Sydney International Convention, Exhibition & Entertainment Precinct

Dear Madam or Sir,

We are pleased to be given the opportunity to comment on the planned development proposal for the Darling Harbour precinct, SSD 5752. Let us state right at the beginning that we strongly OBJECT the proposal. Please find below the reasons why.

As a preface, Land Lease have always made it clear in their own publications that their intent is to reconstruct the Darling Harbour precinct and to build two hotel towers as part of the development project. Yet, they have made the remarkable decision to restrict proposition SSD 5752 to the remodelling of the Convention Centre only, without including the two planned hotel complexes. Since neither one of the two projects would probably be considered without the other, allow us to, at times, include the construction of the two hotel towers in the reasoning for our objection. We understand that the current proposal SSD 5752 is not about the construction of the hotels, but the remodelling of the Convention Centre cannot be looked at in isolation.

First of all, we have to admit that we are biased in our opinion. As owner-occupiers of an apartment in the Goldsbrough Mort Building, we would be facing many years of disruption through the planned construction works and, very likely, significant depreciation of the value of our property due to the obstructed views that would result from the project. Naturally, we would not be looking forward to this. However, there are other aspects of this development which affect the broader community and which make us object to the proposal.

At the last Annual General Meeting of the Owner's Corporation of the Goldsbrough Building, representatives from Lend Lease were invited to introduce the project to the audience. When asked about the parking facilities that will be available to the precinct, they admitted that there will be less parking available than it is today, despite the increased demand from the extension of the Convention Centre, the two new hotels, the planned outdoor entertainment area, the new residential buildings in Haymarket, the new Gehry Building that will serve as accomodation for UTS students and so on. One of the Land Lease representatives said that "students don't have cars" trying to invalidate concerns about residential parking. Another one stated that current public parking facilities are only utilised to their full capacity during special events in Darling Harbour. Our objection not only concerns paid public parking but also roadside parking for the residents of Ultimo, Pyrmont and Haymarket. It does not take a lot of imagination to predict that their situation regarding parking on the street would get a lot worse if the project was carried out as proposed. Personally, we are not affected by the parking situation as we do not own a car ourselves. But the local community will suffer massively from the increased traffic and parking requirements because, in reality, students do have cars, as do their visiting friends and the people that will live in Haymarket, work at or attend the Convention Centre, work or stay at the hotels, visit Darling Harbour and so on.

The potential lack of parking also highlights the problems with public transport infrastructure. While we understand that the Light Rail system is planned to be extended, we should not ignore the fact that Light Rail is only a small niche in the public transport landscape. The vast majority of public transport is carried out by Rail Corp, Sydney Ferries and Sydney Busses. Neither one of those has direct access to the Convention Centre which we consider a major drawback when competing with other cities for the right to host major events. It will also make it more likely that people will take their cars to travel to the Darling Harbour precinct instead of using public transport. What is a perfectly acceptable walking distance to the nearest bus stop or train station for a regular commuter or a tourist may not be acceptable for exhibitors, convention delegates and similar.

At a more global level, when it comes to competing for internationally significant events, Sydney, despite its undeniable beauty and attractiveness on so many levels, is not an ideal location for major events due to its distance to other parts of the world. The fact that the capacities of Sydney Airport have also been reported as insufficient frequently in the press adds further to the problem. Not only does Sydney Airport already seem to operate at its capacity, its integration in the public transport system is not at the highest level. In Brisbane, for instance, one can get straight from the airport to the Brisbane Convention Centre using the Airtrain. Structural deficits around Sydney Airport will remain being a problem for Sydney when it comes to competing for major international events, regardless of the size of its convention centre.

Darling Harbour has been a key element of Australia Day and New Year's Eve celebrations in the past. In fact, especially for Australia Day, Darling Harbour is probably the most significant site in all of Australia since it had been re-opened for Australia's Bicentennial Celebrations. Every year, the Australia Day celebrations centralise around the tall ship parade in Cockle Bay and the Darling Harbour Spectacular. The Cockle Bay area only just manages to cope with the number of people attending this event. Similar applies to the New Year's Eve fireworks. We understand from studying the plan for the suggested development that the new Convention Centre will take away a significant portion of the space that is currently available to the public. This will put celebrations of national significance at risk.

