Walsh Bay - Arts Precinct

I am a resident of Walsh Bay, and a strong supporter of the visual and performing arts in Sydney.

I have inspected the current planning concept documents.

I very strongly support this development. All aspects of the plan are very impressive, and will work very well in this location.

I assume that effective sound-proofing of the Pier 2/3 performance spaces is included, comparable with the sound-proofing in the performance spaces on Pier 4/5.

WALSH BAY ARTS PRECINCT: APPLICATION FOR STAGED DEVELOPMENT CONSENT


--------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY
1. On 26 August 2013 the Director of City Planning, Graham Jahn, advised the Department of Planning that:
"... it is difficult to gain any firm understanding of the project. For example, it is not possible at this stage to appreciate the scale, frequency or impacts of likely public or ticketed events: the extent of works necessary to the wharves, sheds and aprons to accommodate the proposed cultural institutions or the timing and duration of the project".
2. Despite the opportunity for the applicant to supply these omissions, the position today, after the lodgment of the development application and purported Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is, if anything, worse. So far as we are concerned, the principal impact of the project will be the appropriation of Sydney Harbour by a platform with an area reserved for performances, the design of which is completely unknown. Rather, this structure, which will be the most important intrusion into a valued heritage space, is described in language of the greatest generality, by reference to performance standards which appear to have been lifted from a public relations brochure, and on the solitary plan for approval by reference to a space and not a structure.
3. This proposal breaches most of the legislative requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) for the preparation and exhibition of development applications. It does not come close to compliance, and we have been advised by Senior Counsel experienced in this area of the law that it is invalid.
4. However, whatever deficiencies in compliance the application exhibits, the platform proposal represents a wholesale departure from the heritage principles which have hitherto governed material changes to the wharves. The proposal has no architectural merit and its analysis is entirely flawed, as we shall demonstrate.
5. The subtraction of detail from earlier proposals before the DA was lodged makes it impossible to assess with precision the impacts on our function centre business in the shore shed. However, certain impacts can be readily predicted, all of which will be adverse. Most importantly, the interference with our business will, we have been advised, probably constitute the tort of nuisance, for which we would be entitled to apply for injunctive relief to prevent the use of a platform in a manner which would unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use and enjoyment of our leasehold premises. We have also been advised that damages may be awarded in addition to or in substitution for an injunction to compensate us for what we and our advisers predict will be substantial losses in the millions of dollars.
6. We know that private losses are generally irrelevant to planning decisions. However, where those losses flow from disamenities which would be caused by the proposal, those disamenities are as relevant to the planning decision as any other aspect of the development. It happens that we are able to measure the disamenity in the predicted losses to our business: it is evident from what little detail there is in this application, that there is no proposal to mitigate those losses.
7. One is entitled to be cynical where the only noise mitigation measure for open air performances is the suggestion (and that is what it is - it is not advanced as a condition) that:
"... creative measures may be employed by the operators of the space in consultation with the local community in order to limit the noise impact on the surrounding spaces. This may include the possibility of streaming audio for events to personal hand-held devices ... as opposed to using large speaker systems".
What complete nonsense. Is it seriously suggested that a multimillion dollar performance space, which inevitably will have adverse noise impacts on our function centre, will be conducted in mime?
8. An example of the question begging nature of the proposal is whether the platform's structural elements will be a barrier to the north-south axis views, and for our little part, from and to our function centre? How will it relate to the east-west axis? What will be seen of it from the heritage wharves? How high will it be? How broad? What materials will it be made of? What colours? Will it appear solid or ephemeral? Will it be mobile or stationary? And why were the long steps to the water abandoned?
9. If you compare the 2013 proposal with the current one, there is a significant difference in the design which will have ripple effects when we come to deal with the adverse heritage impacts of the proposal.
