Taronga Zoo Sky Safari

I object to the project. I believe a skyrail of the proposed height is necessary and obtrusive. The existing infrastructure profile on the Taronga Zoo headland should be maintained and not exceeded.

This proposal must be reconsidered given its negative impact on the environement as outlined in the attached.

Sydney Zoo has concerns over the procedural adequacy of the submission in several areas, as per the comments attached.

It was with pleasure that I observed the consultation process that went into the replacement of the Taronga Zoo Sky Safari, which resulted in the least intrusive route option by retaining the former safari’s path.

But in what the planning documents claim as a priority to “consider the heritage significance of local heritage items within the Zoo grounds, the strong historical presence of Taronga, and (the Indigenous) Connection to Country”, there’s distressingly half-hearted consideration of key environmental aspects. And I need to emphasise that the Zoo lies squarely in the C4 Zone supposedly controlling the height and bulk of developments on Harbour slopes.

If that had been seen as a priority, it’s hard to imagine how anyone could come up with three 35 metre towers – the height of 10 storey buildings – when no one else in Taronga’s position would be allowed to exceed 8 metres in height!

I must admit that the planners seem to have been aware of the law: “All foreshore land in Mosman at or below the 60 metre contour line is identified as being scenically significant given its importance to Sydney and Middle Harbours and is subject to Section 6.4 Scenic Protection of the Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012”. But that must have been left on the table when they wrote: “The Proposal will be established along the existing route to facilitate a seamless integration with the existing built and natural environment within and proximate to the site inclusive of the environmental heritage and scenically significant setting”.

Those monster towers cannot be called a seamless integration with anything!

Perhaps the thinking was that Taronga Zoo had a history of getting away with gradually denuding the site of its nature – for there’s a list of 65 Category A trees (possibly +135 trees that are uncategorised) that had been removed for recent developments.

I suspect that the prime motivation for the peak of the Sky Safari route is not actually an aerial view of animals or the vaguely proposed education of visitors, but a viewing of Sydney’s magnificent Harbour. A tourist priority indeed. But not one that Taronga needs to offer. Dangerously like Luna Park!

And the equally random appropriation of indistinct First Nations concepts behind the proud “Saltwater + Sky Country” nomenclature is not actually helped by the suggestion that “The cable cars are the vessel which takes the public on a journey from Saltwater to Sky similar to the Nawi, a traditional bark canoe used by the Cammeraigal people on Sydney Harbour”. In my experience as a writer specialising in Indigenous cultures, the Nawi were most efficient fishing vessels which never had ambitions to reach for the Sky!

And the Picture 10 ‘Photomontage of Lower Station’ looks absolutely nothing like any known Nawi, as claimed!

Do we want another Luna Park in Mosman? With the Sky Safari touted as offering “opportunities for sunrise and early morning sessions, sunset and twilight sessions and for special events”, one does wonder when Mosman residents, and the Zoo’s animals, will be allowed any rest!

However, I did take seriously the potential for the Safari – reached by ferry to Athol Wharf by significant numbers – will achieve this ambition of the planners: “It is anticipated that the reinstatement of the Sky Safari will promote a modal shift away from private vehicle towards public transport which will ultimately benefit the transport network and improve traffic conditions”. For the availability of both Harbour ferries and the 100 bus should balance out the appeal of the Zoo’s no-doubt profitable car park.

Regarding public transport during construction, though, I note that (indicative only), “The 238 bus service to temporarily terminate at the upper station on Bradleys Head Road and not continue down to Athol Wharf Road. The need for a construction zone on Athol Wharf Road to facilitate the construction of the lower station will take away the ability for buses to use the existing turning circle at the end of the roadway. It is anticipated that a smaller minibus service would operate as a shuttle service between the lower and upper stations – allowing existing users of the 238 to continue to access Tarango Zoo ferry wharf”.

This is wholly unreasonable for the many Mosman commuters who use the 238/ferry combination, operating on tight schedules. It’s also going to be a burden for Zoo visitors by ferry who will have to queue to access mini-buses. I can’t imagine a solution, but that bus turning circle at the end of Athol Wharf Road really has to be maintained.

And it’s a not-unrelated issue that the only-recently opened Bondi to Manly Walk is to be disrupted. “During demolition and construction there will be a requirement to close the coastal path, due to its proximity to building works which will cause work health and safety conflicts”. There is absolutely no coastal alternative, and redirecting walkers up the stairs from Sirius Cove to the Zoo’s top gate is a massively vertical diversion.

Please consider the attached Council report and submission as Council's submission. Should Council decide to add to or amend this submission at it's meeting on 5th November 2024 an updated submission will be provided.