The current proposal includes the plan to remove the foot bridge from the public car park next to the Novotel hotel to the Darling Harbour precinct. This foot bridge is a connection to Darling Harbour from the Western side, including Harris Street, lower Ultimo and upper Pyrmont. This connection is safe, easy and heavily utilised by approximately 7,000 Sydneysiders every day, not to mention the increased usage at special events. Removing this connection would result in more inconvenience and less safety for these people.

As far as we understand from discussions with Land Lease representatives, the land on which the Harbourside Shopping Centre is built, is on a lease contract with a private investor. This lease is reported to be in effect for 99 years. As a result, the general landscape of the Western side of Darling Harbour is unlikely to change its shape in the foreseeable future. The two new planned hotel towers would therefore be the only buildings that would stand out from their surroundings in terms of their height. In our opinion, this would lead to an undesirable disruption of the Darling Harbour landscape, similar to how the UTS Tower changed the landscape of Ultimo and Broadway for the worse. On the other hand, the Goldsbrough Mort Building has been a major landmark of the area when looking at the Western side of Darling Harbour. The proposed redevelopment of the Convention Centre would effectively erase it from the public eye due to the proposed size of the new buildings.

Allow us some final general remarks about the project as a whole. Without knowing the details behind the assumptions that suggested that Sydney needs a bigger Convention Centre in the first place, we are convinced that the basic underlying thought was the belief in economical growth. Thankfully, it is becoming more and more scientific consensus and common knowledge that continuous growth under the restriction of limited resources of any kind is impossible. This is not some sort of anti-globalisation, anti-growth, anti-capitalistic, left-wing, idealistic propaganda, it is simply an undeniable mathematical fact: We are moving towards a post-growth world economy. Nobody knows at this point in time how a post-growth world will look like. But we sincerely hope for the investors as well as for the public that a bigger Sydney Convention Centre, should it ever be built, would yield the proposed returns that formed the basic assumptions and calculations for this project.

Yours sincerely.

Very poor design. The excessive height of the proposed buildings will provide significant shadowing of public areas in Darling Harbour and surrounding neighbourhood. The height of the buildings is out of character and would be best moved towards the park.

The building size/density around the harbour does not fit in with the existing area. The proposed height with block natural light from public areas of darling harbour.

Dear Mr Mithen & Planning Officers.

I object to the plans to replace the existing Exhibition Centre with a larger one. It's unnecessary to create a larger one in the first place and would ruin the look of Darling Harbour because the plans show the replacement to be too close to the waterfront, is higher than before (therefore blocking the view of the Pyrmont buildings behind it and will mean the destruction of some water features. All of the above are attributes to Darling Harbour and it's visitors.

Even though there is some need to balance enterprise with atmosphere, We would not want to lose tourists to Darling Harbour due to losing it's 'Oasis' feel that it currently enjoys. There must be a way of continuing to keep Darling Harbour viable without ruining it.

A smaller Exhibition Centre that is low-rise can be just as good. These plans are ridiculously large, and even though the enormous tower ICC hotels planned alongside the Exhibition Centre are not officially a part of this plan, the developers are clearly keen to build and develop this as a whole. To see Darling Harbour become a Hong Kong style area, where one oversized building is usurped by another, then another is not the direction that Sydney and Darling Harbour should take.

The value of business for hotels like The Novotel and The Goldsbrough would be virtually ignored if large buildings are allowed to overshadow them, and Darling Harbour would not benefit from blocking their low-rise and historic feel. Darling Harbour would also suffer from the large shadows caused by these developments.

I hope the planners will see sense and deny this disastrous idea, that Darling Harbour remains more or less as it is with its' future secured as a pleasant destination notwithstanding future improvements and regeneration done in a sensitive and sensible way.

