Our group has consistently maintained that multiple entrance & egress points should be available.
Limiting access to Robert St alone is another example of Sydney Ports involvement in ad hoc decision making. Poor planning & total disregard for the community have been aspects of this redevelopment. Port traffic ( heavy service vehicles ) use this local road, Robert St, instead of an internal port road. Restricting access to this congested intersection is hazardous for pedestrians & cyclists. Not providing an exit for pedestrians from the end of the site increases a disregard for the safety of passengers,staff & local users.
Community needs have been ignored & no provision made to support future infrastructure eg ferry terminal at White Bay.

As a resident of the Balmain peninsula I have watched the community grow and become the 4th densest populous in Sydney. I find it offensive that promised access to the foreshore of White Bay was an `open space and foreshore' is being choked.
I believed Sydney Ports are purposly killing the promised opportunity of much needed to offset the current growth of population in this area.

Having reducing the access via one entry and choking ability to free access is tantamount to `excluding' the residents and visitors from the foreshore of White Bay.

If anything more access points are required, if it a true offer of `public access' has been given to the community, Having a one access point can only be considered a public exclusion of what was a promised public amenity and benefit.

Richard Gould

Mod 3 - Public Access to the White Bay Cruise Terminal Site
Submission from the Balmain Precinct, 29 June 2012.

The local community supports at least three access points to the foreshore and waterfront at White Bay, together with public amenity and recreation areas, pedestrian paths and cycleways along the foreshore connecting with the Glebe Island Bridge and Rozelle Bay.

The local community also supports the provision of public ferry services at White Bay and an extension of the light rail service to a new ferry wharf to help alleviate increasing traffic problems in the area.

The Community position was made clear at the workshops conducted by Sydney Ports Corporation.

Meaningful public access to the harbour foreshores in a high-density inner-city residential area should be paramount.

The community remains opposed to the Cruise Terminal relocation from Barangaroo to the suburbs of Balmain/Rozelle at White Bay.

The function centre at White Bay must be abandoned - reference the Barangaroo Review.

Under the proposed plan for the Cruise Terminal, Robert St is the sole entry point for all service vehicles and trucks to the port area, including petrol tankers and other vehicles accessing the Wharf 6 site at the Eastern end of the foreshore.

There is no proposed provision of a separate exit point from the foreshore, thereby forcing all traffic, pedestrians and cyclists to turn around on the foreshore to travel against incoming traffic from Robert St.

Along with this traffic will merge thousands of passengers arriving at and departing from the same foreshore area when ships are in or attendees entering and exiting a function on the foreshore.

There is therefore no safe pedestrian or cycle access, nor safe traffic access to the White Bay foreshore under the modified plan. This includes passengers, crew, service vehicles and the general public accessing the Terminal area and attendees accessing or departing from the function centre by various modes of transport.

We request that the NSW Government revise its Cruise Terminal plan for White Bay, remove the function centre from the plan, and find a solution that provides a number of public pedestrian and cycle access points to the foreshore and waterfront
.
Further discussion with the local community is needed.

Public amenity and recreation areas must also be provided for the fast-growing residential community that has been shut out of the foreshore for far too long.

Regards
Christina Ritchie
Chair Balmain Precinct

I support the development of an under utilised Goverment asset however some issues need to be addressed to mitigate the impact:
The noise assessment ignores any potential impact to residents on Lilyfield Road. This impact is continually ignored in developments on Glebe Island and White Bay yet the developments continue to ingress the numbers of trucks and busses that utulise the intersection of James Craig Road and the City West Link. Both trucks and busses significantly increase the traffic noise when using this intersection due to high braking and accelleration noise. This has not been considered in the proposal and has a cumulative impact from previous approved developments including the new passenger terminal at White Bay. The Glebe Island & White Bay Master Plan requires a noise wall to be constructed to mitigate this issue yet nothing has been done. In fact the noise mitigation has been reduced due to the illegal demolition of structures along the City West Link by Sydney Ports orporations. This needs to be addressed.
The proposed temporary facility has a minimal link to the water. The facility will be unattractive to people travelling to the site with no/limited external area. Who wants to travel to a waterfront site only to be corralled into an oversized tin shed. How can the boat show be contemplated for this site? Open up more of the quay front and stop Sydney Ports pig headed land grab for the site.
Getting to the site is difficult, you need to look at improving pedestrian access either via a walkway from the existing bus stops on Victoris Road or even temporary raise/lower gangways that can reinstate the pedestrian link between Glebe Island and Glebe. This is a simply link that maintains the existing heritage bridge and navigational use without the large costs of restoring the bridge.
Thank-you

The Traffic Management Strategy is optimistic its reliance on public transport and shuttle buses, and in its assessment of the impact on the two major intersections. The frustration felt by visitors will be a severe disincentive to patronise the facility.

