Walsh Bay - Arts Precinct Stage 2

I write in objection and in advocacy as Chair of Walsh Bay Arts and Commerce.
One third of our members, chiefly the entire Strata SP73939 are to be severely impacted by Walsh Bay Arts Precinct State Development SSD 7689, both at Construction Phase and Operational Phase.
The Walsh Bay Arts and Commerce represents the tenants as well as the small business investors owning lots in Strata SP73939 in this instance. I write at their request
Whilst the Chair recognises the significance to the Arts Sector of the Chamber and the Development of Pier 2/3 to the area in general, the Chair also witnesses the callous disregard of the 10 year established businesses of Shore 2/3 by Arts NSW, Planning NSW and Infrastructure NSW.
One cannot bluster one sector at the expense of another.
Many of these businesses are owner operated, or entire life savings wrapped up in investment of their businesses or investment of lots purchased.
A business cannot sustain 2 years without income whilst intense Noise from Construction interrupts their quiet enjoyment to operate.
Arts NSW in their Statement of Environmental Effects of Stage 2 stated that they would work with Stakeholders once the DA was notified. Specifically Art NSW stated they would consult with Walsh Bay Arts and Commerce, whilst this was the case at Concept Stage when there were scant reports and limited drawings, the Chair can confirm no contact has been made at the critical stage of the DA process. Stage 2.
We would have expected this would be done in a spirit of co-operation and collaboration. This has not occurred and placed our members at a distinct trading and asset risk disadvantage affecting the value of their properties AND the Gross and net lease Positions of their assets."
The statement of environmental effects is totally inadequate as far as the disclosure of information that deals with
During construction:
* The Scope of Works.
* The Area of the works.
* Areas such as Sound attenuation,
* Works hours of construction
* Traffic management whilst under Construction.
* Dust Control
* Pollution control
* Water Pollution.
* Power and services disruption to the Leaseholders, sub leaseholder, tenants.
* No disclosure have been made regarding the length of the construction.
* Effects on Public transport
* There is scant notice taken of the effect of wave action in a high traffic zone on the surrounding Wharves.
* Significant changes have been made to the Heritage building integrity.

Post construction:

* Traffic management post construction
* Parking for Construction staff during construction
* Parking for patrols after construction.
* Security due to the public use and nature of increased use of the area


The Applicant, Arts, recognizes by virtue of its own Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) that there are delinquencies in their disclosure because they have included compliant mechanisms in their documents re the details regarding all of the above;
But they do not tell us
* What the Scope or cost of the works is,
* The sound levels and the like.
* The Order and Conduct of the premises on an on-going basis has not been addressed, either whilst construction is being undertaken or there-after.
* There has also been no disclosure as to who the lead consultants or contractors are for the Chamber to assess the probable consequences of any of the above.

* No dispensation, restitution or compensation has been EVEN BEEN DISCUSSED, CONSIDERED OR OFFERED to the current tenants lessees or sub lessees, and owners of Shore 2/3 as to the after use once built, for the commercial rent of the public square for up to 1000 people in an amphitheater arrangement whilst they attempt to carry out their daily business either during or after construction.
As a result of the inadequate manner in which all of the foregoing was dealt with:
There has been insufficient time for any of the members of the chamber to assess these matters let alone prepare any peer reviews by professional consultants or make any submission in rebuttal.
We request for our affected members either compensation or the removal of the Public Square from this proposal.
We see no ill effect to festivals current and planned or proposed Arts tenants to Pier 2/3 in the removal of the Public Square from this State Significant Development.
Yours Sincerely
Brigid Kennedy
Chair
Walsh Bay Arts and Commerce

I am Ian Dance, a resident of Pier 6/7 at Walsh Bay; [email protected]; 0413725781.

I have visited the site and attended the community presentation on Saturday December 3. The details of the plan were explained to me very well by several staff present.
I am very familiar with the internal space of Pier 2/3, and have attended many events there over the years, including Writer's Festival talks, Biennale exhibitions, an ACO/Bell concert, and the Arts Long Table.
My wide and I are producing a theatrical event in the Philharmonia rehearsal space in Walsh Bay in April 2017.

I fully support the development of the Walsh Bay Arts Precinct, as currently proposed.

There are five matters that I would like to raise.
1. The provision of public toilets in the development.
There are no publicly accessible toilets in Walsh Bay, and this development is an opportunity to rectify this. The nearest public toilets are at George St. North, and the Barangaroo Headland Park. There are toilets within Sydney Theatre venues and Sydney Dance Company, but these are not always open, and are not welcoming to the general public. There are locked toilets available only to restaurant patrons. There is no signage about public toilets in Walsh Bay. I urge that a public toilet (open all hours) be included in the redeveloped Pier 2/3, preferably at the Hickson Road end, and that suitable signage be provided.

2. Fishing at the harbour end of Pier 2/3.
I have observed that these people, who often come as families, and are mostly quiet, peaceful and unobtrusive. A number of them are Asian, probably trying to replicate a waterside fishing culture in their homeland. I like having the fishing people here: they add a diversity of culture and activity to Walsh Bay.
Sometimes they leave messes, and there have been complaints about this. I propose that the development of the end of the pier incorporate the facilities that would permit the fishing people to leave no trace of their activities. Three items are needed: (1) a public toilet (which would be provided by implementation of point 1 above), (2) good rubbish bins or rubbish disposal chutes, and (3) a water tap/drinking fountain, of the type currently installed around the city. With these facilities I believe a clean, tidy and peaceful small community of fishing people could use the end of the pier, and generally enhance the diversity of culture in Walsh Bay.

