The Goldsbrough Strata Committee requests modifications to Mirvac's proposed redevelopment of Harbourside

I am a part time resident of 50 Murray St, Pyrmont as i have children attending school in Sydney. For this reason i am directly impacted by this proposal and outline my objections for your consideration:
1. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL USE & TOWER The proposed residential tower does not service any purpose other than to boost the commercial viability for the applicant. It is at odds with the intention of the precinct and unbearably close to surrounding residential developments. The existing traffic and public infrastructure cannot support a residential building which unlike any other use, ensures occupancy 24/7. The roads are not suitable in the area to support this scale of development. Particularly those servicing the northern end of the site be it Murray Street and Darling Drive as these are currently congested and at a stand-still already.
2. INADEQUATE VEHICULAR ACCESS AND INFRASTRUCTURE At present there is a light rail station at the south of the site. The monorail was removed and as such, the only vehicular access available is on the corner of Murray Street and Darling Drive. This intersection is one of the most dangerous in Sydney and has been through a serious of accidents over the years including those involving pedestrians. As it is not currently coping with the demands in the immediate area, focusing a built form at this end is both erroneous and dangerous. The development application seeks to enable over 200 additional cars on these roads. The traffic study provided was completed at a time when Darling Drive was closed, and cannot be relied on. This was conceded at the brief consultation completed by Mirvac for its initial commercial tower proposal.
3. EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILT FORM
The existing built form character of the precinct is ‘low-rise’ development on the foreshore of the precinct being typically 2 - 4 stories with larger envelopes set back behind these properties to embody the private open space enjoyed by the precinct while preserving view sharing from all neighbouring properties. This proposal obliterates this notion and highlights an adhoc approach to the precinct and town planning principals applied. It proposes to not only develop on the ‘waters edge’, however it also purports to develop a 44 story tower some 8metres from the water.
The proposal to obtain approval to construct 87,000m2 of GFA is both excessive and unjustified. This significant increase in GFA is not necessary and should be curtailed in to a reasonable scale based on a reasonable and justified development for the area. There is no reasonable justification for a development of this scale at this time. It is clear that in the absence of planning controls, the applicant has lodged their application for the largest scale development in an attempt to maximise its commercial outcome. This endeavour should not be done at the expense of the precinct, its amenity and the people of Sydney. As such it should be rejected or controlled to a far more reasonable scale.

The proposed development will overshadow the entire western edge of the bay and public foreshore areas. The solar access implication to the precinct and surrounding properties is unsatisfactory. This will ultimately provide a poor experience to those visiting the area who will be both in the shade and wind for much of the day. As a result, this will diminish tourism dollars and funds coming in to Sydney. The tower and its location are in my view particularly poorly planned. When analysing the character of the existing built form in the area, the residential building standing at 50 Murray Street will be negatively and irreparably impacted by this proposal in its current form as will the Pyrmont Bridge. It will effectively diminish any views and direct sunlight for four levels of the building These areas will receive the most devastating view loss with the current proposal. These are not short term guests, but permanent residents/inhabitants rate payers/voters of over 20 years

The proposal is totally at odds with all existing development. Mirvac through its agents purports to suggest that the ICC hotel and Barangeroo provide a precedent for built form and envelope heights, however it fails to appreciate or even acknowledge that the ICC hotel is at the rear of the precinct and set back in proximity to both the opening of the precinct being the heritage listed Pyrmont Bridge and the fact that it is also set back 86metres from the water’s edge, behind the harbour side development from the waterline. It is not comparable and should not be used as a reference to support this application. The Barangeroo development is a completely unique area that has had the entire urban form redesigned. These buildings were designed in unison and should not be referenced as a comparable RL to service the applicant’s agenda in this application

Whilst i support the site being redeveloped it should be done in a way that enhances the Darling Harbour precinct and provides a reference point that the city can be proud of. Not just driven by maximising investments of multinational developers

