Dear Sir/Madam,

I am an owner of an apartment in One Darling Harbour (1312)

Much has been said of the impact the above development will have on:

Views from One Darling Harbour
Visual impact of a large scale building on the waterfront.
Detraction from heritage aspect of Pyrmont Bridge Shadowing Removal of blue sky views for Darling Harbour pedestrians etc

As an owner, in addition to the above, my major objections to the proposed development are:

1 Loss of views.

2. Privacy. We will look directly into the apartments of the new development. No attempt has been made to reduce this through angling of apartments, screening, or design of living spaces. Visual & noise privacy will be very hard to control. Balcony use is very prevalent with the apartments around Darling Harbour. Light, sound and visual exchange between the two buildings will be high.

If a tower must be built, at least reposition it between the IBIS & Novotel properties (called the central tower option). This will lessen the impact of the above concerns, and impact a transient population rather than local residents.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Harvey

Dear Ms. Berjiklian,

It has come to my attention that Mirvac has submitted plans to build a 39 floor residential tower where the Harbourside Shopping Centre is located.

I have worked for Village Roadshow for over a decade working in the Goldsboro Mort building.

As often as I can I take my lunchbreak at Darling Harbour to enjoy the sunshine, views, and atmosphere as a good break from the office.

In fact I like the area so much that I used my life savings plus a significant mortgage to buy an apartment in One Murray St, directly behind Harbourside, and plan on retiring here to enjoy the locations and uninterrupted views of the city.

Well, that's what I thought!

In keeping with Cockle Bay, where you will notice low line buildings then high-rise buildings to enhance the city scape, this stepped development is pleasant to the eye and what Darling Harbour is known for, attracting millions of tourists each year. Any development going ahead must mirror the current harbour landscape.

Darling Quarter , Darling Square, Barangaroo and Walsh Bay are all stepped back, therefore Harbourside should also be stepped back.

To build such a huge building right next to Historical Pyrmont Bridge will impact on its beauty and severely limit the amount of sunshine and space that should be used for strolling or dining.

Also from my own sake, I will lose my views, and therefore this will significantly reduce the value of my property and impact on me personally. I don't want to be in the shadows of a 39 floor tower located only 15 metres away!

Add to this the strain on all resources and infrastructure in the area such as schools, child care, sports etc plus adding a significant amount of new vehicles using the already congested roads, it doesn't make any sense.

Mirvac can and must use its creative designing expertise to redevelop Harbourside sympathetically taking into account the established building heights of Darling Harbour.

Please note that I STRONGLY OBJECT to this proposal and your assistance with this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Kind regards,

Mr David Lawrence
Owner of Unit 903/ 50 Murray Street.
Darling Harbour

Dear Ms Nettlefold,
Thank you for encouraging the community to comment on:
Concept Proposal - Cockle Bay Wharf Redevelopment.
Like many residents in Pyrmont and Ultimo, I have engaged in many "community consultations" and discussions of development and redevelopment projects over recent decades. So far, there is no sign that community views have any impact, since projects are far advanced before the community is consulted. You may think of this as consultation: we experience it as information sessions.
But I state these views in case anyone reads these submissions, and for the benefit of social historians of the future who wonder what happened to Sydney in the 21st Century.
First, while this proposal makes good sense to the developer, and to State revenue, it ignores social needs, the social infrastructure deficit, and parallel development proposals by other agencies in the Inner West (not to mention The Star). I hoped that the Greater Sydney Commission's emphasis on inter-agency coordination, town planning, and community consultation might have had some influence on this and similar proposals, but apparently this has not yet occurred. Is it too much to ask that - even though you ignore the people - you consult the Departments of Education, Health and Transport before imposing this ill-considered proposal on the communities affected?
Second, even without such consultation, it is clear that the proposal involves gross overdevelopment in terms of bulk and height, transforming Darling Harbour into a series of cliffs which overshadow neighbouring buildings, obscure such social facilities as survive, and transform the Harbour into a pond which is often covered by plastic boats.
In brief, this proposal assumes either than nobody lives in Pyrmont or Ultimo, or that we have no social needs, or that we do not mind the new barriers between us and the CBD.
Yours more in sorrow than in anger,
Donald Denoon

There is far too much high rise development going on in this area. Sydney is known as a beautiful city but with the continuing approval of high rise residential buildings the city is looking more like some asian cities, busy, dirty and over-populated. The city and surrounds cannot handle the continuing increase in population. Roads are at breaking point, the air quality is suffering and those who bought property with a view are now losing that view, even though their view was supposed to be protected by planning regulations.
Council does not consult with residents, they tell residents what is going on then refer to the various planning policies to approve developments. Council should listen to the tax payers and consider the financial and convenience impacts of this development.
We are not Honk Kong or Jakarta and we don't want to be.

Please reconsider this proposal!

Darling Harbour is now the only place we can escape from the busy and unfriendly high towers and buildings over buildings. Please protect it from commercial development.

City of Sydney can expand the city zone further to the south area, like Ultimo, Glebe, along Parramatta road, I think.