Without some creative use of the Glebe Island bridge I suspect that we have a White Elephant in the making.

Submission on Glebe Island Expo DA

We do not intend to oppose this development on condition that it is, indeed, temporary and does not set a precedent for future use of the site. The longer term planning for Glebe Island must be conducted as part of a longer term, integrated planning project for the whole of the Bays Precinct - guided by planning principles outlined in the report of the Bays Precinct Community Liaison Committee. We do wish to ask for some changes, as follows:

Notifications - Recommendation - Residents in Pyrmont (Refinery Drive, Pirrama Road, Bowman Street, Bank Street) be notified of Event Management Plans to enable them to make comments to the assessors.

Noise - We note that functions may be held on the premises (which do not have adequate sound-proofing qualities) up to 12 midnight, and that amplified music may be permitted (up to 80dbA). It is the experience of residents who live opposite Glebe Island, that noise carries strongly across the water. We experienced that with the (failed) New Year concert held in 2011, but accepted that NY Eve was a one-off and could be tolerated on New Year's Eve as this is a festive evening across the City. We further note that midnight closing means that it is at least 1pm before all patrons and staff depart.

Recommendation: that amplified music must NOT be permitted; that functions must be completed by 11pm.

We note that operations of the Expo allow for 24 hour access to trucks etc. Trucks, and associated forklifts, etc. generate very irritating noise when backing

Recommendation: that the use of vehicles which emit loud beeping be restricted to normal building construction hours and not be permitted to operate when people normally sleep (10pm to 7am)

Light Pollution - We note that it is proposed to use the existing Ports lights on the site. We further note that these do not comply with current lighting regulations relating to light spillage. Residents were successful in arranging for Ports to turn off these very powerful lights when not required. This is a huge improvement, as the glare from the lights was high impact.

Recommendation: If the Ports lights are to be used at night, modifications be carried out to ensure that light spillage is reduced to permissible levels and are turned off when functions have finished.

Visual Impact - We note that planter boxes are to be installed along the SE boundary of the site. We ask that planter boxes also be installed along the SW boundary to reduce the negative visual impact of the services side of the development visible from Pyrmont

Recommendation: Planter boxes to be installed along the SW boundary of the site.

Signage - The proposed illuminated signage will have maximum impact on Pyrmont residents. We appreciate that some advertising is necessary but ask that the illumination be switched off after 10pm when the patrons will already have arrived. We also ask that the dimensions of the signs be reduced.

Recommendation: Illuminated signs be switched off after 10pm; size of signs to be reduced

Traffic - We note that there will be some impact on main road traffic flows due to the increase in green light time on side roads. Pyrmont has become a peak hour "rat run" in recent years and some evenings it is almost impossible for local residents to leave their suburb. Bank Street is a particularly bad bottleneck in both directions as four lanes pinch to two in a short section just near the Fish Markets lights. Any small change up (or down) stream will inevitably have an impact on roads feeding into the main road system. Noting that there will be times when traffic associated with the Expo coincides with CPT events or cruise ship operations we ask that the amount of parking be reduced to discourage Expo patrons from using their cars. The Government must ensure that there is sufficient fast and convenient public transport to and from the Expo site, and the CPT. The cumulative impact on traffic of both operations, especially on Balmain/Rozelle residents will be very high.

Recommendation: Reduce the amount of parking provided and ensure adequate public transport by road and water is provided to the Expo site and the CPT to reduce traffic impacts on adjoining suburbs.

Ferry Service - It should be noted that the waters of Johnston Bay and White Bay are heavily used by rowers and dragon boaters, especially in the early mornings and at weekends. The hours of operation of the ferry service should be negotiated with the clubs which may be affected. We also strongly recommend that when the temporary ferry terminal is no longer required for Glebe Island, it be moved to White Bay to serve the CPT and the local Balmain community, and the ferry service be extended to Pyrmont Point and, possibly the Fish Markets.

Recommendation: Negotiate hours of operation with rowing and dragon boat clubs to ensure they can continue to undertake training in safety. Relocate the ferry terminal to White Bay on completion of the Expo and extend the ferry service.

Communication: It is noted that a Glebe Island Expo Working Group is to be established.

Recommendation: that the Working Group include representatives from Balmain and Pyrmont communities.