3. Inclusion of a small independent theatre, less than 100 seats.
While the theatrical scene is healthy in Walsh Bay, it is dominated by big companies with large audiences. What is missing is the small fringe theatrical presence. I draw attention to the remarkable success of the Griffin Theatre Company, operating in the Stable Theatre with 99 seats at Kings Cross. Similarly, Belvoir downstairs in Surry Hills is very popular, and The Old Fitz pub theatre in Wooloomooloo is thriving. Both have less than 100 seats.
Walsh Bay needs something similar, a small space that can be rented by the independent theatre companies of Sydney, and which fosters independent small theatre and performers. A small independent theatre space at Walsh Bay would probably also be attractive to the Festival of Sydney, allowing productions analogous to the Edinburgh Fringe. Other festivals such as Vivid, and the Writers Festival, would probably be interested in holding events in this small theatre (lets name it the Walsh Bay Fringe Theatre). A bar should be provided in its foyer, and ideally there would be a small rehearsal space included.
I strongly urge that a Walsh Bay Fringe Theatre, with less than 100 seats, and preferable in a semi-round configuration, be built into the redevelopment of Pier 2/3.

4. The covered external space on the eastern side of Pier 2/3.
This is valuable space, as demonstrated by the Annual Arts Long Table dinner. I suggest that kitchen facilities be located adjacent to this space, to facilitate its use for external dining.

5. Shuttle transport connecting with Circular Quay.
Ideally this would be a ferry using the existing wharf, and connecting also with the new Barangaroo wharves. Circular Quay is the main nearby transport hub, with trains, buses and ferries connecting with all of greater Sydney, with light rail to come. Barangaroo may eventually equal Circular Quay as a transport hub, but until that time a shuttle system involving Circular Quay should be developed. Ferries are more attractive than buses for this, and emphasise the harbour aspect of this area. The shuttle ferry could use the Commissioners Steps at the Quay (a heavily populated location close to the MCA and the Cruise terminal), and the existing Pier 2/3 wharf.

I am Ian Dance, a resident of Pier 6/7 at Walsh Bay; [email protected]; 0413725781.

Inclusion of a small independent theatre space (less than 100 seats) in the Pier 2/3 Development of the Walsh Bay Arts Project
I want to expand my earlier brief submission on this, with a number of additional reasons about the importance of this opportunity to enhance the Walsh Bay Arts Precinct (SSD 7689).

First, some background.
Theatre patron demographics in Sydney.
I attend theatrical events regularly. My observation is that my fellow patrons can be, quite approximately, placed in three demographics.
One group of patrons attends the big shows, blockbusters, and extravagant musical theatre events.
A second large group attend 'serious theatre', that is the classics, reworkings of the classics, new plays by major Australian playwrights, and productions brought to Sydney by major production companies from other parts of Australia and overseas.
The third group are interested in experimental theatre, avant garde theatre, works by promising but less well known playwrights, and comedy.

Venues.
What companies and venues provide for these groups in Sydney?
The first group will attend mostly the Sydney Lyric Theatre (capacity 2000), the Capitol Theatre (capacity 2094), The State Theatre and presumably the newly opened ICC Theatre (capacity 2500).
The second group of 'serious' theatregoers is provided for by Sydney Theatre Company, Bell Shakespeare, Belvoir Theatre (Upstairs), Griffin Theatre, ATYP (Walsh Bay), The Seymour Centre, Ensemble Theatre at Kirribilli, Independent Theatre (North Sydney), Hayes Theatre in Potts Point, Eternity Playhouse in Darlinghurst, New Theatre Newtown, NIDA (Kensington), Glen Street Theatre (Belrose), Genesian Theatre Company (Kent St City), Riverside Theatres at Parramatta.
The third group is usually found in the smaller intimate venues, namely the Griffin (Kings Cross, about 100 seats), Belvoir Downstairs (Surry Hills, 80 seats), The Old Fitz Theatre (Wolloomooloo, 63 seats), the 505 Theatre (Newtown), the Tap Theatre (Surry Hills), the Depot Theatre (Marrickville).
The conclusion from this analysis is that while the large second group of theartregoers is well provided for in the Walsh Bay Arts Precinct, the third group is not. In order for Walsh Bay to become a balanced theatre domain, a small intimate venue available to the producers, performers and audience who comprise this demographic is needed. There is at present a pronounced dislocation of venues for group 3: they are all on the other side of Sydney and the inner west. Walsh Bay needs to be part of this scene, and to correct the imbalance. This is a principal reason for incorporating a small intimate theatre space (less than 100 seats) in the redevelopment of the precinct.

