I strongly object to the proposed convention centre (and hotel). The proposed structure is not in keeping with the surrounding buildings and is much too large when compared to the existing convention centre.

Given the materials used in the surrounding buildings, the use of extensive glass and other modern materials will ruin the vista of Darling Harbour.

Furthermore, this obscures views of the lovely Goldsbrough building which is an historic icon of the area. It would be a shame to see this hidden behind a huge modern structure.

I make the following points regarding SSD 5752
1. The present DA does not include the proposed hotel which is shown on all the plans and in all the media presentations.
- This makes this DA seriously flawed. Darling Harbour at present has a character. The intrusion of a much larger Convention Centre, Exhibition Centre, let alone the gigantic proposed hotel destroys this character. A refuge of open space and relative tranquility is turned into chaos and clutter.
2. It is a waste of Government money.
- The taxpayers of NSW will be spending millions of dollars for a convention centre that provides very little extra meeting room and an exhibition centre that at best only provides 20% more space. In doing this it is destroying a building designed by internationally recognised architect John Andrews and an exhibition centre that won the Sulman award for design.
3. There is an apparent total disregard for the residents of the western area behind Darling Harbour.
- The proposed new convention centre is nothing but a wall of glass viewed from the west. As opposed to the design of John Andrew's whose building has a symmetry and balance.
- The proposed exhibition centre merely puts up a gigantic wall blocking the view from the west.
- Loss of footbridge over the light rail tracks leading into Darling Harbour. Thousands of residents and guests between William Henry rd and Allen st east/west and Pyrmont st to John St North/South use that footbridge everyday.
4. The removal of the water features in front of the Exhibition centre and around Tumbalong park is proof of the lack of understanding the proposed designers have of the character and soul of Darling Harbour.
- Everyone and I mean everyone I talk to regarding the redevelopment site find the removal of these water features as 'not possible'. They are as important to Darling Harbour as the water wheel.
In conclusion, it would be best if the NSW government started all over again and talked to the people who use Darling Harbour. Then there is at least a chance that it would get value for money. As it is, the city gets 3 years of chaos and pollution for not much if any improvement.

The existing building is iconic to Darling Harbour
The proposed development is bulky and disproportionate, it obscures the Goldsbrough wool shed which has a historical value and important to Darling Harbour skyline.
The size of the project and its time frame has a adverse impact on surrounding buildings and businesses.

The major concern I have, as a resident whose balcony and bedroom is only 60-70 meters from the proposed Event Deck, is noise.

There are number of issues here:
1. In all discussions with the Darling Harbour Live Team, we have been assured that the deadline for termination of events would be 10 pm - in line with current Tumbalong guidelines. Now it is stated under 4.4 Outdoor event deck scenarios "that these types of events are likely to end by 11 pm with the "the live music component .. likely to end by 10 pm". Likely is a very loose and worrying term. With "bump out" for envisioned events for upwards of 5000 people that means major noise disturbance well past midnight. If one looks at looks at Table 7 in the relevant section of the DA - then the recommended night (10 pm onward) noise level for urban residential is 45 dB with a maximum of 50 and 50 with a maximum of 55 for evening. That means that the estimated noise level for a conference dinner with live entertainment is 11 db over the recommended noise level in the evening (6 over maximum) and also 11 over at night (after 10 pm - 6 over maximum). Even then, one could be very sceptical about these noise estimates. Five thousand people, live music, generators - all well within 60-70 meters of people's balconies and bedrooms! It is totally unacceptable to plan for a breach in noise guidelines - and plan for that repeatedly for up to 1 in 4 nights in the year.
2. There is nowhere in the DA any statement about clearing and locking access to the Event Deck. What happens if the guests of these various events decide to party on? There must be clarity that the events end at 10 pm with clearing and locking of the Event Deck very, very soon after.
3. Large marquees will require substantial energy for heating or cooling depending on the time of year. No mention is made of where the power is coming from. It would be totally unacceptable if very large and noisy generators were placed at the Bullecourt end of the deck to provide this power. It must be clarified that such generators will either be contained with the Exhibitions Halls proper or located away from the residents.
4. There are proposed 6-7 major events per year for which, apparently no restriction will be made regarding either level of noise or duration. I understand that New Year in Sydney is special but what are these other events that require the total loss of a night's sleep for Bullecourt residents? It must be clarified what "unrestricted" events are envisioned and some mitigation of this. 6-7 in a year looks like only a few but loss of a total night's sleep every couple of months is unacceptable for even "urban" residents.
5. The placement of the band and associated amplification and speaker systems for live music, and speakers for recorded music, is critical. If these are located at the Oxygen bar end, and facing Bullecourt, the noise the residents will be subjected to will be horrendous. It is an absolute necessity that it be clarified that the speakers for the various sound systems will be placed to face East towards the city where there is a large distance to the nearest residential complexes.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I own an investment unit on the 8th floor in the Goldsbrough Building that overlooks Darling Harbour. The apartment looks directly over the top of the existing convention centre. I am consequently concerned that the proposed redevelopment will significantly impact the value of our investment.

The proposed redevelopment and in particular the proposed hotels will obscure a significant portion of our view. The loss of views will devalue the unit, maybe by as much as $100,000, and will also reduce the rental return, maybe by as much as $100 per week.

Therefore I will incur an initial loss of maybe $100,000 and an ongoing loss of maybe $5,200 per year. These are figures that are far too high to expect individuals to bare. In my case the investment is intended as part of my partner's and my retirement income and is therefore an extremely important investment for us.

