Taronga Zoo - Habitat & Wildlife Retreat

I live very close to the zoo, and have for 30 years. In that time the zoo has had constant "mission creep", with frequent construction producing noise from heavy transport deliveries, often at very early hours of the morning. Beeping reversing alarms and general rumbling of the trucks at 4 am makes sleep impossible. These noises should not be allowed before 7 am.

The increasing functionality of the zoo requires increasing numbers of staff, for whom no parking is provided, meaning that the street can be clogged by staff members' cars from as early as 6 am. The zoo should be required to provide parking for all staff.

In addition, all the building seems to have produced an environment where leaves cannot be tolerated, meaning that most mornings start with the drone of leaf blowers for at least two hours. This is an unreasonable imposition, and the built areas should be designed to cope with the natural fall of leaves. It is inconsistent for an environmental organisation to make so much noise and air pollution just to move leaves around.

I object to this development proposal. I also objected to the recent proposal (SSD7311) for other major works at Taronga Zoo.
My grounds for objection are the same in both cases.
Simply put, the Zoo seems only to be interested in what happens inside its walls when it serves up proposals to further develop this site.
It pays no heed whatsoever to the effects of its continuous development programme on the surrounding residents who must put up with ever increasing levels of traffic congestion and parking issues in the surrounding streets.
Each development proposal that the Zoo comes up with is designed to increase the throughput of the most important animal species in its world i.e. Homo Sapiens (Paying Customer).
Each development is designed to simply make more money for the Zoo and it seems totally unconcerned as to the cost to anyone else.
As I noted in my earlier submission to SSD7311, if the Zoo management has a business model that relies on ever increasing levels of development into the future, then the time has come for the management to seriously start looking for a more suitable site on which to base this future development.
Building and operating a 52 room hotel on prime harbourside real estate should not be part of any Zoological Park's raison d'etre and this development application should be dismissed out of hand.

My concern is -
1. The increased TRAFFIC and PARKING congestion in Bradley Head and Whiting Beach Roads.
2. Construction NOISE during the building of this excessive increase in accommodation pods.
3. REMOVAL of the COOL, SHADY, TREE lined environment around the paths and animal viewing.
4. Undesirable CONCRETE BUILDINGS providing for an elite few people.
5. Undesirable TRUCK NOISE early in the mornings.

To Whom it May Concern,

I have been a resident of Whiting Beach Rd for the past 40+ years. Over this time we have lost the use of a beautiful park at the end of our road and had it replaced with an ugly multi-storey car park.

During the weekends, public holidays and school holidays it is not uncommon for us to be 'parked in' by Zoo visitors and sometimes staff. Most days, I have to pick up rubbish left on my nature strip by Zoo visitors, including used nappies, food and drink containers and bags of rubbish.

It has become difficult to ask visitors to my home because of the parking issues.

The amount of traffic in our street has risen exponentially and there is no effort by the zoo or the council to do anything about the growing problem.

Despite what the EIS says about there being adequate parking, the traffic will become worse and the reluctance of zoo visitors to pay for parking, will mean that the parking problems Whiting Beach Rd and the surrounding streets experience will continue to worsen.

I have caught the Zoo ferry to my work in the city for more than 15 years and I am fortunate in that it is practical for me to access the ferry by walking along the bush path owned by the Zoo from Sirius Cove. I am a supporter of the proposed development, however, as a goodwill gesture to the Zoo's neighbours for putting up with the disruption to traffic etc. during the construction phase, I would like to suggest that the Zoo could upgrade the quality of the path to Sirius Cove so that it can easily be used during and after heavy rain (currently it becomes so muddy in these conditions as to be impractical). The upgrade could be by way of continuing the existing boardwalk all the way to the stairs that connect with the end of Rickard Avenue (possibly using the man made and presumably less expensive materials used in parts of the Bradley's Head foreshore track) or preferably by laying a concrete path similar to the excellent one installed at Cremorne Point a year or so ago. An attractive, all weather path (possibly with clever Zoo marketing e.g. animal impressions in a concrete path - a new version of the iconic concrete faux wood balustrades etc. used by the Zoo 50+ years ago...) would almost certainly encourage more ferry commuters to walk to the ferry as opposed to catching a bus or driving to the wharf. This would have obvious health and environmental benefits and could be used in the Zoo's marketing.