The proposed use and potential users of the small theatre at Walsh Bay.
I suggest that the seating in the small theatre space be reconfigurable. A bar should be adjacent to its foyer.
It is envisaged that the space be available for hire by independent theatre companies and other producers of small scale experimental theatrical events. Control of the use of the space would preferably be independent of the major theatre companies, and best handled by a City of Sydney or State Government cultural body. In order to be successful the hire costs should be minimal, because the potential users are generally small companies, and the audiences are necessarily small. A search (www.creativespaces.net.au) for affordable creative spaces (<$20000 per week) yields just five, located in Newtown, Surry Hills, Erskineville, Redfern and Eveleigh. The Walsh Bay small theatre should be less expensive.
There are many small independent theatre companies in Sydney. They need to rent space for their productions. I am aware (though attendance at their productions) of the following organisations that could choose to use the Walsh Bay small theatre:
Cross Pollinate Productions is a collaborative community of artists who aim to make quality, innovative, and thematically enduring work.
subtlenuance is a Sydney based, independent theatre company. "We are solely dedicated to the creation of original, Australian work. Our focus is the exploration of political and philosophical ideas. We believe theatre is a forum for many voices. For this reason, it is an art form especially suited to both the exploration and creation of subtlety and nuance."
bAKEHOUSE is an independent Sydney-based theatre company producing work that showcases new voices. "On 15 productions we have provided opportunities for over 150 emerging and established artists. We have provided opportunities for over 100 culturally and linguistically diverse artists. We have staged world and Australian premiere productions of new African, Asian, Islamic and Indigenous work. And in 2016 we're working on 3 new cultural projects, all of them Australian or world premieres."
Pete Malicki has been described as "one of Sydney's best new generation playwrights" and is the recipient of 19 major awards for his monologues at national/international events. He produces theatre and major festivals, and runs monologue workshops at New York Film Academy, Sydney. He is a published fiction author and has had 65 of his plays staged in over 700 productions.
SmallShows This is Chrissie Shaw, a performing artist based in Canberra. She produces independent shows which she tours to Sydney and other cities.
Strange Duck Productions, whose most recent production was Blonde Poison.
A small theatre space at Walsh Bay could also be of interest to the Festival of Sydney, allowing it to attract curated or open productions (theatre, monologues, comedy, music), perhaps in the style of the Edinburgh Fringe.
Aspiring and nascent musical groups could be interested in holding performances in the small theatre space. Obviously this theatre would be soundproofed, avoiding disturbance of the neighbours and disturbance of the performances by helicopters, etc.
Two theatre organisations, Short and Sweet play festival, and The Sydney Fringe Festival have small theatre festivals in Sydney. Both festivals use various venues in the inner west of Sydney, and could be interested in expanding into the Walsh Bay precinct.

Integration with the City of Sydney culture program.
The City of Sydney actively promotes small venues and events, such as small bars, intimate live music events, pop-up venues for commercial or cultural activities, and Art and About.
From w.clovermoore.com.au/culture: " Opening up our properties. One practical step has been to give our buildings renewed life as performance spaces -- converting a former Tabernacle into the state of the art Eternity Playhouse and providing a home for the award-winning Hayes Theatre. A new management approach for the City Recital Hall promotes broader programming and young people now use City community spaces to play and practice music. City properties on Oxford Street, William Street, Redfern Street and in Woolloomooloo are providing affordable short-term and co-working spaces for innovative cultural and creative enterprises and emerging artists. Working with the private sector, the City has secured a new 2000 square metre, $25 million creative hub for dance, theatre, music, film and visual arts facilities as part of the new Greenland development on Pitt and Bathurst streets, currently under construction."
I feel sure that the City of Sydney would strongly support the inclusion of a small theatre in the Walsh Bay Arts Precinct.

Conclusion
The small theatre scene in Sydney is currently located mainly in the inner-west, inner-south and inner-east of Sydney. The Walsh Bay area (inner-north) is isolated from this cultural genre, even though Walsh Bay is renowned for its big theatre presence. A mature arts precinct needs diversity: Broadway has Off-Broadway, the West End of London has large and small. An independent and affordable venue that attracts developing and small theatre to Walsh Bay will enliven and diversify the culture of the Walsh Bay Arts Precinct, and attract new audiences.
I strongly urge that a Walsh Bay intimate theatre with less than 100 seats be built into the redevelopment of Pier 2/3.

Ian Dance
December 11, 2016.

Xref have uploaded a letter

Xref Limited have uploaded a letter

I have submitted a letter supplied by the tennant of the property that I own. 17/13 Hickson Road, Dawes Point, NSW 2000. SHORE 2/3

I am forwarding a letter supplied by the tenants that occupy my property 14/13 Hickson Road, Dawes Point (Shore 2/3)

We welcome the improved amenity for the precinct, but object on grounds that the noise impacts on existing commercial businesses in Shore 2/3 have not been properly considered.

We welcome the improved amenity in the long term from the development, but object on the grounds that inadequate consideration has been given to the noise impacts on existing commercial business in the immediately adjacent offices of Shore 2/3.

see objection in attachment1.

Please refer to the attached PDF.