10. Initially, there were to be steps down to the water orientated along an east-west axis perpendicular to the wharves, to be read as a single element. This we can appreciate: there are other examples in Sydney but the applicant's architects have laughingly compared it with the sea organ at Zadar, Croatia (Design Report para 3.3.3). The steps, we are told, connect what they call the waterfront square (the platform) to the Harbour "by a series of generously scaled seating steps. The steps are hidden and exposed with the cyclical movement of the tides, and reinforce the unique setting of the precinct". Even this is wrong, and the image on this page of the Design Report showing an uninterrupted series of steps to the Harbour represents the abandoned proposal and not what is now proposed. The steps will no longer be "generously scaled" connecting the square to the Harbour, least of all will they reinforce any setting. Instead, they are to be interrupted by the stage, or what is referred to as "the public roof". The stairs will never be read as a single element but simply as two rather miserly points bisected by a large structure (the use of the term "public roof" is of course meaningless - all roofs are public if they can be seen, but "public" used adjectively means an area to which the public has access as of right, and no member of the public could possibly have access to this roof).
11. In any event, the Design Report is misleading in using a photograph of the water steps in Croatia, which is an experimental instrument that plays music, using the principles established by the mannerist water features of the Villa d'Este, Tivoli (which took 22 years to complete, and then did not work). Now, if a sea organ is proposed, built as the Zadar organ was to reduce the bulk of an otherwise uninspiring sea front, then we would hold fire, in the hope that the seductive and harmonical brilliance of an acoustical solution to an existing problem might have some interest, without detracting from the heritage significance of its surroundings. However, that is not proposed, nor is it appropriate. The technique, however, of defining the development by what it is not should be appreciated: as an exercise in avoiding the hard questions which would follow once a design is presented. This is no more than a diversionary tactic, and we will address the other concerns with this methodology in our conclusion.
COMPLIANCE
12. The compliance problem arises because the application has been prepared in complete disregard of the documentary requirements of the Act. State Significant Development (SSD) is no more than a species of the genus development, and an application for SSD is a development application to which the procedures of Part 4 of the Act apply except in the case of inconsistency with Division 4.1 of Part 4: s.89L. That a development application is required for SSD is apparent from s.89D(2), s.89E(1) and s.89F and the generic definitions of "development application" and "development consent" in s.4(1) of the EPA Act.
13. Section 78A(1) provides that a person may, subject to the Regulations, apply to a consent authority for consent to carry out development. Section 78A(8A) provides that a DA for SSD is to be accompanied by an EIS prepared by or on behalf of the applicant in the form prescribed by the Regulations. Section 89F prescribes the measures of public participation for SSD, replacing the provisions of s.79-79A, but not s.79B (dealing with consultation and concurrence) if the instrument which requires consultation or concurrence specifies that it applies to SSD: s.79B(2A). Section 79C, the pivotal provision requiring consideration of matters before consent can be granted, applies to SSD by dint of s.89H of the Act.
14. It is important to appreciate that s.89F expressly confers rights of public participation including inspection and copying of applications and accompanying information upon objectors, and the right to lodge an objection with the duty to provide grounds for the objection conferred by s.89F(3). These provisions would be defeated - indeed, they would be pointless - if the application and accompanying information did not comply with the documentary requirements of the Act.
15. Clause 47 of the EPA Regulation provides that Part 6 of the Regulations applies to all development applications. Clause 50 in Part 6 provides that a development application must contain the information and be accompanied by the documents specified in Part 1 of Schedule 1. Clause 70A provides that, despite cl.50, the information required to be provided in a staged development application in respect of the various stages of the development may, with the approval of the consent authority, be deferred to a subsequent development application. No such deferral decision has been made, and in any event the power to do so only relates to stages, not to deferring the description of the development for the purposes of the concept proposals for the development of the site which are referred to in s.83B(1) of the Act. For the proposal to be assessed under s.79C, there must be something to assess, from which impacts can be predicted, and mitigation conditions proposed, or else, consent can be refused.
16. Schedule 2 to the Regulation applies to an EIS prepared for SSD under s.78A(8A) of the Act: Schedule 2.2. The Director-General must issue environmental assessment requirements which must be complied with by the person preparing the EIS: Schedule 2.3(8). The form of the EIS and its content are set out at Schedules 2.6 and 2.7, but these provisions do not supersede or override in any way Schedule 1, which contains the basic requirements for development applications. In the following paragraphs, we shall refer to both Schedules 1 and 2.