Theh current propsal should be refused or the Zoo should withdraw the proposal and resubmits - with 1. Pylons 3, 4 & 5 reduced significantly in height, 2. with a new construction area for the Lower Station so not to encroach on the public road Athol Wharf Road - so bus services are not closed and 3. the Bondi to Manly walkway is not closed and 4. the trees and other vegetation in the zoo is not adversely damaged.,

My concern is with the increased height of the new pylons and the detrimental / disturbing impact this will have on the view of the headland from viewing points around and on the Harbour. The height of the pylons needs to be as minimal as possible to ensure the efficient and safe transportation of passengers. Any consideration given to the views from inside the cars as a justification for the increased heights should be discounted. I am against any motivation by developers to increase profits by turning Taronga Zoo into a Harbour side theme park. The primary consideration at all times should be to as far as possible integrate any necessary development at the Zoo into the surrounding bushland.

We live in Raglan St so look across at the zoo. The proposed sky safari has significantly taller pylons which are well above the tree line and have a significant impact on the visual amenity of the headland. At the moment the headland view is of bush land which is beautiful. It will be quite ugly with the imposition of a tall structure.

Also I note the view photos in the EIS do not show the gondola cabins which will obviously add a lot more bulk and impact to the view. Particularly given they will be significantly larger than the cabins on the previous gondola.

The project has positive and negative aspects. Some suggestions, recommendations and comments are included in the submission.
Thank you
Kate Eccles OAM, President

We find it unacceptable that the pylon height is proposed to be this high. We can understand the objective of providing an amazing experience for visitors, but what is proposed basically turns the sky safari into a central focus for the zoo and makes it look like an amusement park. This is definitely not in keeping with the amenity and views of our iconic harbour or, indeed, the bushland setting of the zoo itself.
Because of the steepness of the topography, the revitalised Sky Safari, both cableway and pylons, will be more
visible from within the Zoo, immediate surroundings and public and private locations within the Sydney Harbour
and its foreshore.
In viewpoints 5,6,7 in the Assessments of Impact, the "cableway does exceed tree height and interrupt canopy
coverage". It will be visible from various public locations and the Taronga Function Centre (EIS p72-76).
Currently, much of the urbanisation of Taronga and the "Zoo Headland" is largely hidden from the harbour by
vegetation, In the Revitalised Sky Safari, the pylon and cableway height, especially Pylons P2 to P5 (EIS p86) are
"above the prevailing tree canopy line" (EIS 87p). P5 will be 36.5 metres high, which is equivalent to the height of a
10-story building. It will be highly exposed from all directions. Is it possible, considering structural and
operational concerns, to reduce the height of these pylons, especially P5?
We strongly object to turning this iconic site into an amusement park!

TARONGA ZOO SKYWAY SAFARI SUBMISSION

The Skyway is a very important component of the whole Zoo experience and the update to a faster and more efficient system is most welcome.
However there are aspects of concern with the replacement proposal, the main one being the excessive height of the pylons and cable track.
PYLON HEIGHTS
The height of Pylons 3, 4 and 5, the latter two at 35m and 36.5m (there are varying heights shown in different sections of the EIS) which are the equivalent of a 9-10 storey building and is substantially higher than the previous skyway. This means the gondolas and the pylons will be clearly seen on the skyline. The drawing at p34 of Appendix F shows that the proposed Pylon 5 is well over twice as high as the previous Pylon 7 and page 34 of the Design Appendix shows the dramatic height increase between the old and the proposed skyways.
The visual impact of this is shown in Viewpoints 19 Ferry approach and 21 Cremorne Reserve in the Visual Impact Appendix. The proposed views show that dramatic height difference on the skyline. While judged to be of Moderate impact in the Visual Impact Assessment based on their Methodology, if judged on their impact in relation to the bushland setting and the overriding importance of the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, they are far too intrusive. At 9.19.5 “Magnitude of the nature of change proposed” explains “…while the Sky Safari will be a new prominent feature of this view, it reinforces the identity and location of the zoo from Sydney Harbour.” It is extraordinary to think that this is a justification for the visual impact of the pylons. Taronga is a well known destination that is heralded by its harbourside wharf. The retention of the overall bushland setting, as acknowledged in the Visual Impact analysis, is of great importance and the Taronga Zoo is a very important component of this bushland setting. The scale of the pylons diminishes and intrudes into this setting as can be seen in Figure 50. The serious lowering of their height is needed to allow them to fit into the overall context of the bushland setting.
What is governing the height of the proposed pylons? In terms of the Hoop Pines careful pruning would allow for the necessary clearances shown in p.41 of the Design Appendix F. Regardless the system needs to be significantly reduced in height.
THE LOWER STATION
The Lower Station is larger than the existing one. It has a more interesting design but the vertical elements do increase that appearance of height. Its impact as seen from the water (indicative view from Ferry Terminal Bottom Station view 1 Dwg AD-SSD-9001 D) and in Viewpoints 14 and 19 of the Visual Impact Appendix. In the latter scenario, the text acknowledges the role of the existing vegetation in helping to conceal some of the Lower Station. The large tree (468) is shown in 9.14.4 Proposed view, is the one considered for removal due its location next to the construction work site. This would be a severe loss for which replanted trees will not compensate until years later, and every attempt should be made to save it.
REPLANTING
The retention of trees and the 2:1 replanting program are essential for longer term integration of the Skyway into the Zoo landscape. This will need continued Arboriculturist oversight and trained Zoo staff. Newscape computer drawings in the Landscape Appendix show current tree sizes and maximum tree sizes. P.32 shows the Sky Safari route view and how much higher the cables will be in relation to the existing trees. The projected growth to maximum size shows a good coverage but getting trees to the height needed to screen the proposed Skyway is doubtful and there is no time frame for how long this would take to achieve.
CONSTRUCTION
The lower site turning circle area, which is a critical transport interchange, would appear to be extremely difficult to manage and to maintain a bus service at the same time as the construction period.