I have concerns about the increase in traffic this new development will bring to the existing area. At this present time Military Road and Mosman Junction can barely cope with the zoo traffic.

In particular I am concerned that an increase in overnight visitors staying in the proposed Eco-Tourist Facility will impact parking in the local area. As a zoo neighbour I struggle especially during the school holidays and weekends to find parking during the day, but this is usually alleviated when the zoo closes. Visitors to the zoo, park in the surrounding area to avoid parking costs and also if the zoo carpark is full. Although I am reluctant to suggest it I believe that 2 or 3P parking with permits for residents may have to be introduced to the surrounding streets if this proposal goes ahead.

I am concerned about the planned 2-4 storey accomodation pods at the zoo. This is disturbing as the area is low rise buildings and bushland , therefore this is not in keeping with residential area or the environmentally compatible structures that are in place now, I am not anti development BUT the structures are too tall and not in keeping with the zoo's philosophy or Mosman's philosophy of harmony with nature and camouflage within the landscape. I find the need to build such huge structures is hypocritical within the environment of the zoo....a natural reserve and disrespectful to the surrounding neighbours who support the zoo,the additional polluting nature of the neighbouring sponsors has been disregarded. This is very dissappointing and I am hoping rational debate sees this proposal dismissed.

I object to the DA for the Australia Habitat and Taronga Wildlife Retreat on the basis of increased traffic and parking problems for the neighbours of Taronga Zoo. The use of the Zoo as a concert venue and now as an eco-tourist facility to provide 58 rooms and 4 suites will exacerbate the existing traffic issues for Mosman. As the Zoo is located on a peninsula, and hence there is only one way in and out by road, the development will lead to increased traffic on Bradleys Head Road. The proposal will also lead to further parking issues in residential streets surrounding the Zoo.

The zoo is already overdeveloped.
Trees are being cut down daily ( - daily!!) on zoo land . To chip up. Completely unsustainable.

Little Ashton Park, next door, has been destroyed by zoo development. Take a good hard look. You will weep.

There is significant flooding in Whiting Beach Rd every time it rains, since the zoo built the car park.

Why destroy even more natural bushland on the harbour when this is really the zoo's only precious asset??

At what point does the zoo stop developing/building? Ever?

The children and the animals need trees not hotels.

It will become just another hotel development with a water view.
But without any natural bushland left.
Think carefully and kindly about the environment , please.

The Zoo is already overdeveloped. We complained for months throughout 2015 when the zoo was noisily chipping branches every morning on the land fronting Whiting Beach Road. We were told there were no alternative locations to chip the wood as it would disturb the animals. Eventually (after several months of complaining) the noise stopped, however we are concerned that new accommodation modules will mean the wood chipping will return to ruin our amenity in Whiting Beach Road, as the paying customers won't want to be woken up by wood chipping. We have also been inundated by water in big storms since the zoo carpark was built and the drainage is inadequate. The car park is an eyesore in a beautiful area. The Zoo is not subject to local council restrictions which are there to allow everyone to live together. Due to its special relationship with the State Government it can and does ride roughshod over neighbours' objections. It has become much more developed over the 20 years we have lived in Whiting Beach Road and the traffic and parking have become major problems in surrounding streets at peak times. The Zoo is built on fragile harbour front reserve land in what is supposed to be a conservation reserve. The constant addition of new buildings to this land is a blight on the natural landscape of Sydney Harbour and its few remaining natural bushland areas. The proposed development is not eco-friendly, it is 4 storey high-density accommodation which is totally out of character with the local area. There are considerable restrictions on normal residential development in this area which the Zoo would be breaching with this development.

The Zoo is, in my view already overdeveloped. This proposed development will benefit no-one in the local community. Parking and heavy traffic volumes are a major problem in surrounding streets at peak times. The Zoo is built on fragile harbour front reserve land in what is supposed to be a conservation reserve. The constant addition of new buildings to this land is a blight on the natural landscape of Sydney Harbour and its few remaining natural bushland areas. The proposed development is not eco-friendly, it is 4 storey high-density accommodation which is totally out of character with the local area. There are considerable restrictions on normal residential development in this area which the Zoo would be breaching with this development.