Please see attached document

BRIGID KENNEDY AND SIMMER ON THE BAY CAFE

SUBMISSION ON THE WALSH BAY ARTS PRECINCT
STAGE 2 STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
--------------------------------
Impacts on Simmer on the Bay Cafe
1. I am writing to object to the Stage 2 State Significant Development Application for the Walsh Bay Arts Precinct. I write on behalf Simmer Café, the leasee of Lot 19 SP 73909, Shore 2/3 Walsh Bay.
2. I anticipate that the WBAP is likely to have a devastating impact on my businesses, both during the construction stage and during the operational stage.
3. I am apprehensive that construction of the public square will have severe impacts of noise, dust, traffic generation and visual amenity on both of my businesses. No real assessment of these impact has been carried out to date, and until it is I can only assume the worst. I have been told that construction is likely to last for 2 years minimum.
4. After completion of the public square, the café will lose its absolute waterfront location, which is an important drawcard. .
5. Due to the above issues, the WBAP should not be approved unless the proponent is able to demonstrate through a detailed assessment of construction and operational impacts and stringent mitigation measures that the project can go ahead without unacceptable impacts on my business. In the alternative, if the proponent cannot demonstrate this, a condition should be imposed giving me the option of a buy-out my business at the unaffected value.
6. Strata SP73989 of which I am a member of has sought assistance from Dr Renzo Tonin to prepare a noise report responding to the noise assessment in the EIS, specifically addressing the impact of the Stage 2 SSDA on my businesses. Dr Renzo Tonin will not be available to complete his report until 9 January 2016, which is after the close of public exhibition of the Stage 2 SSDA. I therefore seek an opportunity to make a further submission, and to update this submission after receipt of Dr Tonin's report.
Community Consultation
7. The proponent has failed to carry out any meaningful consultation with affected land users in the course of preparing the Stage 2 EIS. In my opinion, this constitutes a breach of Condition A14 of the Stage 1 Consent, and the "Community Consultation" requirements of the Stage 1 Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirements. This breach is significant, because it has deprived affected land users, including myself, of an opportunity to have an input into the final design of the WBAP.
8. Community consultation is dealt with in Part 5 and Appendix 4 of the EIS. These documents purport to demonstrate "extensive" community consultation. However, when one looks more closely, they mainly rely upon consultation which took place prior to preparation of the Stage 1 EIS. At that stage the WBAP was only a concept proposal. While there was value in carrying out consultation at that point, it is no substitute for an opportunity to respond to the more detailed plans embodied in the current EIS.
9. Appendix 4 says that consultation in the "interim" period (p 17) between the Stage 1 Consent and public exhibition of the Stage 2 EIS has been "largely limited to government agencies and authorities". This is an understatement. If one leaves to one side consultation with government agencies and future tenants of the WBAP, there has in fact been no consultation in the interim period as far as I am aware, and none is evidenced in Appendix 4. I am a member of the Walsh Bay Precinct Association, Secretary or Shore 2/3 Strata and Chair of Walsh Bay Arts and Commerce and we were provided with some "updates" by Arts NSW on the progress of the Stage 2 SSDA, but these did not include an opportunity to have any input on the proposed EIS plans.
Construction noise
10. Construction noise is likely to be the biggest factor impacting upon my business, and therefore it is the part of the EIS with which I am most concerned. I will provide more detailed submissions on this issue when I have the benefit of Dr Tonin's report, however in this submission I wish to comment on the failure to carry out any real assessment of Construction noise.
11. I objected to the Stage 1 of the SSDA on the grounds that there was no assessment of construction-related noise impacts. I am aware that the Environment Protection Authority also requested a full assessment of construction noise in the Stage 1 EIS. However, at the time, the Department declined to insist on such an assessment. It stated in the Secretary's Environmental Assessment Report on the Stage 1 SSDA (p 2) that construction noise impacts would be addressed in the future environmental assessment requirements for the project. I note that the SEARs did in fact require an assessment of "construction noise and vibration impacts".
12. I was shocked, therefore, to find that construction noise impacts have still not been assessed in the Stage 2 EIS. The Noise Impact Assessment at Appendix 23 purports to deal noise in less than 4 pages at pp 17-21. These pages contain a series of vague generalisations about the possible impacts of construction noise. There is no attempt to calculate the actual noise levels generated by specific works, or how they measure up against permissible levels at sensitive receivers, and no commitment to implement specific mitigation measures. This is not, on any view, an assessment of construction noise as required by the SEARs.
13. I am also concerned that in Table 6 my business premises has not been included as a sensitive receiver for construction noise. It seems that the construction noise impacts on my premises continue to be ignored, as they were in the Stage 1 operational noise assessment.
14. I note that the construction noise assessment, such as it is, does not propose the imposition of any conditions relating to mitigation measures or maximum noise levels. Instead, it proposes to deal with these matters via contractual arrangements with the eventual contractor (p 19). This is a completely inappropriate way of dealing with the major impacts of a state significant development proposal.
15. The Strata consultant Renzo Tonin previously prepared a report estimating the likely impact of construction noise on my premises for the purpose of proceedings in Land and Environment Court. Even though Dr Tonin did not have access to the final plans for the WBAP he was nevertheless able to estimate the impact which construction noise was likely to have on my business. This report shows a likely significant impact, exceeding that permitted under the interim construction noise guidelines. I have attached Dr Tonin's report to this submission. I will be providing the Department an updated version of this report, referencing the Stage 2 SSDA plans, as soon as this becomes available.
16. I note that Dr Tonin's existing report assesses the noise impacts of construction on the indoor portions of my premises, but I should also draw your attention to the fact that part of my premises operates outdoor, chiefly the café on the wharf, as I have a licence to use an exclusive use area between the boundary of my premises to the edge of the wharf, up to 10pm. Part of this is used as outdoor seating for the café. This is a major part of the amenity of the premises, and this would be directly affected by noise from construction of the public square, with no possibility of noise screening. Therefore, the noise impact on this part of my business is likely to be greater than on those parts which operate indoors. Therefore the noise impact on this part of the premises has likely been underestimated. I will ask Dr Tonin to address this issue in his new report which is due in January 2017.
Operational noise
17. The Noise and Vibration Assessment Report at Appendix 14 of the Stage 1 EIS promised that a more detailed assessment would accompany the Stage 2 EIS. The EARs also anticipated an increased level of detail between the Stage 1 and the Stage 2 EIS. Whereas the Stage 1 EIS was only required to "identify" the main noise sources, the Stage 2 EISs was required to "assess" operational noise from the use of the buildings and the public domain and associated events.
18. However, this has not been borne out in the Noise Impact Assessment at Appendix 23. This document contains a less detailed assessment of noise impacts compared to the Stage 1 report. It continues to be a cursory and unacceptable treatment of a highly significant impact, notwithstanding that this report has been lodged in support of an application for final approval.
19. The Stage 2 Noise Impact Assessment repeats the same error as the Stage 1 assessment by failing to treat my premises as a sensitive receiver, even though it is much closer to the proposed public square than assessed sensitive receivers. All of the statements made in the EIS at pp 93-95 regarding compliance with applicable noise criteria for operational and event noise are infected by this error, that is, they refer to compliance at locations further away than my premises. Therefore, it can reasonably be assumed that my premises will be unreasonably affected, until an assessment is carried out which shows otherwise.
20. The Noise Impact Assessment also does not propose any binding conditions to mitigate or control noise levels. This is unacceptable for a project of this scale which has the potential to impose significant impacts on surrounding land owners. Many of the assumptions made about noise levels assume that the operators will voluntarily avoid high-noise activities. For example, the assessment of outdoor event noise assumes that there will be no music at large public gatherings, and that outdoor cinema screenings with a powerful soundtrack would be broadcast via "silent cinema" (p 94). The significant noise of 1000 people in a confined amphitheatre has certainly not been addressed. It seems unlikely that event organisers would implement such restrictive measures unless required to do so by conditions of consent.
21. I reserve the right to make further comments about all of the above noise issues once I have the benefit of noise advice from my consultant Dr Tonin.