17. Schedule 2(1)(d) requires that in the case of development involving the erection of a building an A4 plan of the building that indicates its height and external configuration, as erected in relation to its site, must accompany the development application. There is no such plan for the development. The development proposes a temporary stage, apparently to be moored off the platform structure. If development involves the erection of a temporary structure, the provisions of Schedule 1.2(1)(n) must be met, and they have not. Where the building is to be used as an entertainment venue, as is the proposal in this case, Schedule 1.2(1)(o) requires a statement that specifies the maximum number of persons proposed to occupy, at any one time, the building. No such statement appears. Schedule 1.2(3) requires plans for the platform including its location in relation to adjoining development, floor plans showing its layout and intended uses, elevations and sections showing proposed external finishes and heights, including that information in relation to temporary structures and the materials from which such structures are to be made, the proposed finished levels of the land in relation to existing and proposed buildings and so on. None of this information is provided. Schedule 2.7(1)(b)(i) requires "a full description of the development", and of course no such "full" description has been provided. Subparagraph (ii) requires a detailed description of those aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development. The interface between the platform and our function centre, including both the physical and the acoustic environment must be detailed, but that is impossible in the absence of the plans required by Schedule 1. Subparagraph (iv) requires a full description of the measures proposed to mitigate any adverse effects of the development on the environment, and "environment" is defined in s.4(1) of the EPA Act to include "all aspects of the surroundings of humans, whether affecting any human as an individual or in his or her social groupings".
18. Our business involves humans in both individual and social groupings, but particularly the latter. Groups of persons having something in common use our function centre almost every day: for weddings, funerals, family celebrations, business conferences or for other occasions when humans congregate for social intercourse. In the course of functions, speeches are given, music is played, silence is sometimes observed for remembrance or mourning: each of these activities are likely to be significantly affected by noise and commotion caused by the use of the structure. As well, the views from the function centre are likely to be impeded by the stage or "public roof" whatever that means. None of these matters has been assessed because it is impossible to assess them without plans showing the location of the proposed development, its shape, size, colour and of the proposed uses of the building so that some understanding of the numbers of people congregating at the point at which our function centre joins its external environment.
19. Some very basic things occur to us. Either stages or the seating surrounding them must be raised. We have never seen a stage on level with its audience: a contradiction in terms. The performers on such a stage, if they could be seen by most of the audience, which is unlikely, would not be heard by them. Of course, some acoustical trickery could be employed, such as a music shell (there is one that is moored in the Harbour) to create acoustic reflectivity, but that would be a massive structure impeding views and interfering with the heritage appreciation of the wharves. Some such structure is apparently proposed but there is no description of it. In the EIS chapter dealing with "built form and urban design" there are photographs and descriptions of building alterations to the wharves but when it comes to the public domain (s.7.1.2), after informing us that it is the central cultural hub of the precinct and will perform a vital role by creating a waterfront square, it contains no description, diagram or plan of the square.
20. What has been proposed for approval, if the EIS does not spell it out? The EIS refers to the plans and the design report. That report makes it clear (p.3) that it is "for information only and has been developed to inform the approval documents which are included at Appendix A" (p.3). On this page is what appears to be a montage of the platform and some structure in the location of the stage involving the "public roof". However, this is not what is proposed to be built. When one turns to Appendix A which contains the drawings "for approval", there are only two of them. The first drawing is AO1.001[A], a site plan "showing works for approval". It shows no "works" for approval. Rather, the area of proposed additions to existing fabric are greyed out and in the approximate location of the platform it is described as "proposed public domain". A domain is a sphere of thought or action, and not a work, and least of all a building (which of course includes piered structures). No further information is provided. Although there is a scale on the plan, there are no dimensions, cross-sections, montages, elevations or any other document showing, for example, the changes of level, steps, stage, arch, public roof or any other much vaunted aspect of this development.