This proposed building will damage the relaxing bay environment.
High tower should be located to CBD central area to give a consistent skyline. Darling harbor is not suitable at all.

Developing a high tower and a unnecessary shopping complex near cockle bay, is a wrong proposal. Darling Harbour is a open playground for kids and everyone. It should not be a place with chaos and another CBD.

It will ruin Darling Harbour. Without careful planning, Sydney is no long the place I used to love.

1. Darling Harbour is a place for everyone to share. It is a designated tourist precinct. It is described as Sydney's great celebration space and a playground for all ages. Any development within this area must serve to enhance the tourism and public purpose values of the area.



2. The proposal will fundamentally change the character of Darling Harbour.


3. a) My families apartment faces the Harbourside on the 7th floor

b) Our family purchased the apartment for its grand views of Cockle Bay and its openess. We were assured by the brokers that there will never be a high rise building built in front of us and no city planner would approve such a project as it is not in harmony with the current environment. If the Mirvac project is approved, we would lose all our view facing Cockle Bay, we would lose much natural light, it will feel claustrophobic,and we would be face to face with tenants in that opposite building, therefore we would lose alot of property value. Darling drive is already congested as it is, if there were whole complex of extra tenants and delivery vehicles that would pretty much clog up one of the main road arteries.


c) Currently enjoy unobstructed water views throughout each living quarters. We have an abundance of natural light coming in.

d. As mentioned above, we would lose all our privacy with an entire building filled with tenants facing us. We would have to always close the blinds to maintain our privacy, which will block out what little remaining natural lights available. In the evening we would have to keep the blinds down so that the opposite building cannot look in, this is equivalent to living windowless apartment


4. There are no other tall towers this close to the water in Darling Harbour. This is for a reason - it creates a sense of openness and maximises the sun and light into all the public areas around Darling Harbour and allows the harbour and Pyrmont Bridge to dominate and define the area.



5. The proposed tower serves no tourism or public use benefit and is inconsistent with the values of the Darling Harbour foreshore. The tower will:

a. overshadow (create a sun shadow over) the public domain - and thus detract from the amenity and public values of the area;

b. detract from the significant heritage values of the State Heritage listed Pyrmont Bridge; and

c. significantly impact and in some cases completely destroy iconic views of Darling Harbour/city skyline from private residences to the west of the proposal



6. The proposed retail podium is excessive and inconsistent with the values of the site. The podium is an equivalent height of a 9 storey residential building and the retail space will be more than doubled under the proposal. Such a large retail space is inappropriate and unwanted in this area, particularly given the close proximity of similar retail spaces throughout the CBD and at Broadway shopping centre and within other redevelopment proposals at Darling Harbour.



7. 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.

1. Darling Harbour is a place for everyone to share. It is a designated tourist precinct. It is described as Sydney's great celebration space and a playground for all ages. Any development within this area must serve to enhance the tourism and public purpose values of the area.



2. The proposal will fundamentally change the character of Darling Harbour.


3. a) Apartment facing the Harbourside on the 7th floor

b) We purchased the apartment for its grand views of Cockle Bay and its openess. We were assured by the brokers that there will never be a high rise building built in front of us and no city planner would approve such a project as it is not in harmony with the current environment. If the Mirvac project is approved, we would lose all our view facing Cockle Bay, we would lose much natural light, it will feel claustrophobic,and we would be face to face with tenants in that opposite building, therefore we would lose alot of property value. Darling drive is already congested as it is, if there were whole complex of extra tenants and delivery vehicles that would pretty much clog up one of the main road arteries.


c) We currently enjoy unobstructed water views throughout each living quarters. We have an abundance of natural light coming in.

d. As mentioned above, we would lose all our privacy with an entire building filled with tenants facing us. We would have to always close the blinds to maintain our privacy, which will block out what little remaining natural lights available. In the evening we would have to keep the blinds down so that the opposite building cannot look in, this is equivalent to living windowless apartment


4. There are no other tall towers this close to the water in Darling Harbour. This is for a reason - it creates a sense of openness and maximises the sun and light into all the public areas around Darling Harbour and allows the harbour and Pyrmont Bridge to dominate and define the area.



5. The proposed tower serves no tourism or public use benefit and is inconsistent with the values of the Darling Harbour foreshore. The tower will:

a. overshadow (create a sun shadow over) the public domain - and thus detract from the amenity and public values of the area;

b. detract from the significant heritage values of the State Heritage listed Pyrmont Bridge; and

c. significantly impact and in some cases completely destroy iconic views of Darling Harbour/city skyline from private residences to the west of the proposal



6. The proposed retail podium is excessive and inconsistent with the values of the site. The podium is an equivalent height of a 9 storey residential building and the retail space will be more than doubled under the proposal. Such a large retail space is inappropriate and unwanted in this area, particularly given the close proximity of similar retail spaces throughout the CBD and at Broadway shopping centre and within other redevelopment proposals at Darling Harbour.



7. 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.