,

I object to the current development application. I am on owner in the Goldsbrough building which is located behind the proposed ICC convention centre. I object to the following:
1. The height of the new ICC convention centre - as it will totall block my current view I have over Darling Harbour and the city. I will only have a view of the back of the proposed buidling which appears to be a blank metallic wall. The height will also overshadow the Goldsbough building - taking away morning sunlight.
2. The removal of the current walkway - this is a major thoroughfare for people who park in the car park and also people from Harris street and surrounds to safely get to Darling harbour
3. The Goldsbrough will be obscured from the Public in Darling Harbour or in the city. The Goldsbrough is an iconic and historic part of darling harbour and it is easliy recognisable and often referred to as the wool stores building but this will be lost and then forgotten if the proposed structure goes ahead..

I object to this application on the following grounds:

1. Demolition of relatively new buildings that have architectural merit

The 3 buildings are only 25-30 years old and have historical significance as they were built to coincide with the 1988 Bicentennial celebrations. They were also built by 3 of Australia's most respected architects and are some of their best work. It is wasteful and costly to demolish such recent buildings when the buildings could be refurbished to suit Sydney's needs for the 21st century.

For example, the carpark could be redeveloped to connect to the Exhibition facilities under the Pier St overpass or alternatively, Harbourside could be redeveloped to the south, with shops on the lower levels and additional convention space on the upper levels. It would be seem more economical to recompense the Lessee of Harbourside than to demolish and redevelop the whole site.

2. Reduced seating capacity in The Theatre

At 8000 seats, the new theatre is 4000 seats smaller than the Entertainment Centre space. It is a retrograde step to reduce capacity when Sydney is growing rapidly and when most other Australian cities have large concert venues near the CBD. The alternative venue for large concerts is the Allphones Stadium (the Olympic Park venue's Superdome). It is not easy to reach that venue by public transport (which the government is encouraging) and the stadium itself has relatively poor acoustics.

3. Reduction in public space at Darling Harbour

Almost 5 hectares of public land is being reclaimed for residential development in the southern section of Darling Harbour. Yet already 25 million people visit Darling Harbour each year (SHFA website). This will only increase. Already at weekends the site is at or near capacity. Families flock to the water features and the popular new children's playground, which on Saturdays and Sundays is overcrowded. The brick areas in front of the Exhibition centre and at the northern side of the Entertainment Centre are wasted space that could be revamped to make additional attractive recreational areas.

4. Inability to expand exhibition facilities further

By reducing Darling Harbour by about 5 hectares, there will be no opportunity to expand convention/exhibition facilities and indeed public space for the next 100 years. The government states that it is important to have these facilities close to the CBD but seems to have left itself no contingency
plans if demands for bigger and better convention centres make the current proposals uncompetitive with those available either overseas or interstate in the years to come.

I wish to lodge my objection to the Development Application No SSD5752.
The Goldsbrough Building has played an important part in the link between rural Australia and the city. To plan a development that will hinder and diminish this significance is very short sighted. This building has a stately presence along the Harbour foreshore and to block much of this out with another modern hotel loses part of our historical past.
Such a development will greatly reduce the value of units in the Goldsbrough Building as well as the views that the owners presently have. Owners have bought these units in
good faith believing that the value of the property will be maintained not decreased.
As well this buiding is a very popular tourist accommodation destination. Any structure that lessens this appeal will be very devasting for the current Goldsbrough Hotel arrangement.
The proposed development will block sunlight to many units and the view of the new building to residents in the Goldsbrough will be one of ugly metallic walls.
This new development will severely affect the current safe walkways and carparks. This will have a devastating effect on the thousands of tourists,workers and residents that currently use this area every day let alone those that visit the area when special events are scheduled.
The decision to remove the present Convention Centre shows no regard for a prize winning design. This is a disgrace and shows no respect for decisions made in the past.

I would like to register my strong objections to aspects of the current Development Application SSD5752, especially to the planned new ICC Convention Centre, which is a major part of it. My objections are two-fold: (1) as a resident of Sydney and (2) as a resident of the Goldsbrough Building.