POINT 1:
Item 3.2 Traffic management During Construction.
Notes that work starts from 7am-6pm. However construction vehicles will have access to enter the site at 6am.
Vehicle noise along Bradley's Head road is considerably loud with articulated vehicles rumbling down the street. Especially in the QUIET of the early morning.
We have lived here since 1992 and have experienced several expansions at the zoo. Previous constructions had vehicles driving down Bradley's Head road from 5 am with some idling outside our home at 4.30am. Construction vehicles should NOT be allowed to access the site before 7am Mon-Fri and 8am on Saturdays.
Truck queuing and early arrivals would need daily monitoring by local rangers.
POINT 2:
PARKING: The parking survey and study does NOT take into account that STREET PARKING from Thompson street to Whiting Beach road along Bradley's Head road is already at capacity by 9.30AM, 365 days a year.
Traffic Congestion also occurs regularly during the weekends and various holidays.
Alternatives should be implemented: A substantial Discount on Zoo Admission when using PUBLIC Transport would encourage less cars. OR a park and ride availability may also address parking and congestion issues.
No mention is made if Hotel patrons will be offered free parking because if not then the impetus is to park on local streets.
POINT 3:
The other issue concerns the two extensive constructions occurring simultaneously. This will give very little relief to those residents living close to the main access routes especially in Whiting beach road.

The concept of the zoo operating a 60+ room motel all year round is quite extraordinary. it seems totally contrary to what it should be doing and if it has $45m to spend, it should be building better animal enclosures or more of them or supporting endangered species conservation programmes.

The fact that the Roar and Snore program has been a success is surely no basis for thinking that this motel will succeed in any event. Sleeping in a tent for one night is quite a different concept.. Where is the market coming from, .as obviously the costs of staying in a motel will be significantly higher.

I am more concerned about the traffic impact on local streets. Figures are presented showing the car park is rarely fully utilised -that's because the costs of parking at the zoo send many patrons to the surrounding streets - where they often park so as to take up 2 parking spaces and many times leave their rubbish behind. And why will overnighters not do the same? What chance is there people with suitcases staying in an expensive motel will arrive by bus?? And let's not forget the stream of zoo employee cars travelling along Prince Albert every morning at 600 - 630 am - all the extra motel staff are only going to add to that noise effect.

Of course the construction period will be a separate nightmare for the locals.

This is a ridiculous proposal, totally at odds with the idea of an inner-city zoo,,gross overdevelopment for essentially a "green area" next to a national park and will inevitably create more parking problems and traffic congestion for the local residents and in fact all Mosman residents.

It should be rejected.

The proposal for a 62-room "eco-tourist facility" should be rejected on the ground that it is a gross overdevelopment which has nothing to do with the Zoo's supposed purpose of promoting the conservation of wildlife and educating the public, and everything to do with extracting more money from the site.

Eco-tourism as generally understood takes place in wilderness to national parks, where flora and fauna can be observed in their native environment. It is inappropriate to describe accomodation within the confines of a suburban zoo where animals are kept in an artificially created environment as an eco-tourist facility. The Zoo may spin this proposal as providing "an immersive and educational wildlife experience", but in fact it is just the latest development in the Zoo's creeping Disneyfication, whereby infrastructure for humans has been gradually usurping the space previously occupied by animals and the natural environment: thus we have seen the proliferation of food courts, souvenir shops, amphitheatres, function centres and rope climbs, and a corresponding loss of exhibits, trees and gardens.

It is time to draw a line in the sand on this unbridled development and remind the Zoo of its real purpose.

Director Key Sites
I am opposed to any permanent tourist accommodation within Taronga Zoo.

The zoo is an iconic landmark on public land for the welfare of wildlife and their conservation.
Increasing the built environment will reduce the capacity of land available for animal welfare and sets a precedent of exploiting public land in this iconic location.

Any built structures for permanent human accommodation will serve to alienate the general public from their natural wildlife experience of Australian animals. This is particularily applicable for Sydney as a city whereby residents and tourists alike visit the zoo to "escape" the built environment.

The removal of more than 80 trees is not acceptable. There will be significant canopy loss. With a built structure, restoring canopy on this site will be difficult.

The zoo caters for general public access for all people however, this facility will see exclusive use. The wildlife experience will be only for those who can afford it. The built structure will not resonate for the majority of people and will only serve to alienate the public from this treasured natural zoo experience.

Director Key Sites
I am opposed to any permanent tourist accommodation within Taronga Zoo.

