I have seen the plans on exhibition along the Blackwattle Bay walk, while walking my dog and it concerns me that this proposal is a stand alone project, which will have a great impact on the entire area. I would like to see it incorporated into a whole Blackwattle Bay scheme to address the concerns of all stakeholders.This proposal will move the goalposts for many people who bought into the area and those who frequent it as visitors, tourists and locals. More consultation is definitely needed.

I would like to express my concerns over the proposed white bay exhibition space.
-this is an inappropriate site. Roberts rd is already congested by traffic which will be further exacerbated by the cruise passenger terminal. Anyone who uses the Roberts road/vict rd junction will testify that there will be times when access to the area will be almost impossible.
-no detailed assessment of traffic impacts have been made.
-impacts on local parking -parking space numbers have already been removed for the passenger terminal access road.
-there will be noise impacts on residents
-the site is inappropriate for the number and size of events
-the ferry wharf is a temporary wharf with no benefit to residents.
-reference to a temporary facility is misleading given the duration of the structures in place
-this temporary construction will be unsightly and visible from a number of places. This impacts the heritage values of the area.
-will cruise ships be denied access when events are in place since the traffic, parking and noise of these 2 combined activities will exceed what is acceptable?

I believe that the proposed Glebe Island Expo developement
would generate major traffic congestion in the adjacent 19th
century street pattern which would reverberate throughout
the entire Balmain Peninsula which even now is in virtual
gridlock at peak hours.

I have inspected the proposal for the temporary Exhibition Centre and strongly object to this construction. As a resident of Mansfield Street and of Balmain for the past 30 years, the traffic situation in and out of Balmain has become untenable and to bring more cars in and out of the area is unthinkable. Balmain is extremely heavily populated and bringing an exhibiton centre to the area is inappropriate in a residential area. My street, Mansfield St, is one street away from Robert Street where traffic and people will be transported in and out of the area to the Exhibition Centre and as such I feel people will be trying to access the Centre and parking in all streets at or near this Centre even though a parking centre has been proposed. People still look around the area for free parking as opposed to paying and this will make the whole area extremely congested. This is the wrong place to erect a temporary Exhibiton Centre and for the above reasons I strongly object to this proposal.

As a resident I object particularly to the building of a road joining Robert St which will add 1000's of cars to an already over capacity road system into Balmain. This is the main entry into Balmain from the city. It will undoubtedly also impact on parking in already congested Rozelle area from people who do not want to park in the parking area. There will thousands of extra people in cars on buses leaving and going to the Centre with associated noise and impact on streets adversly changing the quiet residential areas of Rozelle. The surrounding areas are not industrial or commercial areas. Then there is the building of the facility. Any noise and vibrations during the night will impact badly on the area. What controls are being put into place to prevent any of this completely changing the area of Rozelle?

May I suggest that the old Glebe Island Bridge be re-opened for the duration of the Glebe Expo to allow for easy, safe access to the site for pedestrians and cyclists from Pyrmont and surrounding areas ? Thank you.

I have NEVER made an objection EVER.... So you can understand how distraught and dismayed I was to see the Glebe Island Expo Application - I understand we live close to the city and this is part of "progress". However if you are to build something that has 25 000sqm and parking for 1000 vehicles I have no idea how we will ever be able to drive out of the peninsula. It is like the government is turning this poor overcrowded, shocking infrastructure peninsula into an absolute mess. For me to drive off the peninsula is already impossible, how do you expect another 1000 cars to get into and out of the peninsula without turning this into a hellish disaster? This should absolutely NOT HAPPEN... if planning does its job, it will recognise this is a ludicrous and greedy idea with absolutely NO MERIT.PL

I am writing to object to the proposed "interim" exhibition facility on Glebe Island. Concerns:

(1) Traffic

The traffic analysis is deeply flawed, as the grade of service figures used differ substantially from the similar analysis done by the CPT proposal. For example, the Victoria Rd/Robert street GoS is evaluated by this proposal as C, vs F (a more accurate assessment for anyone who lives nearby) by the CPT proposal. The competence of the traffic planners used is therefore questionable.

This development's proposal to channel additional traffic through Robert street via a new connection is an attempt to resurrect an already rejected idea. The CPT has been restricted to James Craig drive, and any attempts to put any more traffic or connections through to Robert Street will be a disaster for local traffic conditions.

Also, if this connection is put through, it is obvious that CPT traffic will also use this connection, further exacerbating existing traffic problems

(2) Parking

Assuming a modal split based on previous exhibitions at Darling Harbour is also deeply flawed. Darling Harbour has substantial public transport connections via train and bus, and much more expensive parking, encouraging the use of public transport. A more realistic assumption would consider a much greater use of private vehicles

Assuming that 8,000 people will agree to use public transport and shutle buses/ferries rather than parking in the surrounding areas and walking to the site is another deeply flawed assumption. There are few parking restrictions in the nearest streets, so many of these patrons will ignore the shuttle bus and clog surrounding streets

Conclusion:

As per previous attempts to use Glebe Island for events, it is clearly not well set up to cater for large numbers of patrons. Sydney has existing events precincts (e.g. Moore Park, Olympic Park, Roseville Racecourse) which are much better set up for scale events, and should be the first preference.

I appreciate the need for temporary exhibition for large no. of people is necessary during the reconstruction of Darling Harbour, but I do not believe this location is appropriate.
James Craig Rd intersection with City West link is an extremely bad one in terms of exiting traffic from James Craig---it already causes significant traffic blockages at that intersection which then causes major problems for vehicles attempting to enter City West from The Crescent. And this is both during week peak hours and at certain times of a weekend. To add another 1000 + vehicles to this mix will not work!
The other cocerns are
that there is no pedestrian access---
some patrons will need to be shuttled from other car parks such as temporary Cruise Ship terminal White Bay
and we know from prev. experience "temporary" = "permanent" in the language of bureaucrats/govt ( Sydney Super Yacht Marina is the perfect example)

I refer to SSD 5374 .

Sealkee Holdings Pty Ltd as owner of Suite 805, 38 Hickson Road, Millers Point NSW 2000 objects to the above development.

The reason for the objection is:

1. A failure by the applicant to provide a clear map for the development
2. A failure by the applicant to consider the impact of the development on the owners and residents located in 38 Hickson Road, Millers Point and nearby on the amenities (amongst other things the views for those residents which will be obstructed) of those residents.
3. A failure by the applicant to publish a document which enables recipients of the proposed application to consider the impact of the development on the amenity of nearby owners and residents (including views)

Thank you for your assistance.