The Despoiling of a Major Tourist Site
It seems to me that the main rationale for the redevelopment of Darling Harbour - in particular the redevelopment of the Convention Centre and plans for a massive 900-room hotel - is that it will attract more people to Sydney and better accommodate them in our city. Clearly there is some logic to this, as a bigger Convention Centre will be able to accommodate more conventions and a huge hotel will add to the number of beds available to tourists. In turn, it may well be argued, this will bring more money into our city as opposed to other cities.
However, there is a good deal more to tourism than conference attendees. And what are tourists, sight-seers and travellers in general most interested in seeing? The broadest answer to this question is that they wish to experience beautiful, unique and pleasurable sights. Darling Harbour is one of Sydney's key sight-seeing and tourism objectives. Why? Because it is an oasis of sunny spaces, sparkling water and human-scale amenities in the middle of a major city. The problem with the new development is that it is ugly, ugly, ugly!
The increased mass of the new Convention Centre will make the open spaces feel more cramped, will create huge shadows in the afternoon and, in general, make Darling Harbour less attractive to tourists other than convention attendees. Both it and the new Exhibition Centre lack the airy distinctiveness of the older, prize-winning ones, transforming the unique style of the area into that of an oppressively massive and stylistically boring business centre. When the new hotel is crammed between the Novotel and Harbourside it will simply add to oppressive, shadowy ambience.
It seems misguided to claim that all of this cramped ugliness will attract more people to Sydney. It may attract more conference-goers, but it will significantly damage the aesthetics of one of Sydney's most popular tourist areas, hence reducing the number of tourists who will go there (and spend money there). Naturally this will also impact the pleasure that Sydney-siders themselves take in Darling Harbour.
The current government possibly wishes to be seen as developing the potential of Darling Harbour, but I suspect that if this plan goes ahead unmodified it will be seen as having contributed to the over-development and despoliation of one of Sydney's most attractive scenic areas.

Negative Impact on Residents
I am a resident of the Goldsbrough building and it's my opinion that, if the impact of this new development on Darling Harbour is bad, then it's probably even worse for the residents of the Goldsbrough Building. The new Convention Centre will almost completely replace our views of Darling Harbour and the city with a huge, grey, faceless wall. Darling Harbour may get the increased shadows and claustrophobic mass of the front side, but we get the even greater ugliness of its backside. When the twin towers of the hotel go up, the ruin of our views and the total eclipse of our morning sunlight will be complete. The Dark Ages, it appears, will have arrived for the residents of the Goldsbrough, especially those in the 250 or so apartments on its eastern side.
The apparent disregard for the outlook of such a large number of fellow-citizens appears to go completely against the concept of view-sharing. The increased winter heating that the foreshadowing effects will necessitate in the eastern apartments of the Goldsbrough seems at odds with the Sydney City Council's `Smart Green Apartment' initiative. Basically, for us, the new development is a financial and aesthetic disaster.
More than this, however, it is a disaster for Sydney. Naturally, people objecting to the ruin of their views and access to sunlight will be accused of carrying out yet another not-in-my-backyard campaign. But surely Darling Harbour is not just the `backyard' of Goldsbrough residents. It is the backyard of Sydney-siders in general, a sunny playground for families from all areas. With the loss of the beautiful old Exhibition Centre, with the development of the more massive new Convention Centre and, worst of all, the cramming of a twin-tower skyscraper between the Novotel and Harbourside, the current government risks turning our sunny, human-scale Darling Harbour into yet another hole full of shadows loomed over by giants.

As a resident of Ada Place and someone who works in CBD, I use the overpass from Ada Place to Darling Harbour twice daily on workdays, 480 times a year. The proposed demolition of this footpath will force me to either relocate to a different location (estimated cost of $2,000 for relocation itself and up to $15,000 in fees to terminate my current lease) or take taxi to work twice a day since the irregular nature of my timetable does not allow for commute by bus (estimated cost of $9,600=480*$20). These are substantial amounts of money and a great cause of annoyance for all residents of Ultimo and therefore I object to any kind of redevelopment that will increase my travel time from Ada Place to Darling Harbour.

