Taronga Zoo Sky Safari

I wish to REGISTER AN OBJECTION. See attached submission document.

Conclusion – The severe visual impact of the new gondola lift has not been accurately assessed and, I believe, minimized by the applicant. It will most certainly have a major impact on the heritage values of Sydney Harbour. It will likely be baffling to international visitors, who expect a world-class harbour, to see what resembles a ski-lift built on its slopes.

I believe the design could be modified to have far less visual impact and still service the Zoo’s visitor ferry arrival demand (no more than 10-minute wait time). It appears the applicant has designed a gondola to accommodate very infrequent “mega-peak” times and has also not considered supplementary means of transport to the Zoo entrance or demand management.

I am estimating the Zoo may have spent around $15m so far on design since 2022, but relative to (what will become) a multi-hundred million dollar project, this is small and so a re-design would be financially feasible.

I was working as a senior planning manager in the former Department of Planning during the mid 1980's when the original cable car proposal was being considered and then constructed. A whole range of assessment criteria was applied to the then proposal. By far the most important criteria was the visual impact that the cable cars and its supporting towers had, was views to and from Sydney Harbour and adjacent vantage points. The integrity of "the harbour " was to be maintained as adjacent areas and the Zoo itself had been protected for so long in our European history. The existing and future tree canopy was the best mechanism to achieve this aim even if the cable car had to deviate in its route.
The new proposal appears to take an entirely different approach where it is a solitary major element in such natural surrounds and landscape.
I am so disappointed in the crude solution that the current design team have come up with. The cable cars will be so far above the ground that the occupants of the cars will be more involved with the Sydney views rather than the zoo they came to visit.
I suggest that the proposal be further considered as it will be there for such a long period of time.

Please see attached letter of support for the submission.

Please see attached file

2/13 Warringah Road
Mosman
NSW 2088
([email protected])

NSW Planning | SSD-46807958

Tuesday 10 June 2025


Submission on proposed Taronga Zoo Sky Safari

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission on this DA. In summary, I think that the present proposal is not in the public interest and should be rejected for a redrafting.

I do support the replacement of the Sky Safari, but – I am slightly amazed that I have to say this – the replacement should have the minimum footprint required for it to be functional. The present proposal appears to be a clumsy and unsympathetic design and is manifestly:
1. Too high.
2. Too long (operating hours)
3. Too destructive of the local ecology (especially trees).

I summarise my thinking in this table.

# Aspect A sympathetic DA The proposed DA
1 Height Similar height to previous Sky Safari. This might entail some tree pruning, but nothing like the destruction proposed (see #3). Pylons 4 (35.7m) and 5 (36.5m) are very tall and would be very visible from the harbour. These would seem to be much higher than the previous Sky Safari.
This is the equivalent of a 10-12 storey building!
2 Operating hours Similar operating hours to previous Sky Safari. The proposed operating hours of (up to) 5am to midnight, 7 days a week, seems inappropriate for the setting of the Sky Safari in Taronga Zoo in a residential neighbourhood.
And I imagine that zoo animals need sleep too!
3 Local ecology Minimum footprint required for the Sky Safari to be functional. The proposed Sky Safari removes 13 significant trees, 55 other trees and risks another 100.
Surely we can do much better than this?

Thank you for considering my submission. I am happy to discuss any aspect.

Kind regards
Tom Sherlock

The resubmission documents from Taronga Conservation Society ignore the constructive community feedback it received. The documents outline changes to the original design that are in direct opposition to what the community, in good faith, offered as a more environmentally responsible approach. The Taronga Conservation Society is acting as if it is the owner, not caretaker, of this heritage listed, iconic site. Revenue over conservation compromises what the Society says is its mandate. Perhaps it is timely for the NSW Government to hold this organisation to account for what has been entrusted to them as stewards of this national treasure.