Please do not include any of my personal details on the web site. Thank you
4 Dugald Rd
MOSMAN 2088
14 December 2012

Major Projects Assessment
Department of Planning and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY 2001

Re : Glebe Island Expo , Glebe island and White Bay
I am the owner of unit 27/13-17 Stewart St Glebe and make the following comments about the Impact Assessment, prepared by APP Corporation that was recently for the above proposal.
* Need to redefine Community to include Glebe Point Residents
Page 2 of Appendix B , community consultation strategy defines community but does not include the residents of Glebe Point. This is inconsistent with the aim outlined on page 3 that engagement activities must target appropriate communities.
Should the proposal proceed it is essential that the definition of community in the Impact Statement is amended to include the substantial residential community of Glebe Point. Please ensure that all future community engagement during construction and operation phases includes this community and include this within any conditions of consent.
It is noted that in the acoustic report the consultants SLR Consulting Australia included a noise logger at 53 Leichhardt St Glebe. This site is in close proximity to my unit at Glebe. The acoustic report and the final Impact Statement include all results from this site as part of the acoustic assessment. While the acoustic consultants recognised Glebe Point as a legitimate affected community
* Event Management Notification /process
The residents of Glebe should be advised in the same way as residents in Annandale Balmain and Pyrmont so they are aware of what is proposed. Would consider Glebe residents more impacted than Annandale resident s
* Cumulative noise impact
PAC has recently granted consent to the land based uses for the Rozelle Bay marina. The noise impact of this development has the potential to impact the Glebe Point community significantly and as a consequence the cumulative impact of the subject development is even more critical for Glebe Point residents. Tis is another resoan to consider Glebe Point residents throughout construction and operations of the Glebe Island Expo.
* Noise from music- operational monitoring
Although there are to be no concerts in this development it would seem that functions will have music etc. Times for such music need to be restricted and a condition of consent should require noise monitoring of all music uses. Outcomes of monitoring should be on the web site within 24 hours of an event. The communities should be advised of any use where music is to be included. Ways to access the results of noise monitoring should be widey and clearly circulated to all communities and include the Glebe Point communities. This information should be available as soon as site works begin. The consent should include conditions relating to this.
* Ways to provide feedback and complaints handling
Include the Glebe Point community with information about complaints handling process and clear contact information for complaints, suggestions /ideas throughout the construction and operations of the proposal. This advice should also be provided as soon as site works begin and a requirement for this process should be included within the conditions of consent.
* Protection from light spill
At present my unit is well lit by current lighting regime on the site. Any proposed increase in lighting which the Impact assessment does suggest, could create significant adverse impact. All lighting should be designed and installed to eliminate any spill.
* Material to construct centre- need for noise mitigation/attenuation and monitoring
PVC coated canopy is a light weight construction material. Its effectiveness to protect the many affected communities from adverse noise impact should be monitored and the proponent consider how it might mitigate the impact with noise buffers/ additional materials within the centre. Again noise monitoring, and reporting of monitoring, should be undertaken throughout operations and the proponent be required to provide additional noise buffer should the use not comply.
* Must be an interim use
The conditions of consent must include a sunset clause. Long term use of this site with a flimsy construction is unacceptable in the longer term. It will be hard enough to live with in the short term but any longer time cannot be justified. As soon as the new centre is completed operations on the Glebe Island site should cease and the site dismantled.
* Traffic Management/ Impact on Glebe-rat run etc
Any traffic problems that may arise from the intensification of use of the site and those impacts on the ANZAC bridge will have a flow on affect in Glebe. Motorists will avoid the bridge and use rat runs through Glebe. The operator should have a protocol and a system for ensuring that when Police are alerted to any problem on the ANZAC bridge they are also alerted to the likely flow on impacts in Glebe. A condition of consent should be to require police and operator and any other relevant party to develop both a communication protocol and a traffic management plan for Glebe to protect the safety and amenity of Glebe residents.

Rosemary Adams
14 December 2012

My main concerns are with respect to the proposed traffic management strategy, light and noise pollution, and the restricted ferry service .
1. The traffic study described in the Traffic Management Strategy was based on real traffic measurement data taken on just one week day and one weekend day. This limited data cannot deliver reliable results. As a frequent user of these roads I believe the peak traffic data described is not representative of the daily traffic congestion. The peak time periods identified certainly do not correlate with what I experience as a local resident. We note the date the data was captured was Thursday 20th September, interestingly many schools were already on school holidays at that time. Due to the limited data used, we believe the current traffic management strategy is seriously flawed and its results misleading. It does not present a fair and accurate position on the traffic impact of this proposed project. In particular the egress to Robert's Road is a major concern and will cause us local residents' very long delays in accessing Victoria Rd via Mullens St and Robert's Rd.

2. Our home overlooks the proposed project site and we are concerned that excessive high powered lighting will impact us. We already receive significant light pollution from the existing White Bay light towers and believe this project will significantly contribute to an increase in light pollution for our home and the area. Similarly we are very concerned about the potential noise impact from the project should it become operational. The Noise Impact study contained in the application and is very technical. We found it difficult to interpret the results. We would appreciate a `plain english' translation that someone who is not trained in acoustics can understand.

3. The proposed Traffic Management Strategy describes the Ferry services for the proposed project as restricted to event attendees only. This Private service could also benefit local residents in a big way. The strategy should also consider allowing pedestrian access to the site and making the private ferry services available to the general public. It would be a potential value add from the project for the local community.