16 December 2016

BRIGID KENNEDY AND SIMMER ON THE BAY

SUBMISSION ON THE WALSH BAY ARTS PRECINCT
STAGE 2 STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
--------------------------------
Impacts on Simmer on the Bay
1. I am writing to object to the Stage 2 State Significant Development Application for the Walsh Bay Arts Precinct. I write, as sole director, on behalf of Bay Simmer Investments Pty Ltd which holds a 99-year lease of Lots 19, 21 and 22 SP 73989 and 25, 41 and 42 SP 73991 at Shore 2/3 Walsh Bay. The ability of Bay Simmer Investments to obtain rent and thus to pay off its mortgage depends upon the success of its tenants, which operate the Simmer Café and the Simmer on the Bay gallery and function venue. The proposed WBAP is likely to have a devastating effect on these businesses during both the construction and operational phases.
2. I am apprehensive that construction of the public square will have severe impacts of noise, dust, traffic generation and visual impacts on my premises. No real assessment of these impact has been carried out to date, and until it is I can only assume the worst. I have been told that construction is likely to last for 24 months.
3. I am the nearest neighbour to this development. The development begins where my property ends. When I opened the EIS, I first turned to the Construction Management Plan, because that is where I thought the construction impacts on my property and my business would be spelt out in detail. However, I was shocked to discover that my business is completely disregarded by this plan. When I turned to Appendix 1 - Adjoining neighbouring properties plan, I discovered that I did not even exist on that plan. Instead, my property is described as "commercial (RMS)". What an insult! Not only have I been intimately involved in the earlier stages of consultation with Arts NSW concerning this project, I sued the Minister for Planning and Arts NSW over the failure to assess construction impacts on my business in the Stage 1 EIS. During that case, Arts NSW, through its Counsel, told the Land and Environment Court that the impacts on my business would be assessed in detail in the Stage 2 EIS. Yet, according to the Construction Management Plan, where those details should have been assessed, I do not even exist.
4. After completion of the public square, both the café and venue will lose their absolute waterfront location, which is an essential drawcard. They will also lose their amenity due to the likely crowds attending public events at regular intervals in the waterfront square. There is not proposed to be any limit on the number of "community" events which may be held in the public square in any given year, with up to 5,000 participants for each event. When you purchase a 99-year lease in an historic waterfront location you would never anticipate that it would be built out in the way proposed in the SSDA.
5. Due to the above issues, the WBAP should not be approved unless the proponent is able to demonstrate through a detailed assessment of construction and operational impacts and stringent mitigation measures that the project can go ahead without unacceptable impacts on Bay Simmer Investments, its tenants and their businesses. By extinguishing the business of its tenants, this proposal will take away the ability of Bay Simmer to obtain rents and therefore pay off the mortgage on the substantial outlay of purchasing the 99-year lease of its premises from Roads and Maritime Services.
6. In June 2016, Bay Simmer Investments obtained a report from Dr Renzo Tonin on the noise impacts likely to be caused to its tenants by the WBAP. That report showed very significant impacts, even though it was based on incomplete information contained in the Stage 1 EIS.
7. Since the Stage 2 EIS was placed on public exhibition in November 2016, the Owners Corporation of SP 73898 has sought a further report from Dr Tonin analysing the likely impact of the Stage 2 EIS on all lot owners. We have sought and been granted an extension to lodge this report in January 2017, after the close of the public exhibition period.
8. It shows absolute disregard for the Shore 2/3 owners and tenants that this complex project has been exhibited for such a short period of time, at the end of the year when it is very difficult to convene meetings and obtain expert reports during the exhibition period. The owners and tenants would likely have obtained more comprehensive professional reports if sufficient time had been allowed, or if the EIS had been exhibited earlier in the year.
Community Consultation
9. The proponent has failed to carry out any meaningful consultation with affected owners and tenants in the course of preparing the Stage 2 EIS. In my opinion, this constitutes a breach of Condition A14 of the Stage 1 Consent, and the "Community Consultation" requirements of the Stage 1 Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirements. This breach is significant, because it has deprived affected owners of an opportunity to have an input into the final design of the WBAP.
10. Community consultation is dealt with in Part 5 and Appendix 4 of the EIS. These documents purport to demonstrate "extensive" community consultation. However, when one looks more closely, they mainly rely upon consultation which took place prior to preparation of the Stage 1 EIS. At that stage the WBAP was only a concept proposal. While there was value in carrying out consultation at that point, it is no substitute for an opportunity to respond to the more detailed plans embodied in the current EIS.
11. Appendix 4 says that consultation in the "interim" period (p 17) between the Stage 1 Consent and public exhibition of the Stage 2 EIS has been "largely limited to government agencies and authorities". This is an understatement. If one leaves to one side consultation with government agencies and future tenants of the WBAP, there has in fact been no consultation in the interim period as far as I am aware, and none is evidenced in Appendix 4. I am a member of the Walsh Bay Precinct Association, and we were been provided with some "updates" by Arts NSW on the progress of the Stage 2 SSDA, but these did not include an opportunity to have any input on the proposed EIS plans.