I wish to lodge my objection to the details of this project.
Let me first say that I am a big supporter of the zoo and everything that it does for the animals.
What I do not support is the design of the proposed cable car system. Yes, I am one of the fortunate residents of Mosman the looks directly across at the system and, thus, I will be one of the few that can actually see the impact. I just can't understand the need for the old system to be so grossly expanded. The main objection is the height of the system itself. It really does feel like we are turning the zoo into a theme park or "Disney world". I do not believe that this is in keeping with either the heritage nature of the zoo, the ambiance of the foreshore or the harbour in general. While I understand the desire of the visitors to have an exciting vista of the zoo, surely, they would want to be closer to the animals? Having been through many local and international design competitions in the past, I fail to see how this design allows for it to be properly integrated into the zoo as opposed to "sticking out like a sore thumb". Yes, replace the old system...but please have some regard for proper design and integration into both the heritage nature of the zoo as well as the harbour foreshore as well. If you want a theme park there are plenty of areas where this could be appropriately incorporated into the surrounds in Sydney.

Please see submission attached.

Support letter for Taronga Zoo Sky Safari.

I did make a submission to the original Planning Application by TCSA, but sadly I can see few improvements in this amended application.

For instance, the claim in Section 4.1.2. Permissibility that the Society aims “To facilitate development that is in keeping with the special characteristics of the site or its existing or intended special use, and that minimises any adverse impacts on surrounding land”, ignores the importance that NSW legislation puts on the impact of their safari on views from the surrounding Harbour. For the Zoo is surely subject to the C4 Zone that supposedly controls the height and bulk of developments on Harbour slopes.

May I remind Planning that “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”.

If that had been taken into account, 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 a puny 8 metres in height!

I therefore have to assume that the prime motivation for the peak of the Sky Safari route is not actually a fairly distant aerial view of animals (especially not the elephants that have already left Taronga) or the vaguely proposed education of visitors, but a viewing of Sydney’s magnificent Harbour. A tourist priority indeed. But not one that Taronga should consider. Dangerously like Luna Park!

And with proposed operating hours from 5 am to 12 midnight, Taronga has the prospect of lights and movement over the canopy all day and half the night which once again justifies the Luna Park comparison. But Luna Park was never expected to disappear into a verdant bush setting.

Perhaps the thinking was that Taronga Zoo has 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.

Now we’re told that the height of the pylons is required to protect existing Hoop Pines - Aracaria Cunninghamii. This non-native species (south of the Macleay River according to the Australian National Herbarium) has only grown to a record 44mtrs in ideal growing conditions in the Bunya Mountains. Elsewhere 30mtrs is considered impressive. Given that the sky safari’s route follows that of its predecessor, it seems unlikely that an extra 5mtrs is really necessary.

So I hope that this new, accessible and appealing sky safari can be lowered to an appropriate height for its special bush setting.

I object to this proposal in its current state. The EIS is sub-standard as it does not address the major concerns raised by community feedback, that is the visual impact of pylons 3,4 and 5, towering 26 to 36m above ground level. It also does not address cumulative impact of additional lighting.
The planting and landscaping suggestions are sub-standard: removal of 3 southern mahogany trees (E botryoides) and replacement with 1 angophora or eleocarpus does NOT replace the hollows nor the food for bird and bat species (both Grey-headed flying fox and swift parrot are on the IUCN list). It takes over one hundred years for hollows to form and decades for the replacement of the food. Replacement should be like for like.
The idea that the height of the pylons will be mitigated by plants growing is not realistic. The trees along the skyway length are already mature. They will not grow much higher than they are now. The height a tree can get to is not just the maximum height suggestion but also dependent on the soil, the ability to spread the roots, and other factors. The suggested planting of an angophora only reaches a max height of around 25m. The hoop pines can get to 60m, but not in this location. Realistically the pylons will always be seen. There are no plantings that will reach this height, nor is any time frame given as to when the proponents expect the impact to be mitigated – within 50 years? 100 years? The current trees along the skyway have already reached close to their maximum height.