21. The Design Report does refer to four elements of the platform, the waterfront square, the public roof, the wings and the water steps, which are located on a plan (p.11). We shall return to this typology in our conclusion. Unfortunately, it bears no resemblance to the plan proposed for approval. The plan at p.11 shows the northern extent of the platform as forming three elements: two recessed elements with stairs and one element with a roof structure further to the north. The recessing of the structures is not shown on the plan proposed for approval. Instead, all that plan shows is a thought bubble. We have no idea whether the "proposed public domain" is the extent of the structure proposed in that location, which may of course extend further to the north than the structure: note the floating stage. However, this plan (at p.11) is not for approval but for information: the information it discloses is inconsistent with the plan proposed for approval.
22. Where are objectors expected to start their analysis of this project, if the only detailing of it is in plans for information but not approval and the plan for approval does not show the details and the plans for information have none of the information required to accompany the application? Where are the elevations? Where are the steps? Where is the stage? What is its width, height, depth? Where will people sit to enjoy whatever spectacle will be presented on the stage? What sight lines and view sheds are opened or impinged upon by the proposal? Or is this simply a larger area for perambulation, as one of the images (for information but not approval) shows (p.3) in the Design Report? That image is of an urban park: given the number of children, it is surprising that there are not swings and roundabouts.
23. Regrettably, development is for adults and this is not an adult application. Where detail is required, fuzziness is supplied. Yet the changes to the wharves are set out in considerable detail. The closest that the public domain reaches some architectural resolution is in the Design Report (at p.26), but that illustration appears intended to show the centrality of the "waterfront square" (not that it is square) to the other uses of the site. Well and good, but where are the dimensions, builtform, elevations and cross-sections? It appears from a close examination of the platform plan that there are in fact architectural details available for it but they have not been disclosed, presumably because to do so might have enabled its adverse impacts to be more readily understood. The remarkable thing about this part of the design (and there is a further iteration at p.31) is that it is inconsistent again with the plan proposed for approval, as well as the illustrative plan (at p.3) and it is also inconsistent with the photomontage or drawing which adorns Appendix B of the Design Report purporting to show the square.
24. The second drawing for approval is AO1.002[A]. It shows three elevations of the wharves. It is incorrect, and therefore misleading, because it does not show the "waterfront square".
25. Then there is Appendix B, which are drawings "for information". None of the elevations or sections shows the square. The ground level floor plan is AO2.000[A]. It is difficult to read but it does show a waterfront square and adds two pieces of additional information. First of all, there will be a "chiller plant" below the square, but presumably above the Harbour (without elevations who knows?). And who knows what that is and how it is to be accessed? Are there stairs to it, and if so, where? Then there is an "optional floating stage" which is truly floating somewhere between the two wharves. There are no dimensions provided for it, no description of materials etc etc. The usual problems with this hopelessly inadequate application.
26. Enough has been said to demonstrate that the development application is not compliant with the EPA Act. We assume that the Minister is a responsible consent authority and will therefore refuse to process this application until it is compliant with the law. As we have now pointed out this deficiency, we request the Minister to advise us as soon as possible as to the steps he or his Department propose to take concerning these deficiencies.
27. Another somewhat alarming feature of this application is that it clearly has not been notified, as required by cl.84 of the EPA Regulation. So far as we are aware, no owner or occupier of adjoining land has been notified in accordance with this clause. As the Minister will be well aware, it is an inviolable principle that breaches of public participation requirements spell invalidity, if they are not cured. In any event, a project of this magnitude should have been exhibited for longer then thirty days.
28. Two steps must therefore be taken. First, the application should be withdrawn, or amended to include the information required by law to accompany it. Second, it should be notified in accordance with the law, and also, whether the law requires it or not, to the residents of the Precinct, all of whom will be adversely impacted by the proposal.
HERITAGE IMPACTS
29. A heritage report was prepared by Design 5 Architects. This firm was engaged "to provide advice to the consultant team during the design phase" (para 1.1) and to prepare a heritage assessment. The heritage report assesses the preliminary concept design report which includes plans and diagrams "with specific stakeholder input including heritage review and advice from Design 5 - Architects" and Building Design Principles "have been developed by Bates Smart and Design 5 - Architects specifically and have been used to guide the current proposed options" (para 6.2.5 - Heritage Report). Later, it is disclosed that Arts NSW engaged Bates Smart, and Design 5 - Architects as "conservation architects, to develop four schemes which formed part of a final business case ... the current concept design is a development of Option 2 from the final business case and has been further modified based primarily on heritage concerns" (Chapter 7, p.49, Heritage Report).