The zoo is an iconic landmark on public land for the welfare of wildlife and their conservation.
Increasing the built environment will reduce the capacity of land available for animal welfare and sets a precedent of exploiting public land in this iconic location.

Any built structures for permanent human accommodation will serve to alienate the general public from their natural wildlife experience of Australian animals. This is particularily applicable for Sydney as a city whereby residents and tourists alike visit the zoo to "escape" the built environment.

The removal of more than 80 trees is not acceptable. There will be significant canopy loss. With a built structure, restoring canopy on this site will be difficult.

The zoo caters for general public access for all people however, this facility will see exclusive use. The wildlife experience will be only for those who can afford it. The built structure will not resonate for the majority of people and will only serve to alienate the public from this treasured natural zoo experience.

I am a regular donor to Taronga Zoo, and fund raise for it. I run on the zoo's charity gold team in the City to Surf. I send all my overseas visitors to Roar and Snore. I bring my children and their friends several time a year to the zoo.

Unfortunately I cannot support the current DA. It priorities tourism over the welfare of the animals. It uses the zoo's land, which will never be increased, to create a safari theme park. This land should be used for the purpose it was intended - for the benefit of the animals entrusted to the zoo's care, and to educate the public (not just the public that can afford to stay at the "theme park") about wildlife and conservation.

The size of the tourist accommodation is unacceptable as well. I do not see how it can be characterised as a "small building footprint". Again. the loss of this much space at the zoo for high end tourism is unconscionable. A four story building would entirely change the feeling of the zoo as an escape. Surely the zoo is not the appropriate place for this development.

I also object to the development on the basis of impact on the tree canopy. The zoo forms part of Sydney's green space. The public should not be required to lose any of this greenspace unless it is to directly benefit the animals in the zoo's care. 77 trees, nearly 40 which are significant, is unacceptable.

I do not accept that this is a "State Significant Development". In what way will this benefit the public of NSW? This is for high end tourism and corporate events. Since when is a hotel state significant?

In short, I strongly object to the use of public lands for a high end "theme park". The proposed development is a corruption of the purpose of the zoo, which is to promote wildlife conservation and education of the general public, as well as to provide a green escape for city residents and visitors. This development is in no way sympathetic to conservation, the public, or in any way green.

Regards,

Julie Barnes

I object to the proposed use of this public land which should be for the welfare of wildlife in the zoo and not be allocated as a resort for tourists. From my point of view, this land would be better utilised for the improvement of animal accommodation and health care than for exclusive apartments for the benefit of overseas tourists.

Furthermore the loss of trees of 'moderate to high significance' is downright appalling. After the destruction of over 1200 trees due the the Baird government's overdevelopment/infrastructure overkill, now we have another project that is threatening to annihilate close to 100 significant trees, many of which would be essential for endangered wildlife such as the grey-headed flying-fox, sugar-gliders, possums and native birds.

Point 5.1.2 states 'The building footprints proposed are small, enabling the retention of significant trees where possible'.

Why do we always have to suffer such enormous tree/canopy loss? If it is necessary that a building is constructed then why not use 'sensitive construction methodology' and innovative planning so that few trees are sacrificed and impact on nearby trees is minimised. For example, the building could be piered and elevated allowing construction to occur above the root protection zone.
In Conclusion:
A better plan for the tourist accommodation needs to be outlined which does not result in the loss of so many 'significant' trees, therefore I believe this development proposal to be quite unacceptable. In 2016, building designers should be clever enough to have a good design that does not have a bulky & over-imposing foot-print and does not sacrifice so many beautiful trees, very necessary for our wildlife and for the health of our environment. For this reason alone, I object to the permanent tourist accommodation proposal within Taronga Zoo. This proposal is quite unnecessary and not warranted in my view.

Yours sincerely,

Jillian Snell

I strongly object to the proposed eco-resort inside the zoo grounds.

The zoo is located on public land and as such the land should be used for uses which benefit the community.

Most people would not be able to afford to go to the proposed eco-resort and therefore it only serves to benefit wealthy tourists.

This is a major step beyond the current 'roar and snore' programme which the zoo already offers which actually aims to educate visitors on the animals and conservation initiatives that the zoo is undertaking.

The current proposal is effectively a hotel which will generate revenue for the zoo - via public owned land, which is extremely questionable.

See attached