Many residents of Ultimo are renters like myself who were not sufficiently informed about the effects of the planned redevelopments: for example, I stumbled on the proposed redevelopments by sheer accident. I am sure they are of similar views but their views may not be sufficiently and fully represented among these submissions because they do not know that the overbridge is meant to be demolished.

I propose that either (a) no redevelopments take place, or (b) the footpath be preserved, or (c) the developer or the state government pay residents of Ada Place and nearby streets $1,000 in cash each month per resident.

To NSW Planning and Infrastructure,

I am an owner-resident of the Goldsbrough Building on Pymront Street in Pyrmont. I live on level 2 of the building's east-facing side. I am writing to object strongly to plans for the redevelopment of Darling Harbour.

In particular, I object to the height of the development, which would overshadow my apartment, and many others in the Goldsbrough Building, during winter. I love the sunlight that streams into my apartment all year round, and especially on winter mornings, and I believe it is not yours to take away. This sunlight is one of the main reasons I bought my apartment. There is much talk about "green" buildings in Sydney, and this overshadowing will increase heating costs. I respectfully request that you lower the height of the proposed buildings (the hotel towers and the Convention Centre) so that the Goldsbrough Building is not overshadowed at any time. This is of the utmost importance to me.

Second, I object to the removal of the walkway on the western side of Darling Harbour (currently near the Convention Centre Monorail station, in the carpark). This walkway provides an access point to Darling Harbour that I (and countless others) use frequently, not just to enter the Darling Harbour precinct, but also the City.

Finally, I object to the height, scale, and aesthetics of the proposed International Convention Centre. In artist's impressions that I have seen, it is the same height as the Goldsbrough, and blocks views of this heritage-listed building from the city side.

Thank you for your consideration.
Yours sincerely,
Monica Crouch.

The suburb near the development site is over-crowded. The population in this area is the highest in Australia. This plan will make the population even higher and crowded than before. The new building will block our view. Our unit will be cast in shadow for most of time. It is noisy around at the moment . This plan will produce more noise to this area. It will cause serious security problems.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I own an investment unit on the 8th floor in the Goldsbrough Building that overlooks Darling Harbour. The apartment looks directly over the top of the existing convention centre. I am consequently concerned that the proposed redevelopment will significantly impact the value of our investment.

The proposed redevelopment and in particular the proposed hotels will obscure a significant portion of our view. The loss of views will devalue the unit, maybe by as much as $100,000, and will also reduce the rental return, maybe by as much as $100 per week.

Therefore I will incur an initial loss of maybe $100,000 and an ongoing loss of maybe $5,200 per year. These are figures that are far too high to expect individuals to bare. In my case the investment is intended as part of my partner's and my retirement income and is therefore an extremely important investment for us.

Yours sincerely,

Howard Lovatt
Balmain
Owner 8th floor apartment Goldsbrough Building

The major concern I have, as a resident whose balcony and bedroom is only 60-70 meters from the proposed Event Deck, is noise.

