it would add further noise pollution to an already noisy city, and those closer would suffer. The idea that music has to be at offensive levels for people to have a good time seems very ingrained.
Another thing that won't affect me personally, but will affect the neighbourhood is that this proposal would push more and more cars into local streets. I understand the Port Authority will also only provide parking places for 8% of guests, meaning attendees will be forced to use residential parking on Robert St.

I am opposed to the extension of the number of patrons to attend functions at White Bay Cruise Terminal from 500 to 2500.
The reasons for my opposition is that I consider the request to be completely at odds with the strategy for White Bay to be a working port rather than an entertainment district. There is also insufficient parking capacity to deal with the significant increase in capacity and will result in considerably greater amount of parking in local residential areas which are already at limited capacity.
The increased capacity is also likely to increase the noise levels to local residents with the extension of operating hours with the increased capacity especially when departing the venue.
Please note that the Port Authority have failed to provide notification of events to local residents at current capacity levels which is in breach of my understanding of requirements and if they are unable to or unwilling to meet existing requirements why should they be rewarded by being given extended capacity, operating hours and noise levels.
I look forward to receiving your comments on my proposal.

I strenuously object to this proposal, on the grounds that the proposed increases are egregiously over the previously advertised conditions in the EIS and after community consultations.

I object to the increase in noise by 5dB — almost doubling the accepted and agreed limits, which will echo out across quiet residential streets above the cruise ship terminal. That you did not specify the volume of this increase — instead phrasing it as "only" 5dB — reflects this disingenuity. Especially given already damaging noise levels: https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/excessive-noise-council-urges-more-noise-control-for-white-bay-cruise-terminal-20161222-gtgkbt.html

I object to the proposed five fold increase in patrons from 500 to 2500 for more than 30 events a year — even if such events are only held once a week, over six months' of disruption and increased traffic in an already busy and overwhelmed vicinity.

I object to you only offering 8% patron vehicle parking — meaning that additional cars will then take precious resident spaces in Robert Street and other surrounding streets, already compromised by WestConnex and other construction vehicle traffic, is appalling. If you cannot offer sufficient facilities for this steep increase in patrons then you should not increase this number until you have allowed for minimal disruption to residents and their families' amenity.

You have not allowed or discussed how you will be getting patrons in and out of the venue, during cruise ship embarkations or departures, further increasing traffic in Robert St. Nor have you disclosed how you will manage public and pedestrian traffic at a time when WestConnex increases truck movements AND work commences on the Rozelle Metro/Light Rail Line AND the Glebe Island concrete batching plant AND the Fish Market refurbishment AND the Bunnings being built on Robert St happening all at once in the busiest traffic intersection in Australia.

While concentrating such development — as well as the Government's proposed Bays Precinct residential and commercial developments — in such a small and busy area was already unfeasible, adding to this immense pressure is unviable, unjustified and irresponsible. It is especially troubling that despite allowances made by the community to permit limited numbers during this intensely busy period of construction, you should attempt to push even further than previously and publicly advertised during consultation and approval periods.

However, after long experience of "community consultations" in which any concerns are patronisingly and blithely dismissed by the Government, its agencies and contractors, I know any objection is futile. You will do what is best for investors, contractors, the Government's political donors and fellow travellers, no matter the cost to us, our homes, our and our children's health, and our community's amenity. You will bulldoze our concerns and damage our health and happiness with relish, and punish us for standing up for our homes and community. I imagine you will be laughing as you read this now, just as we have been regularly ridiculed, dismissed, condescended to and ignored in community meetings and "consultations".

That you should have called for submissions a week before Christmas, at the same time as submissions for the proposed modifications to the Rozelle Interchange, reflects that contempt for our community, hoping no doubt to "put the rubbish out" without anyone noticing.

I hope you sleep much easier than we or our children do now, or as it appears you will not permit us to when you double the noise limits and quintiple the traffic and patronage late into the night — all while spewing toxic maritime diesel over us, our children and our community. https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/-/media/epa/corporate-site/resources/air/whitebaycruiseterminalcommunityimpacts.pdf?la=en&hash=C86F5035230D721537FD4B63A4815BCE850C24C1

• First, WBCT has a history of non-compliance and of disregard for true community engagement. Given that WBCT has been unresponsive and unfair in its engagement with the Balmain community they are undeserving of modifications to the rules they committed to when they agreed to a maximum of 500 patrons.
• WBCT claim something called a "mode share goal" of transportation for their functions of: 37% for cars, 50% for coaches, taxis 10% & walking 3%. They wish to increase their patronage up to 2,500 and 37% of that figure would be 925 people. Yet they say they have parking for just 200 cars. If we calculate realistically two (2) people per car that means that 400 people will find parking while some 535 people in private cars (perhaps another 300 cars) will be looking for parking on the Balmain Peninsula. We already have major traffic and parking issues in Balmain, meaning that their increase in patronage will have a major negative impact on local community lives.
• The excess cars (perhaps as much as 300) will be seeking parking along Roberts, Donnelly, Grafton and other Balmain Streets. All WBCT transport should be accommodated on-site. It is demonstrably unfair for the terminal to be competing with vital community parking in Balmain’s already crowded streets. Remember that Balmain is a 19th century community, created long before the advent of the automobile.
• The Water Police are currently demanding that 27 public parking places be turned over to them alone in contradiction of their original 2002 agreement. Our local community is under siege from NSW government entities that make agreements (both WBCT & the Water Police) and then years later demand more sacrifice from the local community.
• The application by WBCT notes that the increase in events is, "likely to generate audible noise", yet they are currently exempt from any noise monitoring. We will suffer greater noise and yet they are not required to monitor it. The noise from WBCT has been evident in our community for far too long already and now WBCT wants to increase the dBA’s and the volume of people by moving from just 500 patrons to 2,500.
• Roberts Street in particular is already fully parked practically 24/7. Many trailers, boats, trucks, etc. are permanently parked along Roberts Street.
• I'd note that WBCT already has the "Beatrice Bush Floating Pontoon", which could be used to move patrons on the Glebe "Trial" Ferry service that has been put into place. People could park elsewhere than the Balmain Peninsula and catch the Glebe Ferry to the Beatrice Bush Floating Pontoon. Other temporary ferry services could be used.
• I object to the request to increase the outdoor music up to 72 dBA, an increase of 5 dBA, especially since "no noise monitoring is required where activities do not include amusement rides".
• Section 7.2.4 on Cumulative Impacts notes that the Cumulative Traffic Working Groups has NO residential group or other residential representation. Why is there no residential representation? It would seem that once again the public is treated with disdainful contempt. Surely community representation is justified.
• Currently the WBCT is allowed to have both fireworks and amusement rides (5 per annum). Both of these should be removed. Sydney needs no more fireworks; we have enough fire and smoke already choking our city. In addition, Sydney already has more than enough fireworks at Darling Harbor on a nearly nightly basis.
• Finally, for the two-year period April 2017 to April 2019 there were 240 berthing of a single cruise ship and another 34 berthing of two cruise ships simultaneously. WBCT has forecast a further rise of 137 berthing per year. These intrusions into a residential community are already excessive without the addition of larger functions on "non-cruise days for up to 2,500 people."