12. The Stage 1 EIS promised that there would be consultation with the Walsh Bay Chamber of Arts and Commerce, the strata owners, and the Walsh Bay Precinct Association. This has not been done. I am a committee member of the Precinct Association, Chair of the Walsh Bay Chamber of Arts and commerce, and Secretary of the Owner's Corporation, and I can confirm that no approaches have been made to these entities. We have only received a flier updating us on progress of the Stage 2 EIS. No doubt these deficiencies are one reason why no assessment of the impacts upon me or my tenants has been undertaken.
Construction noise
13. Construction noise is likely to be the biggest factor impacting upon my business, and therefore it is the part of the EIS with which I am most concerned. I will provide more detailed submissions on this issue when I have the benefit of Dr Tonin's report, however in this submission I wish to comment on the failure to carry out any real assessment of construction noise.
14. I objected to the Stage 1 of the SSDA on the grounds that there was no assessment of construction-related noise impacts. I am aware that the EPA also requested a full assessment of construction noise in the Stage 1 EIS. However, at the time, the Department declined to insist on such an assessment. It stated in the Secretary's Environmental Assessment Report on the Stage 1 SSDA (p 2) that construction noise impacts would be addressed in the future environmental assessment requirements for the project. I note that the SEARs did in fact require an assessment of "construction noise and vibration impacts".
15. I was shocked, therefore, to find that construction noise impacts have still not been assessed in the Stage 2 EIS. The Noise Impact Assessment at Appendix 23 purports to deal noise in less than 4 pages at pp 17-21. These pages contain a series of vague generalisations about the possible impacts of construction noise. There is no attempt to calculate the actual noise levels generated by specific works, or how they measure up against permissible levels at sensitive receivers, and no commitment to implement specific mitigation measures. This is not, on any view, an assessment of construction noise as required by the SEARs.
16. I am also concerned that in Table 6 management levels have only been identified for premises outside of Shore 2/3. This does not take into account impacts on the most affected receivers, which are the owners and tenants of lots within Shore 2/3, including Bay Simmer Investments, which will be immediately adjacent to the construction site for the public square.
17. I note that the construction noise assessment, such as it is, does not propose the imposition of any conditions relating to mitigation measures or maximum noise levels. Instead, it proposes to deal with these matters via contractual arrangements with the eventual contractor (p 19). This is a completely inappropriate way of dealing with the major impacts of a state significant development proposal.
18. Dr Tonin previously prepared a report estimating the likely impact of construction noise on the premises of Bay Simmer Investments, for the purpose of proceedings in Land and Environment Court. Even though Dr Tonin did not have access to the final plans for the WBAP he was nevertheless able to estimate the impact which construction noise was likely to have on my business. This report shows a likely significant impact, exceeding that permitted under the interim construction noise guidelines. This report will be updated by Dr Tonin's January 2017 report of impacts of the Stage 2 EIS on the whole of the Shore 2/3 premises.
19. I note that Dr Tonin's existing report assesses the noise impacts of construction on the indoor portions of my premises, but I should also draw your attention to the fact that part of my premises operates outdoor on the wharf, as I have a licence to use an exclusive use area between the boundary of my premises to the edge of the wharf, up to 10pm. Part of this is used as outdoor seating for the café. The other part is used by guests at functions who are able to circulate on the apron outside of the gallery premises. This is a major part of the amenity of the premises, and this would be directly affected by noise from construction of the public square, with no possibility of noise screening. Therefore, the noise impact on this part of my tenants' business is likely to be greater than on those parts which operate indoors. Dr Tonin also seems not to have taken account of the fact that Simmer on the Bay typically operates with its doors open to the wharf. Therefore the noise impact on this part of the premises has likely been underestimated. I will ask for this issue to be addressed in Dr Tonin's January 2017 report.
Operational noise
20. The Noise and Vibration Assessment Report at Appendix 14 of the Stage 1 EIS promised that a more detailed assessment would accompany the Stage 2 EIS. The EARs also anticipated an increased level of detail between the Stage 1 and the Stage 2 EIS. Whereas the Stage 1 EIS was only required to "identify" the main noise sources, the Stage 2 EISs was required to "assess" operational noise from the use of the buildings and the public domain and associated events.
21. However, this has not been borne out in the Noise Impact Assessment at Appendix 23. This document contains a less detailed assessment of noise impacts compared to the Stage 1 report. It continues to be a cursory and unacceptable treatment of a highly significant impact, notwithstanding that this report has been lodged in support of an application for final approval.
22. The Stage 2 Noise Impact Assessment repeats the same error as the Stage 1 assessment by failing to treat the Shore 2/3 tenancies as sensitive receivers, even though they are much closer to the proposed public square than assessed sensitive receivers. All of the statements made in the EIS at pp 93-95 regarding compliance with applicable noise criteria for operational and event noise are infected by this error, that is, they refer to compliance at less-affected locations. Therefore, it can reasonably be assumed that my premises will be unreasonably affected, until an assessment is carried out which shows otherwise.