The visual impact is acute from outside the zoo (as can be seen from photos 26, 34, 41 and 47. It should be stressed that although it may meet current planning legislation, the zoo being on the Harbour and built within protected bushland has an added social licence to protect the view on the Harbour as well as consider the zoo inhabitants and native wildlife in the area. The extra lighting from the entrance/exit buildings should be considered as part of a cumulative impact. There is a growing awareness of “dark sky” for both tourism and for our nocturnal wildlife. This is not mentioned in the proposal. It should be as much of our native wildlife is nocturnal.

The Zoo has to have consideration beyond normal planning considerations as it has a role in education, conservation or other species and raising awareness about conservation and management. The endless list of irrelevant Acts and Regulations is largely irrelevant. The Zoo needs to go beyond general planning for people and show other species were considered. The scale of the pylons and cars, and the additional hours and lighting shows the other species have rarely been considered.

There is no doubt that greater capacity and providing for better mobility is important, but not at the expense of the other species of destruction of visual amenity. The proposal can do better in minimising visual impact and improved planting for wildlife.

Please find attached PDF; my objection to the proposed Sky Safari, Taronga Zoo.

Submission attached

Taronga Zoo Sky Safari

Revised Development Plan

Submission to NSW Planning

https://www.friendsofsydneyharbour.org.au/

Friends of Sydney Harbour Incorporated is pleased to have the opportunity to make a submission
on the new accessible gondola service at Taronga Zoo.

At the outset we note the Zoo’s commitment to the environment, as stated on their website:

https://taronga.org.au/conservation-and-science/sustainability


Friends of Sydney Harbour Incorporated acknowledges the many claims in support of conservation the Zoo is
committed to.

We also recognise the practical needs for accessibility within the Zoo.

These two claims come into potential conflict when plans are proposed that unbalance the need for access
with the overarching goals of the Zoo’s greater responsibility for Conservation, Sustainability, Animal Welfare,
and The Public Good, particularly in the setting of the Zoo within two key environmental dictates:
Critical Foreshore development to and from the harbour.
Impact on neighbours by any dramatic man-made environmental changes.

FoSH has long held a view that…”The Habour is the Most Beautiful Public Space in the world.”

Any foreshore development that endangers this integrity must be considered with a much greater degree of
environmental sensitivity.

The proposed Zoo Sky Safari risks a massive impediment to the harbour’s natural beauty, and it does so in a conservation
area, and an interfacing natural attraction regarded as “Australia’s gateway”.

The name “Sky Safari” is indicative that it’s A “Safari To The Sky”. A sky that will be blighted with a massive unnatural
visual scar from any vessel traversing Sydney harbour from North to south, west to east, from a Manly ferry to the Rose
Bay ferry.

The setting of such a construction in the midst of the natural beauty of the Zoo itself is inappropriate to a point
of being a travesty of the Zoo’s stated “conservation” and “sustainability” principles.

Perhaps the Zoo would need to change its advertising claim from “For The Wild” to “For The Ride”.

FoSH has doubts about the true intent of this project.

These doubts have increased with the need for revisions to the proposals that belie its impact,
+especially higher pylons,
+extended hours of operation,
+removal of more trees,
+increased size of lower station entrance,
+and a complete lack of genuine visual references,
+nor detailed impact statement.

Add to this;
+ the necessity to cut down 100 - 155 trees to make way for the proposal.
+ Daytime noise and visual pollution. For humans, and animals under the protection of The Zoo.
+ Night time noise and light pollution. For humans, and animals under the protection of The Zoo.

The proposal is less about access within the zoo than offering a few from the zoo.
And surely a view from this height must therefore offer a view of an unnatural “attraction” from all parts
of the harbour..

Added to this is the impact on neighbouring suburbs such as Cremorne Point; residents and visitors
will be forced to overlook a ten storey equivalent moving billboard.

The proposal will be the source of light pollution at night, visual pollution day and night, and noise pollution
from machinery, sightseers and cable cars.