I currently reside at 50 Murray st in Pyrmont to access medical facilities in Sydney. As a resident I am directly impacted by this proposed development and the following are reasons my objection to the proposal in its current form:
The existing built form character of the precinct is ‘low-rise’ development on the foreshore of the precinct being typically 2 - 4 stories with larger envelopes set back behind these properties to embody the private open space enjoyed by the precinct while preserving view sharing from all neighbouring properties. This proposal obliterates this notion and highlights an adhoc approach to the precinct and town planning principals applied. It proposes to not only develop on the ‘waters edge’, however it also purports to develop a 44 story tower some 8metres from the water.
The proposal to obtain approval to construct 87,000m2 of GFA is both excessive and unjustified. This significant increase in GFA is not necessary and should be curtailed in to a reasonable scale based on a reasonable and justified development for the area. There is no reasonable justification for a development of this scale at this time. It is clear that in the absence of planning controls, the applicant has lodged their application for the largest scale development in an attempt to maximise its commercial outcome. This endeavour should not be done at the expense of the precinct, its amenity and the people of Sydney. As such it should be rejected or controlled to a far more reasonable scale.

The proposed development will overshadow the entire western edge of the bay and public foreshore areas. The solar access implication to the precinct and surrounding properties is unsatisfactory. This will ultimately provide a poor experience to those visiting the area who will be both in the shade and wind for much of the day. As a result, this will diminish tourism dollars and funds coming in to Sydney. The tower and its location are in my view particularly poorly planned. When analysing the character of the existing built form in the area, the residential building standing at 50 Murray Street will be negatively and irreparably impacted by this proposal in its current form as will the Pyrmont Bridge. It will effectively diminish any views and direct sunlight for four levels of the building These areas will receive the most devastating view loss with the current proposal. These are not short term guests, but permanent residents/inhabitants rate payers/voters of over 20 years

The proposal is totally at odds with all existing development. Mirvac through its agents purports to suggest that the ICC hotel and Barangeroo provide a precedent for built form and envelope heights, however it fails to appreciate or even acknowledge that the ICC hotel is at the rear of the precinct and set back in proximity to both the opening of the precinct being the heritage listed Pyrmont Bridge and the fact that it is also set back 86metres from the water’s edge, behind the harbour side development from the waterline. It is not comparable and should not be used as a reference to support this application. The Barangeroo development is a completely unique area that has had the entire urban form redesigned. These buildings were designed in unison and should not be referenced as a comparable RL to service the applicant’s agenda in this application.

At present there is a light rail station at the south of the site. The monorail was removed and as such, the only vehicular access available is on the corner of Murray Street and Darling Drive. This intersection is one of the most dangerous in Sydney and has been through a serious of accidents over the years including those involving pedestrians. As it is not currently coping with the demands in the immediate area, focusing a built form at this end is both erroneous and dangerous. The development application seeks to enable over 200 additional cars on these roads. The traffic study provided was completed at a time when Darling Drive was closed, and cannot be relied on. This was conceded at the brief consultation completed by Mirvac for its initial commercial tower proposal.
While the broader community supports the redevelopment of the site in its entirety, this should not be done in an adhoc haphazard form which is currently being proposed. There is a once in a generation opportunity to ensure this development enhances the Darling Harbour precinct and provides a reference point that the city can be proud of.
If development of foreshore property in this scale is approved, this will pave the way for all foreshore properties, particularly those in the bays precinct and on the water front to be ‘over-developed’ to whatever scale an applicant sees fit. It is a dangerous precedent. For these reasons, the application in its current form is not justified and should be rejected.