30. In other words, the heritage assessment of this proposal has been prepared by one of its authors: that makes sense, doesn't it? Who better to provide an independent and objective assessment of the heritage impacts of this design than one of its progenitors? In Prineas v Forestry Commission of NSW (1983) 49 LGRA 402, the Court explained that the reason for requiring the preparation of an EIS was because:
"... the legislature wished to eliminate the possibility of a superficial, subjective or non-informative EIS and any statement meeting that description would not comply with the provisions of the Act, with the result that any final decision would be a nullity" (at 417)
Only an EIS which is objective in its approach meets the standards imposed by the Act. Where the author of part of the expert material relied upon in the EIS is conflicted, it is unlikely that this legal standard will be met.
31. The heritage significance of the wharves is a focal point of decision-making on this application. SREP 16 - Walsh Bay zones the site Zone 1 - Walsh Bay Conservation Zone, the second objective of which is:
"to ensure that development is consistent with the heritage significance, the scale, the builtform and the materials of existing structures in the zone and adjoining area".
Consent cannot be granted unless the Minister has taken into consideration the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development will affect the heritage significance of the zone: cl.13.2, SREP 16.
32. The heritage significance of the precinct is evident from the Statement of Significance (SofS) in the NSW Heritage Inventory, and reinforced by the three conservation management plans prepared by well-known heritage architects for parts of the Precinct. The SofS documents the workings of an advanced shipping port, responding to mechanisation in the early 20th Century:
"The wharves have a strong distinctive character created by the logical use of heavy timber construction and the regular grid layout of piles, columns, beams and infill cladding ... The precinct is unified in materials, form and scale and contain structures demonstrating maritime uses" (Heritage Report, p.34).
33. That is probably enough to demonstrate the heritage fallacy of the design. The waterfront square, so-called, is to be located between Pier 2/3 and Wharf 4/5, beyond the existing seawall (Heritage Report, p.50). The Tropman Conservation Management Plan (CMP) expresses (p.52) a series of useful policies which respond to the SofS, of which the principal is:
"Policy 9.2.1
The visual dominance of the site should be conserved."
How the proposal could possibly respond to this policy is a mystery.
34. The Clive Lucas CMP closely examined what new development would be appropriate in a heritage context and concluded:
"New mooring structures and the like are appropriate provided:
* the sense of exterior space is retained
* the structures are generally lower than the pier apron so as not to detract from their form and scale
* construction and materials are chosen that are clearly modern construction but of sympathetic designs
* they are related to maritime use" (Heritage Report, p.53).
The Heritage Report wrongly states that the design of the waterfront square respects all but the last of these principles. It respects none of them.
35. The Grahame Brookes CMP specifically advised that "the open water areas around the pier should be conserved", and that "the open spaces around Wharf 4/5 should be retained so that the wharves [sic] relationship with the other buildings should be retained" (Heritage Report, p.53). It is simply impossible for this proposal to comply.
36. As the elements of this area have not been designed, the Heritage Report generates some principles to be used as guidelines "for the design of the shelter to the performance space" (p.54). Those principles are wonderful expressions of the art of obfuscation, by using language that could apply to any development anywhere:
* "The structure is to be of exceptional design merit and quality
* the design should be entirely modern
* the new structure should respect the significance of the precinct
* it should be contemporary but at the same time be inspired by and reflect the industrial character of the place and create an `iconic' and `landmark' presence for the site
* it should respect significant views and vistas to and from the site and not impede other significant views that pass through the site
* ... it should be open on all sides but have the ability to be temporarily screened" (paraphrased in part, p.54).
In other words, it is to be a hidden icon, not dominating the surrounding maritime uses, lower than the buildings and boardwalk, respectful of the maritime heritage surrounding it but of exceptional design quality, modernity and a landmark presence for the site.
37. In recent years, a new expression has crept into the English language, green washing. We are not sure what colour should be attributed to heritage matters, but the use of such words and concepts serves only to obscure and not to reveal, to sedate rather than sharpen the critical senses. Properly understood, these are fundamentally inconsistent aims and could never be achieved in this heritage location.