23. The Noise Impact Assessment also does not propose any binding conditions to mitigate or control noise levels. This is unacceptable for a project of this scale which has the potential to impose significant impacts on surrounding land owners. Many of the assumptions made about noise levels assume that the operators will voluntarily avoid high-noise activities. For example, the assessment of outdoor event noise assumes that there will be no music at large public gatherings, and that outdoor cinema screenings with a powerful soundtrack would be broadcast via "silent cinema" (p 94).
24. It seems unlikely that event organisers would implement such restrictive measures unless required to do so by conditions of consent. In my prior experiences, Arts NSW have not demonstrated any inclination to be considerate of neighbouring tenants. Recent events in Arts NSW's Pier 2/3 venue have caused significant noise impacts on the whole of the Shore 2/3 premises.
The environmental, construction and site management plan
25. The Environmental Construction and Site Management Plan (ECSMP) was an important requirement of the SEARs for the purpose of mitigating the impacts of the development. The document which is described as a ECSMP, at Appendix 25 of the EIS, is only a "preliminary" plan (at p 4) which does not provide a detailed framework for controlling impacts proportionate to the scale and likely level impacts of the development. It contains many vague, aspirational, statements and it relies heavily on the discretion of the principal contractor, rather than specific controls and performance-based criteria to mitigate impacts.
26. The Secretary's Environmental Assessment Report on the Stage 1 EIS declined to consider construction impacts, but said that these impacts would be addressed in a "detailed overarching Construction Framework Environmental Management Plan". The plan which has been submitted is not detailed, and does not provide an enforceable framework for enforcing impacts of the kind raised by objectors and the EPA in their submissions on the Stage 1 EIS.
27. The Secretary's Report also recommended that sub-plans to the ECSMP should be prepared and lodged with each "subsequent" development application. The purpose of these sub-plans was to address important issues raised by the EPA, including management of acid sulphate soils, waste management and construction noise management. Since no further development applications are proposed prior to implementation, these sub-plans should have been included with the Stage 2 EIS, but no such sub-plans appear among the publicly exhibited material.
28. Therefore, the ECSMP does not fulfil the intent of the Secretary's requirements and should be rejected.
29. The ECSM at p15 and Appendix 2 specifies that a hoarding is to be erected on the wharf between my premises and the waterfront for the purpose of construction of the public square. This shows that the waterfront amenity of my premises will be lost from the moment that construction of the public square commences. This will make the venue no longer attractive as a wedding venue or for most other private functions. This impact will occur 24 hours per day once the hoardings are put in place. This loss of waterfront amenity represents a real financial loss to Bay Simmer Investments and the businesses that operate from its premises.
30. The noise and vibration management measures proposed in Section 6 of the ECSMP lack detail and specificity. They are replete with aspirational statements such as that "care will need to be taken during the construction of each phase of the project to control noise and vibration" (p 21). These aspirational statements are not backed up by enforceable specific noise mitigation measures and noise targets, as I would have expected in a "detailed" plan. In effect, they take the matter no further than similar aspirational statements which have already been made in the Stage 1 and Stage 2 EIS.
31. Incredibly, the ECSMP states that at some point in the future (p 21):
In order to help meet the noise and vibration requirements of the site, baseline testing will be carried out and existing operational levels identified. Early identification of baseline levels will enable subcontractor methodologies to be specifically tailored to ensure the benchmarks are not exceeded.
32. This is the exercise which should have been carried out and reported on in the Stage 2 EIS. When the Department said, both in the Secretary's Environmental Assessment Report, and in submissions made in proceedings in the Land and Environment Court, that construction noise impacts would be assessed with the Stage 2 EIS, this was what I was led to expect. It seems completely inconsistent with the Department's previously stated position for this assessment to be deferred yet again for resolution by a subcontractor, after the grant of final development approval.
Conclusion
33. The above inadequacies in the Stage 2 EIS show that the WBAP, particularly the proposed public square, should not be approved. The Stage 2 EIS has been prepared in breach of the SEARs and the EPA Act and contrary to statements made in the Land and Environment Court by the proponent. Its deficiencies are such that it should be withdrawn and re-exhibited after proper consultation and assessment has taken place, or the application should simply be rejected now. It has not been demonstrated that unacceptable impacts from the public square can be avoided either in the construction or in the operational stage. Some of these impacts, such as construction noise impacts, have not been assessed at all, and no specific enforceable measures are proposed to mitigate these impacts. Other impacts, such as the loss of a waterfront location for the Shore 2/3 tenants are so obvious and so incapable of mitigation that they alone justify refusal. However, Bay Simmer Investments would not be opposed to approval of the WBAP if the proposed public square were deleted.