There are number of issues here:
1. In all discussions with the Darling Harbour Live Team, we have been assured that the deadline for termination of events would be 10 pm - in line with current Tumbalong guidelines. Now it is stated under 4.4 Outdoor event deck scenarios "that these types of events are likely to end by 11 pm with the "the live music component .. likely to end by 10 pm". Likely is a very loose and worrying term. With "bump out" for envisioned events for upwards of 5000 people that means major noise disturbance well past midnight. If one looks at looks at Table 7 in the relevant section of the DA - then the recommended night (10 pm onward) noise level for urban residential is 45 dB with a maximum of 50 and 50 with a maximum of 55 for evening. That means that the estimated noise level for a conference dinner with live entertainment is 11 db over the recommended noise level in the evening (6 over maximum) and also 11 over at night (after 10 pm - 6 over maximum). Even then, one could be very sceptical about these noise estimates. Five thousand people, live music, generators - all well within 60-70 meters of people's balconies and bedrooms! It is totally unacceptable to plan for a breach in noise guidelines - and plan for that repeatedly for up to 1 in 4 nights in the year.
2. There is nowhere in the DA any statement about clearing and locking access to the Event Deck. What happens if the guests of these various events decide to party on? There must be clarity that the events end at 10 pm with clearing and locking of the Event Deck very, very soon after.
3. Large marquees will require substantial energy for heating or cooling depending on the time of year. No mention is made of where the power is coming from. It would be totally unacceptable if very large and noisy generators were placed at the Bullecourt end of the deck to provide this power. It must be clarified that such generators will either be contained with the Exhibitions Halls proper or located away from the residents.
4. There are proposed 6-7 major events per year for which, apparently no restriction will be made regarding either level of noise or duration. I understand that New Year in Sydney is special but what are these other events that require the total loss of a night's sleep for Bullecourt residents? It must be clarified what "unrestricted" events are envisioned and some mitigation of this. 6-7 in a year looks like only a few but loss of a total night's sleep every couple of months is unacceptable for even "urban" residents.
5. The placement of the band and associated amplification and speaker systems for live music, and speakers for recorded music, is critical. If these are located at the Oxygen bar end, and facing Bullecourt, the noise the residents will be subjected to will be horrendous. It is an absolute necessity that it be clarified that the speakers for the various sound systems will be placed to face East towards the city where there is a large distance to the nearest residential complexes.

The existing building is iconic to Darling Harbour
The proposed development is bulky and disproportionate, it obscures the Goldsbrough wool shed which has a historical value and important to Darling Harbour skyline.
The size of the project and its time frame has a adverse impact on surrounding buildings and businesses.

I make the following points regarding SSD 5752
1. The present DA does not include the proposed hotel which is shown on all the plans and in all the media presentations.
- This makes this DA seriously flawed. Darling Harbour at present has a character. The intrusion of a much larger Convention Centre, Exhibition Centre, let alone the gigantic proposed hotel destroys this character. A refuge of open space and relative tranquility is turned into chaos and clutter.
2. It is a waste of Government money.
- The taxpayers of NSW will be spending millions of dollars for a convention centre that provides very little extra meeting room and an exhibition centre that at best only provides 20% more space. In doing this it is destroying a building designed by internationally recognised architect John Andrews and an exhibition centre that won the Sulman award for design.
3. There is an apparent total disregard for the residents of the western area behind Darling Harbour.
- The proposed new convention centre is nothing but a wall of glass viewed from the west. As opposed to the design of John Andrew's whose building has a symmetry and balance.
- The proposed exhibition centre merely puts up a gigantic wall blocking the view from the west.
- Loss of footbridge over the light rail tracks leading into Darling Harbour. Thousands of residents and guests between William Henry rd and Allen st east/west and Pyrmont st to John St North/South use that footbridge everyday.
4. The removal of the water features in front of the Exhibition centre and around Tumbalong park is proof of the lack of understanding the proposed designers have of the character and soul of Darling Harbour.
- Everyone and I mean everyone I talk to regarding the redevelopment site find the removal of these water features as 'not possible'. They are as important to Darling Harbour as the water wheel.
In conclusion, it would be best if the NSW government started all over again and talked to the people who use Darling Harbour. Then there is at least a chance that it would get value for money. As it is, the city gets 3 years of chaos and pollution for not much if any improvement.

I strongly object to the proposed convention centre (and hotel). The proposed structure is not in keeping with the surrounding buildings and is much too large when compared to the existing convention centre.

Given the materials used in the surrounding buildings, the use of extensive glass and other modern materials will ruin the vista of Darling Harbour.

Furthermore, this obscures views of the lovely Goldsbrough building which is an historic icon of the area. It would be a shame to see this hidden behind a huge modern structure.