38. The critical design feature which gives these wharves their strength is their angularity. The axis on which the wharves have been constructed is the most powerful element in reading them as maritime structures. To destroy their symmetry, as this proposal does, is a kind of bogan insensitivity which could only have been produced by a property developer, a committee or a Government Department. Hence, our earlier observation that that which is called a square is not. In any event, the symmetry which has been lost will not be recovered by inserting what is described in the Traffic Management Report (TMR) as " a shade structure/canopy ... introduced over the notional stage area of the waterfront square" (p.10) (note "notional" - a contradiction of the EIS). Between 2013 and now, the design was revised, according to the Heritage Report to emphasise the central performance space as projecting into the water (p.54). There is of course no design or plans for the structure but the pictorial representation of it in the Design Report suggests that it will indeed dominate this space and draw the eye away from the magnificent wharf buildings and wharves, a fact encouraged by the enlivening of the space created on the platform.
39. The best description of what is proposed is a heritage fun park. If it is not dead space like the extended wharf structures of the Finger Wharf at Woolloomooloo on its south-western extent, then it will be forcibly enlivened by the addition of activities that are variously described in the reports as "performance space" "popups", "major events", "outdoor cinema", "stage performances", "breakout space", "markets", "events", "day-to-day use" "public art", "festivals" and various other commercial and community activities. The EIS describes the public domain as designed to be "both highly accessible and highly flexible, suited to a wide range of events and performances" (p.27). However, the number and scale of events together with their impact and mitigation measures "will be the subject of a separate development application".
40. In other words, it is impossible to assess the impact of this proposal on the information provided in the EIS. It is no excuse that a further development application may be required in order to implement the proposal. Assessment of impacts must be made under s.79C whether or not those impacts are caused by the development application or will be inevitable or likely if the application is approved: Bell v Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning (1997) 95 LGERA 86; Hoxton Park Residents Action Group Inc v Liverpool City Council (2011) 184 LGERA 104 at [53]. The fact that this is staged development cannot be used as an excuse for not conducting an s.79C assessment of the impacts of the concept proposal. Accordingly, the concept must be sufficiently specific for those impacts to be identified, assessed, and mitigation measures proposed and considered.
TRANSPORT IMPLICATIONS
41. This is dependent, largely, on visitation and availability of public transport options which at the moment appear to be nil. Visitation will, however, radically expand (p.28, EIS), although there is no information at all concerning the additional visitation which the platform will engender.
42. As every resident and user of the commercial facilities knows, there are significant parking and traffic problems already in this area, which the proposal will aggravate. Any excess capacity in the existing traffic system will be eaten up by Barangaroo. In the absence of reliable visitation figures, the transport assessment is qualitative rather than quantitative. Its prediction of impact is based upon assumptions concerning Barangaroo, the future availability of public transport services and the behaviour of operators, none of which have been validated.
43. When activating an area by new development, transport is a fundamental planning consideration which appears to have been wholly neglected. Even Darling Harbour had the monorail! It is yet another basic deficiency of this proposal.
NOISE ASSESSMENT
44. The Noise Report is also seriously deficient. It contains no assessment of construction noise. We believe that the construction period, including noise generated by multiple piling over many months for the foundations for the square, will make it impossible for us to carry on our business as a function centre. The noise and vibration from piling activities is well-known and has been measured on many occasions for work on wharves including surrounding wharves, and from those site-specific measurements, the extent of intrusion is known from which appropriate noise criteria can be generated. This exercise was not undertaken in the Noise Report. Instead, "construction noise and vibration will be assessed as part of a future" DA (p.23).
45. This is both unacceptable and unlawful. As we have previously advised, the law is that the impacts of a proposal, including those not caused by the proposal but likely to ensue if approval is given, must be assessed under s.79C. There is no basis upon which such an assessment could be made for construction noise. Moreover, the compliance requirements to which we have referred above require an appropriate noise assessment in the EIS and none was undertaken.
46. We are the principal victims of this negligence.