This proposal is a massive overreach (literally and figuratively) of what Taronga Zoo purports to be.

It is not in the interests of those who value the integrity of the harbour, and the harbour’s natural
attractiveness.

FoSH maintains an interest in the progress of this development.

We welcome an opportunity to be involved in meaningful discussions.

Regards,
David Morris
Deputy Chair
Friends of Sydney Harbour Incorporated.

cc Headland Preservation Group
Felicity Wilson, MP, Member for North Shore
Anne-Marie Kimber, Mayor of Mosman
Zoe Baker, Mayor of North Sydney

I object to the proposal, as per my attached submission.

The suggested protrusion is not necessary. The pylons are too tall and will give our special zoo affiliated with conservation efforts the appearance of an amusement park. The views from the Harbour and surrounds will be dreadfully ruined. Given the huge number of trees to be removed, the spectacle will be even more stark. I agree that transportation for disabled people and parents with prams is important, but the height can be reduced to achieve this objective. The Hoop Pines can easily be trimmed to make an allowance for a skyway.

SUBMISSION OPPOSING THE CURRENT DESIGN OF THE RELACEMENT SKY SAFARI at TARONGA ZOO

The Taronga Zoo is proposing to replace the old Sky Safari which was retired in January 2023 with a new service with larger cable cars that are accessible to visitors with prams, wheelchairs and mobility issues, to ensure all visitors to the zoo have a safe experience in utilising the Sky Safari.

However, the design and construction arrangements need to be changed to take into consideration the important visual, construction and transport aspects.

1. Minimise visual impacts of Sky Safari pylons and gondolas.
(a) Pylon Height
The height of Pylon 3, 4 and 5 needs to be greatly reduced. Still NO credible justification has been given for the extreme height of Pylons 3, 4 and 5 - the equivalent of a 10-storey building. These pylon structures with the large gondolas would be highly visible from the harbour and surrounding houses and bushland areas adversely impacting on these views of National significance. . Trees can be pruned to allow for the reduction in height.

(b) Gondolas
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 is exhibited on the gondolas.

2. Avoid or Minimise impacts during construction
There are at least 5 key issues:

1. Ban using Athol Wharf Road as a construction works zone:
The proposal to create a construction work area in most of the turning circle at the end of Athol Wharf Rd must be changed. The EIS states that the construction will occur on Zoo land. This is a public road and cannot be taken over by the Zoo. Alternative construction approaches must be developed . . The proposed three step turning for buses could work for certain buses but often there is more than one bus down at the stop so it would be risky and congested. Not practical.

2. Minimise disturbance to the local community during construction:
Truck and heavy equipment movements should be banned in the night – from 9 pm to 6 am, to avoid sleep disturbance particularly of children. Further truck and heavy equipment movement on residential streets such as Prince Albert Street should be avoided.

3. Not close the Bondi to Manly walk
Part of the Bondi to Manly Walk track goes below the Zoo from Sirius Cove to Athol Wharf. The EIS suggested that this track would be closed during construction of the Lower Station which could be take years. This is not fair. The construction should be designed and phased so that walkers can get around the construction to continue their walks.

While supporting the Zoo re-establishing the SKY Safari, I strongly recommend the Department refuses the current Sky Safari proposal. I look forward to Taronga Zoo developing a revised proposal which shows a greater respect to the environment and the community.


Yolande Stone
7 Plunkett Road, Mosman, NSW 2088
0401 992 056
[email protected]

I am registering my objection to the proposed redevelopment of the Taronga Zoo Sky Safari.

I want to strongly object to the proposed development of the Taronga Zoo Sky Safari. I am deeply concerned about the impacts this development will have on the values of Sydney Harbour and surrounding lands. 

I object to the development's scope, which will see pylons reach up above the tree line and as high as a ten-story building with 25 large cabins moving along a cable line that will also be well above the tree line. I object to the potential for the operation of the Sky Safari from as early as dawn and as late as midnight. 