16 December 2016

BRIGID KENNEDY AND SIMMER EVENTS and CATERING

SUBMISSION ON THE WALSH BAY ARTS PRECINCT
STAGE 2 STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
--------------------------------
Impacts on Simmer Events and Catering
1. I am writing to object to the Stage 2 State Significant Development Application for the Walsh Bay Arts Precinct. I write on behalf of Simmer Events and Catering the Lessee of Lot 21 SP 73909, Shore 2/3 Walsh Bay.
2. I anticipate that the WBAP is likely to have a devastating impact on my business, both during the construction stage
3. I am apprehensive that construction of the public square will have severe impacts of noise, dust, traffic generation and visual amenity on my business. No real assessment of these impact has been carried out to date, and until it is I can only assume the worst. I have been told that construction is likely to last for at least 2 years.
4. I refer to Dr Renzo Tonin's Report and the impact on my kitchen and catering staff. And their ability to be able to work safely in this environment. The Noise generated from Construction is predicted to be well outside recommended limits by the EPA for staff to be able to work in those conditions.
5. Due to the above issues, the WBAP should not be approved unless the proponent is able to demonstrate through a detailed assessment of construction and operational impacts and stringent mitigation measures that the project can go ahead without unacceptable impacts on my business. In the alternative, if the proponent cannot demonstrate this, a condition should be imposed giving me the option of a buy-out of my business at the unaffected value.
6. Strata SP73989 sought assistance from Dr Renzo Tonin to prepare a noise report responding to the noise assessment in the EIS, specifically addressing the impact of the Stage 2 SSDA on my businesses. Dr Renzo Tonin will not be available to complete his report until 9 January 2016, which is after the close of public exhibition of the Stage 2 SSDA. I therefore seek an opportunity to make a further submission, and to update this submission after receipt of Dr Tonin's report.
Community Consultation
7. The proponent has failed to carry out any meaningful consultation with affected land users in the course of preparing the Stage 2 EIS. In my opinion, this constitutes a breach of Condition A14 of the Stage 1 Consent, and the "Community Consultation" requirements of the Stage 1 Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirements. This breach is significant, because it has deprived affected land users, including myself, of an opportunity to have an input into the final design of the WBAP.
8. Community consultation is dealt with in Part 5 and Appendix 4 of the EIS. These documents purport to demonstrate "extensive" community consultation. However, when one looks more closely, they mainly rely upon consultation which took place prior to preparation of the Stage 1 EIS. At that stage the WBAP was only a concept proposal. While there was value in carrying out consultation at that point, it is no substitute for an opportunity to respond to the more detailed plans embodied in the current EIS.
9. Appendix 4 says that consultation in the "interim" period (p 17) between the Stage 1 Consent and public exhibition of the Stage 2 EIS has been "largely limited to government agencies and authorities". This is an understatement. If one leaves to one side consultation with government agencies and future tenants of the WBAP, there has in fact been no consultation in the interim period as far as I am aware, and none is evidenced in Appendix 4. I am a member of the Walsh Bay Precinct Association, and we were been provided with some "updates" by Arts NSW on the progress of the Stage 2 SSDA, but these did not include an opportunity to have any input on the proposed EIS plans.
Construction noise
10. Construction noise is likely to be the biggest factor impacting upon my business, and therefore it is the part of the EIS with which I am most concerned. I will provide more detailed submissions on this issue when I have the benefit of Dr Tonin's report, however in this submission I wish to comment on the failure to carry out any real assessment of Construction noise.
11. I objected to the Stage 1 of the SSDA on the grounds that there was no assessment of construction-related noise impacts. I am aware that the Environment Protection Authority also requested a full assessment of construction noise in the Stage 1 EIS. However, at the time, the Department declined to insist on such an assessment. It stated in the Secretary's Environmental Assessment Report on the Stage 1 SSDA (p 2) that construction noise impacts would be addressed in the future environmental assessment requirements for the project. I note that the SEARs did in fact require an assessment of "construction noise and vibration impacts".
12. I was shocked, therefore, to find that construction noise impacts have still not been assessed in the Stage 2 EIS. The Noise Impact Assessment at Appendix 23 purports to deal noise in less than 4 pages at pp 17-21. These pages contain a series of vague generalisations about the possible impacts of construction noise. There is no attempt to calculate the actual noise levels generated by specific works, or how they measure up against permissible levels at sensitive receivers, and no commitment to implement specific mitigation measures. This is not, on any view, an assessment of construction noise as required by the SEARs.
13. I am also concerned that in Table 6 my business premises has not been included as a sensitive receiver for construction noise. It seems that the construction noise impacts on my premises continue to be ignored, as they were in the Stage 1 operational noise assessment.
14. I note that the construction noise assessment, such as it is, does not propose the imposition of any conditions relating to mitigation measures or maximum noise levels. Instead, it proposes to deal with these matters via contractual arrangements with the eventual contractor (p 19). This is a completely inappropriate way of dealing with the major impacts of a state significant development proposal.
15. Strata SP73989 consultant Renzo Tonin previously prepared a report estimating the likely impact of construction noise on my premises for the purpose of proceedings in Land and Environment Court. This report shows a likely significant impact, exceeding that permitted under the interim construction noise guidelines. I have attached Mr Tonin's report to this submission. We will ask Dr Tonin to address this issue in his new report which is due in January 2017.
Operational noise
16. The Noise and Vibration Assessment Report at Appendix 14 of the Stage 1 EIS promised that a more detailed assessment would accompany the Stage 2 EIS. The EARs also anticipated an increased level of detail between the Stage 1 and the Stage 2 EIS. Whereas the Stage 1 EIS was only required to "identify" the main noise sources, the Stage 2 EISs was required to "assess" operational noise from the use of the buildings and the public domain and associated events.
17. However, this has not been borne out in the Noise Impact Assessment at Appendix 23. This document contains a less detailed assessment of noise impacts compared to the Stage 1 report. It continues to be a cursory and unacceptable treatment of a highly significant impact, notwithstanding that this report has been lodged in support of an application for final approval.
18. The Stage 2 Noise Impact Assessment repeats the same error as the Stage 1 assessment by failing to treat my premises as a sensitive receiver, even though it is much closer to the proposed public square than assessed sensitive receivers. All of the statements made in the EIS at pp 93-95 regarding compliance with applicable noise criteria for operational and event noise are infected by this error, that is, they refer to compliance at locations further away than my premises. Therefore, it can reasonably be assumed that my premises will be unreasonably affected, until an assessment is carried out which shows otherwise.
19. I reserve the right to make further comments about all of the above noise issues once I have the benefit of noise advice from our consultant Dr Tonin.

16 December 2016

see attached