47. There is some limited quantitative assessment of activity noise from the square and intrusive noise criteria has been developed. However, the noise assessment is almost certainly wrong because it failed to measure at our location background noise, but rather relied upon a measurement apparently undertaken on the road, and then only for a period of 15 minutes: see Table 4, p.14 and the noise measurement locations in Figure 5 (p.13). That does not comply with the Industrial Noise Policy (INP). In fact, none of the noise measurement locations are anywhere near our function centre, despite it being noted on Figure 3 as a noise sensitive receptor. Accordingly, no background noise measurement has been undertaken from which noise criteria could be ascertained and the project noise goals set. The Noise Report does not comply with the INP which, as the Minister well knows, is the irreducible minimum for noise assessment of major projects (or for that matter, of any DA in NSW).
48. We have already referred to the laughable proposal to minimise noise by conducting silent performances.
49. We have no doubt whatsoever that our business will be adversely affected by noise from the use of the square as a performance space, or even by using the square intensively as part of the public domain. There are obvious good neighbour measures that could be taken to minimise these conflicts, but no binding criteria is proposed to ensure that that is done. The failure to measure construction noise means that we have no guarantee that our business will not for a lengthy period be impracticable to operate during construction. This is a matter which must be assessed at this stage of the application.
CONCLUSION
50. This development application does not comply with the law.
51. It does not contain sufficient information from which an objector could understand or a consent authority could determine the application. To a significant extent, those affected by the development and participating in this process will not be able to understand the full measure of impact.
52. No reasonable consent authority could approve it because it could not perform its assessment function under s.79C of the EPA Act. The concept stage of the development application has been used as an excuse for not providing readily available information about the proposal and its impacts.
53. There are numerous problems with the merits of the proposal, some of which flow from the failure to resolve the public domain elements of the development (or at least to show them in a form capable of assessment). The technical noncompliance of the development application with the Act and Regulation frustrate its merit assessment. That assessment simply cannot lawfully occur without further information.
54. Even so, it is evident that the public domain proposal will significantly impinge on the heritage significance of the wharves and alter irrevocably part of the heritage fabric, which includes the open water between the wharves and the axial symmetry of the buildings. Piling is not realistically reversible, thereby breaching a significant heritage principle that modern additions which impair heritage fabric should be reversible.
55. This proposal is a blot on the landscape, as much as it is a blot on the reputation of the applicant for proposing it with a plainly deficient application that masks rather than exposes its impacts.
56. The Minister should refuse it for that reason alone.
57. Can we return to the Sea Organ of Zadar? On the same page (11), the Design Report informs us of its inspiration for the other parts of the platform. The Trust for Architectural Easements would be surprised to learn that the so-called wings which are to lie east and west of the waterfront square are modelled on the High Line, a disused rail line in New York whose easement now supports an urban parkland landscape. It would be difficult to find an example so remote from this proposal unless of course the wings are desired to provide viewing platforms to the heritage wharf buildings, which of course they are not. The square itself is said to be prompted by the Pompidou Centre, Paris. The Pompidou Centre, the Walsh Bay wharves are not. However, the open space adjacent the Centre is at a scale so different to what is proposed at Walsh Bay that no appropriate comparison can or should be made.
58. These illogical and irrelevant examples cannot justify the enclosure of heritage space and the wharves. The platform is neither fish nor fowl: in the absence of proper plans, it is neither architecture nor art nor is it a suitable complement to heritage fabric. It is not a lightweight element but a permanent scar within this industrial landscape. No exceptional or iconic design is proposed: it is merely a lumpen addition which fills in part of our iconic Harbour in one of its most sensitive heritage locations. Perhaps if it was art or architecture of exceptional quality, then it might be excused the impacts which will be sustained on the heritage significance of the wharves and the lives of those who inhabit them. Despite the language of the glossy brochure, when one drills down, it is hollow.



____________________________ ___________________________

15 August 2014

See attached submission

Bell Shakespeare strongly supports the Walsh Bay Arts Precinct SSDA and has uploaded a submission.

Please see attached document.

To whom it may concern,

I am delighted to present a formal submission supporting the Walsh Bay Redevelopment project on behalf of the Australian Theatre for Young People (ATYP).

Our company is very excited about the potential that a new permanent home on Pier 2/3 offers. We have a corresponding capacity to deliver great benefits to Pier 2/3, the Walsh Bay precinct, the arts sector, the NSW government and the people of NSW.

Aaron Beach
General Manager
Australian Theatre for Young People