Taronga Zoo has not made sufficient efforts to alert all affected communities located around Sydney Harbour to the major visual impacts the Sky Safari will have on views of the Zoo from major parts of Sydney, including the heritage-protected Sydney Opera House and other important heritage foreshore areas, such as Fort Denison and Garden Island.

There is also a negative effect on the views from the Harbourside Bondi to Manly Walk, including walkways such as Cremorne Point (itself a heritage-protected precinct) and from other headlands, such as Bradley's Head. The current views from these places are of a tree-filled landscape with almost no major developments above the tree line; this allows the visitor to understand and appreciate the original beauty of the Sydney Harbour foreshores as they were before colonisation. 

Taronga Zoo is situated on public land, in a highly visible location, a site that must adhere to the heritage requirements of all surrounding lands. Under the control of the NSW Government, it is of significance at both the State and National levels. It is significant to all Australians, not just the nearby neighbours and the local council, who have missed the implications of this proposal. 

The views of the Taronga Zoo site must not be compromised by the addition of a fairground attraction, which would be highly visible from many vantage points, including land-based views, as well as those from Harbour ferries and boats. It is obvious to the community that this development is purely designed to enhance the tourist experience; it is all about promoting the views of the mountains and the Harbour. The development has nothing to do with the Zoo's mission, "to secure a shared future for wildlife and people," nor with the conservation of our precious animal species; it also has little to do with transporting people up the steep sections of the Zoo.

I object to the loss of 60 trees and the potential impact on up to 100 trees that would be required by the additional width needed for the corridor to accommodate the pylons' base structures and the width of the cable cars. This corridor will likely be planted only with shrubs, as mature trees may also impede the Sky Safari operation.

I object to the fact that the current proposal contains absolutely no rendered images showing the Sky Safari in operation with the 25 gondolas moving up and down the Zoo site. No imagery exists because a final gondola contractor has not yet been selected. There are as yet no details available on the dimensions of the cabins, which implies further changes and possibly adjustments to the design, even after approval (if granted). Like many projects on public land, this project lacks a firm budget. It is likely to blow out when encountering issues with the current planning documents due to further engineering deliberations and decisions. One of these decisions has already resulted in a revised bottom station that is now much larger and more visually imposing than earlier concepts showed. Images showing 'mature' tree plantings alongside this building are misleading; I object to this fictional rendering of the bottom station, which is designed to make it more visually appealing but lacks any basis in reality. 

Consideration should be given to other alternate means of moving people safely from one area to another. The steep sections of the Zoo may be better serviced with various forms of people movement, such as a more restrained scope and size for cable cars, travelators, hillside trolleys, and other ground-based transport.

The lack of a comprehensive effort to alert communities to this development has led to a prevailing attitude that, since few people submitted objecting to the proposal, the development should proceed. It is hard for anyone not familiar with large architectural documents to understand what is being proposed, and it is difficult to reject the needs of people with disabilities. There have always been alternative ways for people in larger wheelchairs and families with larger plans to navigate to the higher sections of the Zoo.

I don't believe that the proposed redevelopment of the Sky Safari will result in fewer arrivals by car or bus and that growth in visitation will come from those arriving by ferry; any research presented by the proponent that backs that up should be treated with suspicion since the general reaction from people cognisant with the details is that people will not forgo their car journey to catch a train or bus (in some cases two trains or buses) and then a ferry. Taronga Zoo entry does not include free public transport and so decisions on how best to arrive for a visit will be made based on convenience. Many families would opt to drive rather than face the inconvenience of having to navigate trains, buses, and ferries with wheelchairs, prams, and other similar obstacles.

I object to this proposal. Please find ways to develop a solution that will mitigate the extremely negative environmental aspects of this development.

Yours sincerely,
Marta Mangold-Sengers
133 Windsor Street
Richmond NSW
M 0413 260 811
[email protected]
(Previously a resident of Cremorne Point for over 30 years, and a business owner in Mosman for over 10 years)

I wish to object to this development. Please see the attachment