At a well attended Extraordinary General Meeting of the Bullecourt Pyrmont Strata Plan on Tuesday May 7, 3013, the Executive Committee was empowered to make the following response on behalf the residents.
The residents of the Bullecourt Apartment complex do understand the need for a substantial upgrade of the convention and exhibition facilities as important for the economic and social development of Sydney but at a major cost to these residents. Many will suffer a substantial loss to their visual and views amenity with larger structures and what appear to be large featureless walls that will be situated closer to the apartment complex, resulting in the blocking of some or most of their current city views to both the east and north east.
The residents understand that in order to improve the efficiency of the convention and exhibition centre, the planned shape of the new convention and exhibition complex is unlikely to change. It is appreciated that the lower area (called the "event deck") between the proposed Exhibition Halls and Theatre (the "Entertainment Centre" replacement) is an attempt to mitigate that loss of visual and view amenity. However, the proposed mode of usage of the event deck is of major additional concern.
The first concern is that the effort to mitigate the loss of views is directly contravened by the proposed erection of any large marquee type structure on the event deck for a period that is currently planned as the equivalent of a quarter of each year. Given that the event deck will now extend westward directly in the direction of Bullecourt well beyond the current structures, this marquee type structure will be right in the face of many residents, cutting off the bulk of their view. Restricted the use of the marquee to the eastern side of the event deck would go some way to reducing the intrusion into Bullecourt residents views.
More critical, however, is the second concern - NOISE emissions from the event deck.
A number of issues present themselves:
1. In all discussions with the Applicant, the residents of Bullecourt have been assured that the deadline for termination of events would be 10 pm - in line with current Tumbalong Park event guidelines. It is now stated under 4.4 Outdoor event deck scenarios "that these types of events are likely to end by 11 pm with the "the live music component likely to end by 10 pm"." With "bump out" for envisioned events accommodating upwards of 5,000 people means a major noise disturbance well past midnight. Table 7 in the relevant section of the DA indicates the recommended night (10 pm onward) noise level for urban residential is 45 dB with a maximum of 50, and 50 with a maximum of 55 for evening. That means that the estimated noise level for a conference dinner with live entertainment is 11 db over the recommended noise level in the evening (6 over maximum) and also 11 over at night (after 10 pm - 6 over maximum). Even then, a reasonable person could be very sceptical about these noise estimates. Five thousand people, live music, power generators, portable air-conditioning plant, portable chillers and other catering equipment - all well within 60-70 meters of people's balconies and bedrooms! It is totally unacceptable to already plan for a breach in noise guidelines - and plan to repeatedly breach the same noise guidelines for up to 1 in 4 nights in the year. It needs to be clarified that events will end at 10pm and bump out will occur as quickly as possible soon after.

2. There is nowhere in the DA any statement about clearing and locking access to the Event Deck. What happens if the guests attending these various events decide to party on? There must be clarity that the events end at 10 pm with clearing and locking of the Event Deck very soon after.

3. Large marquees will require substantial energy for heating or cooling depending on the time of year. No mention is made of where the power is coming from. It would be totally unacceptable if very large and noisy generators were placed at the Bullecourt end of the deck to provide this power. It must be clarified that such generators will either be contained within the Exhibitions Halls proper or located away from the residents.

4. There are proposed 6-7 major events per year for which, apparently no restriction will be made regarding either level of noise or duration. The residents understand that New Year in Sydney is special but what are these other events that require the total loss of a night's sleep for Bullecourt residents? It must be clarified what "unrestricted" events are envisioned and what noise mitigation is planned for these. 6-7 Events in a year appears to be infrequent but a loss of a total night's sleep every couple of months is unacceptable even for "urban" residents.

5. The placement of the band and associated amplification and speaker systems for live music, and speakers for recorded music, is critical. If these are located at the Oxygen bar end, and facing Bullecourt, the noise that the residents will be subjected to will be horrendous. It is an absolute necessity that it be specified that the speakers for the various sound systems will be placed to face East towards the city where there is a larger distance and other buildings between the nearest neighbouring residential complexes.