The following are reasons for objecting the proposal in its current form for your attention:
1.0 DARLING HARBOUR EXISTING USE – TOURISM PRECINCT
Darling Harbour is a major tourist attraction for Sydney & Australia. Since this opening it has become a heartbeat for Sydney or its playground as it’s affectionately known. Hundreds of thousands of tourists visit the precinct annually bolstering the economy significantly. The construction of a 40+ story residential tower is inconsistent with the purpose and intention of the precinct. Any approval will irreparably diminish the amenity, character and ambiance currently enjoyed by the precinct. This use services no contribution to the precinct whatsoever.
2.0 EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILT FORM
The existing built form character of the precinct is ‘low-rise’ development on the foreshore of the precinct being typically 2 - 4 stories with larger envelopes set back behind these properties to embody the private open space enjoyed by the precinct while preserving view sharing from all neighbouring properties. This proposal obliterates this notion and highlights an adhoc approach to the precinct and town planning principals applied. It proposes to not only develop on the ‘waters edge’, however it also purports to develop a 44 story tower some 8metres from the water.
The proposal to obtain approval to construct 87,000m2 of GFA is both excessive and unjustified. This significant increase in GFA is not necessary and should be curtailed in to a reasonable scale based on a reasonable and justified development for the area. There is no reasonable justification for a development of this scale at this time. It is clear that in the absence of planning controls, the applicant has lodged their application for the largest scale development in an attempt to maximise its commercial outcome. This endeavour should not be done at the expense of the precinct, its amenity and the people of Sydney. As such it should be rejected or controlled to a far more reasonable scale.
The proposed development will overshadow the entire western edge of the bay and public foreshore areas. The solar access implication to the precinct and surrounding properties is unsatisfactory. This will ultimately provide a poor experience to those visiting the area who will be both in the shade and wind for much of the day. As a result, this will diminish tourism dollars and funds coming in to Sydney. The tower and its location are in my view particularly poorly planned. When analysing the character of the existing built form in the area, the residential building standing at 50 Murray Street will be negatively and irreparably impacted by this proposal in its current form as will the Pyrmont Bridge. It will effectively diminish any views and direct sunlight for four levels of the building These areas will receive the most devastating view loss with the current proposal. These are not short term guests, but permanent residents/inhabitants rate payers/voters of over 20 years
The proposal is totally at odds with all existing development. Mirvac through its agents purports to suggest that the ICC hotel and Barangeroo provide a precedent for built form and envelope heights, however it fails to appreciate or even acknowledge that the ICC hotel is at the rear of the precinct and set back in proximity to both the opening of the precinct being the heritage listed Pyrmont Bridge and the fact that it is also set back 86metres from the water’s edge, behind the harbour side development from the waterline. It is not comparable and should not be used as a reference to support this application. The Barangeroo development is a completely unique area that has had the entire urban form redesigned. These buildings were designed in unison and should not be referenced as a comparable RL to service the applicant’s agenda in this application.
3.0 INADEQUATE VEHICULAR ACCESS AND INFRASTRUCTURE At present there is a light rail station at the south of the site. The monorail was removed and as such, the only vehicular access available is on the corner of Murray Street and Darling Drive. This intersection is one of the most dangerous in Sydney and has been through a serious of accidents over the years including those involving pedestrians. As it is not currently coping with the demands in the immediate area, focusing a built form at this end is both erroneous and dangerous. The development application seeks to enable over 200 additional cars on these roads. The traffic study provided was completed at a time when Darling Drive was closed, and cannot be relied on. This was conceded at the brief consultation completed by Mirvac for its initial commercial tower proposal.
4.0 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL USE & TOWER The proposed residential tower does not service any purpose other than to boost the commercial viability for the applicant. It is at odds with the intention of the precinct and unbearably close to surrounding residential developments. The existing traffic and public infrastructure cannot support a residential building which unlike any other use, ensures occupancy 24/7. The roads are not suitable in the area to support this scale of development. Particularly those servicing the northern end of the site be it Murray Street and Darling Drive as these are currently congested and at a stand-still already.

While the broader community supports the redevelopment of the site in its entirety, this should not be done in an adhoc haphazard form which is currently being proposed. There is a once in a generation opportunity to ensure this development enhances the Darling Harbour precinct and provides a reference point that the city can be proud of. This fact appears to be lost to this applicant and as such a push for the largest GFA possible is clearly evident in this application. The material Mirvac provided and from their own admission, they require a tower to maximise their investment. The precedent that this development will set will highlight an adhoc approach to planning in Sydney and cannot be entertained in its current form. If development of foreshore property in this scale is approved, this will pave the way for all foreshore properties, particularly those in the bays precinct and on the water front to be ‘over-developed’ to whatever scale an applicant sees fit. It is a dangerous precedent. For these reasons, the application in its current form is not justified and should be rejected.

We live adjacent to the proposed development site and are writing to ask that NSW planning to refuse this planning application from Mirvac.