This is a very important proposal with a huge amount of analysis and information. As a result my comments have been restricted to more obvious areas. The timing for submission over school holidays did not help.
Bob Clark
20.10.24

See attachment.

My submission is attached

To whom it may concern,

As a Group of local people deeply concerned about the Environment, Mosman Environment Group has two key objections.

1/ Despite repeated requests and assurances from the Zoo that the community would be widely consulted, the Government has chosen the tightest timeframe possible and held the consultation during public holidays when many residents will be away and unable to comment on the clear and nationally significant impacts of this major development.

It is unacceptable and quite deliberate of the Department to implement an obviously deliberate strategy to reduce public feedback given that several groups have now sought an extension to the consultation period and this has been rejected out of hand by the department.

This is now the first time that local people, neighbours and local groups have had the opportunity to see the full plans and it is absolutely inadequate to properly assess their impact in three weeks over school holidays. The Zoo itself has had well over 18 months to design its plans in secrecy and with highly paid consultants yet here the Community is given a mere sliver of opportunity to reply and comment according to our statutory rights. It is an outrage.

2/ Despite assurances from the Zoo that the plans would mirror the existing sky Safari, it is now clear that the original height plans which were overwhelmingly rejected by community groups and community members have been maintained and even increased further.

The height of several of the new pylons - equivalent to a 10 storey building - will be more than 4 times the height of the existing Sky Safari creating an unacceptable visual impact on the community both nearby and on the Nationally significant views from the Harbour.

Mosman bushland and the nearby Sydney Harbour National Park is the only place visitors and residents of Sydney can see what the Harbour may have been like before white settlement. And Taronga Zoo is now planning to erect a massive new cable car across this irreplaceable view.
It is in our view, a scandal.

This plan will see the Safari tower over the natural bushland canopy and the Historic facade of the Zoo entrance.

Despite the Zoo’s stated wish to merely improve access for visitors it is now clear that the overriding interest is to create a tourism attraction that would draw increasing visitor numbers through our already highly concentrated suburb. This will have impact naturally on already highly congested traffic.

This element has not been adequately addressed in the submission and the entire reason for the quadrupling of the cable car’s height has not been addressed at all.

Crucially, the Zoo has previously admitted that it would like to increase operational hours of a new cable car tourist attraction to include sunrise and sunset ‘rides’.
This in our view would also disrupt residents and all fauna both at the Zoo and in nearby bushland.

Despite most recently assuring us that the new heights would not be onerous, and in fact ‘Just a couple of metres higher than the front entrance’, it is clear the Zoo has maintained its plans for a ‘Disneyland-style ride’, contrary to the explicit wishes of the community and the Zoo’s own stated intentions

Mosman Environment Group has no objection to a sky Safari that would improve access for visitors but we have an absolute and clear objection to a tourist attraction that would disrupt the Nationally significant natural views of our suburb both locally and from across the harbour.
Taronga Zoo is proposing to replace the former Sky Safari (with its nine pylons of heights of less than 9 metres) with a new Sky Safari cable car system with six new pylons.

• Pylon 1 (4.3m)
• Pylon 2 (9.7m)
• Pylon 3 (26.2m)
• Pylon 4 (35.7m)
• Pylon 5 (36.5m)
• Pylon 6 (6.5m)

No formal written justification has been given for the extreme height of Pylons 3, 4 and 5 - the equivalent of a 10-storey building.

The sky safari is many times higher than it needs to be to provide an efficient way for visitors to go from the bottom gate to the top to start their zoo experience.

I believe I have provided the true reason for the excessive height above given the Zoo’s previous statements witnessed by Members of our group at previous meetings with the zoo and recorded in our own notes and minutes from those meetings.

The height of Pylons 3, 4 and 5 need the to be reduced. There is no justification for proposed new Pylon Height.

Further, to minimise visual impacts, the Gondolas need to be designed and coloured so that they will be unobtrusive to visitors at the Zoo as well as the broader community and from the Harbour. Further, conditions need to be imposed to ensure that there is no advertising on the gondolas.

Kind Regards
Adrienne Riddell
On behalf of the Mosman Environment Group

See attached letter.

Please see attached submission with comments on the environmental impact of the Taronga Zoo Sky Safari project. HPG consents to the publication of this submission under the name of Headland Preservation Group (HPG).

Na

Please consider PDF attached.