A third set of concerns is the emission of odours and other gaseous matter from activities associated with the event deck.
1. An event involving serving alcohol to 5000 people could result in alcohol fumes being carried over to Bullecourt.
2. Similarly, a dinner or worse still, a barbeque type event could result in food odour, cooking smoke and oil fumes being carried over to Bullecourt.
3. While the emission of alcohol or food odour or fumes could be contained by a marquee type structure, the fumes associated with the power generation, air-conditioning or food chilling / catering by portable equipment cannot be contained and could be carried over to Bullecourt.

A fourth set of concerns involve the emission of light from activities associated with the event deck. It is unlikely that an evening activity on the event deck will be conducted using only ambient lighting from either the surrounding area or the moon.
1. A lighting plan for the entire development let alone the event deck has not been specified.
2. A live entertainment event, either accompanying an outdoor reception or dinner will most likely be accompanied by stage lighting and/or disco style lighting that could include lasers. There are no indications in the application as to how any potential light pollution will be either controlled or mitigated on behalf of the Bullecourt Residents.
A fifth set of concerns involve the potential for anti-social behaviour directed at the residents of Bullecourt.
1. The proximity of the western side of the event deck to the Bullecourt Apartment complex could invite anti-social behaviour in the form of abuse, thrown objects and general loss of privacy being suffered by the residents.
2. The application makes no provision for preventing or mitigating anti-social behaviour by the participants of an event deck activity.

In summary, in the DA as presented:
* Includes a temporary structure that further reduces the already hugely compromised visual environment for the Bullecourt complex for up to a quarter of the year
* Plans for exceeding urban noise levels
* Fails to address other major impacts such as light and odour emissions and potential socio-behavioural impacts

The planned usage of the event deck seems to be thoroughly ill-conceived and will have an enormous negative impact on the lives of the hundreds of residents in the Bullecourt complex.  

I wish to raise some specific objections to the DA for the new Convention Centre, Exhibition Halls and Entertainment Centre. Whilst I accept that this is a development of state significance and are resigned to the loss of views, I have grave concerns on the impact of the use of the Event Deck on the day to day life of my family and myself. We own and live in an apartment in the Bullecourt complex facing the new development. We are used to dealing with noise from events held in Tumbalong Park, but the Event Deck is so much closer to our living room and bedrooms - all east facing. I have attended nearly all community consultations and was assured repeatedly that events would finish at 10pm as they now do in Tumbalong Park. I was shocked to discover the DA allow for events on the event deck to continue until 11pm, which is defined elsewhere in the document as night time. In addition the probably under-estimates of noise from big events significantly exceeds recommended level for residential areas. An 11pm finish would mean the noise from winding down events would extend well past midnight - into the period where a resident has the right to complain about noise to the police.
No details are given about any efforts to minimise the noise impact on the hundreds of residents in our apartment building when there are simple measures that could be enforced eg amplification equipment to face east, rather than west to our homes; clearing and locking access to the deck as rapidly as possible at event closure; locating any additional generators required to support events at the east end of the deck.
The DA does not deal with the effect on residents of lighting needed for events and odour emissions eg alcohol, cooking smells.
Of concern also is the plan to erect marquees for up to a quarter of a year which will substantially impact on our outlooks.
I consider it only reasonable that event finishing time remain in line with existing regulations for Tumbalong Park and that a more thorough assessment of all kinds of negative impacts be made and controls put in place to allow us to live in harmony with this important development.

We are just worried about the following aspects of the DA-
1. volume of noise that events will produce
2. closing time of events suggested 10pm no later
3. rubbish or pollution that these events will produce.
4. speakers should erected away from Bullicourt not facing it
5. general or aesthetics - lost of view of Bullicourt units
6. Entertainment decks or marque construction should be more aesthetically inclined.

The loss of the walk way is a major blow to drunk people everywhere and will cause probable death every saturday night with idiots trying to cross the road instead of walking over the top of it. How are sober people supposed to herd their drunken friends across a road. its much easier to get them across a walkway.

Also the building works will be an attraction to lots of drunk people on saturday night with the potential for injury or even death.