Herein are our comments and objections relating to this planning application:
1 Impact to Residential: This proposal will influence very negatively to our living and lives in Pyrmont as residents and our community.
1.1 The proposed building will overlook our property; this will lead to a loss of privacy and will certainly impact on the peaceful enjoyment of our home and balcony.
1.2 Parking/shopping centre will be adjacent to our home causing noise, pollution and dust at all times of the day and night. This additional concentration of traffic and roadside parking will cause traffic problems and create a safety hazard for other residence.
1.3 It will impact our property value dramatically

2. Impact to all other business:
2.1 All existing business is designed to serve Darling Harbour for family and popular with kids: Such a high tower at the edge of water will create threatening feeling and ruin the relaxing feeling which Darling Harbour always bring.
2.2 A high tower also causes lots of dark shadow over all other surrounding building. This will impact all other businesses.

3. Impact to Darling Harbour: Darling Harbour is a designated tourist iconic site. The proposed building will be visually overbearing. It is an inappropriate design for this part of the darling harbour. Such a large building would be totally out of keeping with the neighbouring properties, which are mainly open flat and lower store. I strongly disagree with this proposal, which is inconsistent with the values of darling harbour foreshore.

3.1 Pyrmont Bridge is listed on the state heritage register and is a key feature of the darling harbour area. Any development must preserve and enhance the heritage values of the bridge. The proposal will dominate Darling Harbour and significantly change and diminish the heritage context of the bridge.
3.2 This new modern development makes darling harbour inconsistent with the values of the site and detract from the character of Darling harbour, a big playground for everyone, controlled with lower buildings and open area.

4. Impact to City Planning
4.1 It is inappropriate to building such high tower at the edge of water. This would ruin the eco-system of healthy darling harbour planning. It also will set future planning out of order.
4.2 The proposed tower serves no tourism or public use benefit and is inconsistent with the values of the darling harbor foreshore. There are no high towers to the water in darling harbour. This is for a reason, it creates a sense of openness and maximize the sun and light to all the public areas around darling harbor and allows the harbour, open area and Pyrmont bridge to manifest its own beauty and character.

We invite you to visit our apartment, harbourside centre and darling harbour to assess and verify that these objections are valid.

Therefore, we ask you to refuse this Planning Application and more sensitive to the character of Darling harbor, as It is a extremely critical matter for future city planning.

Kindest regards,

Christy

See attachment

Submission on the October Amended Concept Proposal
Harbourside Shopping Centre Redevelopment SSD-7874

I wish to object to the amended Concept proposal as the minor changing to the northern podium does not :

1. Reduce the view impacts to 50 Murray Street;
2. Provide a significant setback to improve the relationship with Pyrmont Bridge;
3. Provide significant usable public open space.

View impacts to 50 Murray Street

My views are east to Cockle Bay. These views are water views and are valuable to me. The amended concept still totally obstructs all water views of Cockle Bay from my apartment 803.
The amended concept provides for a corridor view platform to the north which in no way reduces my easterly views of Cockle Bay. Further the building is curved and I live on the southern side of the curve and providing a corridor platform at the northern extreme of the proposed development provides no functionality at all for me.


Relationship with Pyrmont Bridge

The podium setback to Pyrmont Bridge is only some 25 meters where the RL rises from 13.75 to RL 25 which still significantly overpowers the State listed Pyrmont Bridge. The Cockle Bay side of the Pyrmont Bridge has an RL of 12 for 65 meters.

Public Open Space

The new amended concept provides for 1,500 sqm of public open space – Guardian Square. The space is on two levels which require families to walk up nearly 4 meters of stairs /ramps to enjoy. Further the lower area provides for the entry to this community destination and is better described as a site through link rather than a quality public open space. The actual area for people stay and enjoy is very limited. This further limits the function as quality public open space.

Amendments to meet objection

The norther podium needs to be further reduced. The RL 25.0 element of the podium is of most concern and reducing this to the RL of the second tier of RL 17.6 and setback to at least 75m from Pyrmont Bridge would be a minimum to achieve the objectives set out above.


Submitter: Linda Joukhador
Relationship to development: occupier of unit 803 50 Murray Street Pyrmont
Contact: [email protected]

My submission is to OBJECT based on the grounds that the minor changing to the northern podium do not:

1. Reduce the view impacts to 50 Murray Street;
2. Not significant setback to improve the relationship with Pyrmont Bridge;
3. The provision of Guardian Square is not significant public open space and of limited functionality.

My full submission is set out in the attachment