Yours sincerely,

Howard Lovatt
Balmain
Owner 8th floor apartment Goldsbrough Building

The suburb near the development site is over-crowded. The population in this area is the highest in Australia. This plan will make the population even higher and crowded than before. The new building will block our view. Our unit will be cast in shadow for most of time. It is noisy around at the moment . This plan will produce more noise to this area. It will cause serious security problems.

To NSW Planning and Infrastructure,

I am an owner-resident of the Goldsbrough Building on Pymront Street in Pyrmont. I live on level 2 of the building's east-facing side. I am writing to object strongly to plans for the redevelopment of Darling Harbour.

In particular, I object to the height of the development, which would overshadow my apartment, and many others in the Goldsbrough Building, during winter. I love the sunlight that streams into my apartment all year round, and especially on winter mornings, and I believe it is not yours to take away. This sunlight is one of the main reasons I bought my apartment. There is much talk about "green" buildings in Sydney, and this overshadowing will increase heating costs. I respectfully request that you lower the height of the proposed buildings (the hotel towers and the Convention Centre) so that the Goldsbrough Building is not overshadowed at any time. This is of the utmost importance to me.

Second, I object to the removal of the walkway on the western side of Darling Harbour (currently near the Convention Centre Monorail station, in the carpark). This walkway provides an access point to Darling Harbour that I (and countless others) use frequently, not just to enter the Darling Harbour precinct, but also the City.

Finally, I object to the height, scale, and aesthetics of the proposed International Convention Centre. In artist's impressions that I have seen, it is the same height as the Goldsbrough, and blocks views of this heritage-listed building from the city side.

Thank you for your consideration.
Yours sincerely,
Monica Crouch.

As a resident of Ada Place and someone who works in CBD, I use the overpass from Ada Place to Darling Harbour twice daily on workdays, 480 times a year. The proposed demolition of this footpath will force me to either relocate to a different location (estimated cost of $2,000 for relocation itself and up to $15,000 in fees to terminate my current lease) or take taxi to work twice a day since the irregular nature of my timetable does not allow for commute by bus (estimated cost of $9,600=480*$20). These are substantial amounts of money and a great cause of annoyance for all residents of Ultimo and therefore I object to any kind of redevelopment that will increase my travel time from Ada Place to Darling Harbour.

Many residents of Ultimo are renters like myself who were not sufficiently informed about the effects of the planned redevelopments: for example, I stumbled on the proposed redevelopments by sheer accident. I am sure they are of similar views but their views may not be sufficiently and fully represented among these submissions because they do not know that the overbridge is meant to be demolished.

I propose that either (a) no redevelopments take place, or (b) the footpath be preserved, or (c) the developer or the state government pay residents of Ada Place and nearby streets $1,000 in cash each month per resident.

I would like to register my strong objections to aspects of the current Development Application SSD5752, especially to the planned new ICC Convention Centre, which is a major part of it. My objections are two-fold: (1) as a resident of Sydney and (2) as a resident of the Goldsbrough Building.

The Despoiling of a Major Tourist Site
It seems to me that the main rationale for the redevelopment of Darling Harbour - in particular the redevelopment of the Convention Centre and plans for a massive 900-room hotel - is that it will attract more people to Sydney and better accommodate them in our city. Clearly there is some logic to this, as a bigger Convention Centre will be able to accommodate more conventions and a huge hotel will add to the number of beds available to tourists. In turn, it may well be argued, this will bring more money into our city as opposed to other cities.
However, there is a good deal more to tourism than conference attendees. And what are tourists, sight-seers and travellers in general most interested in seeing? The broadest answer to this question is that they wish to experience beautiful, unique and pleasurable sights. Darling Harbour is one of Sydney's key sight-seeing and tourism objectives. Why? Because it is an oasis of sunny spaces, sparkling water and human-scale amenities in the middle of a major city. The problem with the new development is that it is ugly, ugly, ugly!
The increased mass of the new Convention Centre will make the open spaces feel more cramped, will create huge shadows in the afternoon and, in general, make Darling Harbour less attractive to tourists other than convention attendees. Both it and the new Exhibition Centre lack the airy distinctiveness of the older, prize-winning ones, transforming the unique style of the area into that of an oppressively massive and stylistically boring business centre. When the new hotel is crammed between the Novotel and Harbourside it will simply add to oppressive, shadowy ambience.
It seems misguided to claim that all of this cramped ugliness will attract more people to Sydney. It may attract more conference-goers, but it will significantly damage the aesthetics of one of Sydney's most popular tourist areas, hence reducing the number of tourists who will go there (and spend money there). Naturally this will also impact the pleasure that Sydney-siders themselves take in Darling Harbour.
The current government possibly wishes to be seen as developing the potential of Darling Harbour, but I suspect that if this plan goes ahead unmodified it will be seen as having contributed to the over-development and despoliation of one of Sydney's most attractive scenic areas.

Negative Impact on Residents
I am a resident of the Goldsbrough building and it's my opinion that, if the impact of this new development on Darling Harbour is bad, then it's probably even worse for the residents of the Goldsbrough Building. The new Convention Centre will almost completely replace our views of Darling Harbour and the city with a huge, grey, faceless wall. Darling Harbour may get the increased shadows and claustrophobic mass of the front side, but we get the even greater ugliness of its backside. When the twin towers of the hotel go up, the ruin of our views and the total eclipse of our morning sunlight will be complete. The Dark Ages, it appears, will have arrived for the residents of the Goldsbrough, especially those in the 250 or so apartments on its eastern side.
The apparent disregard for the outlook of such a large number of fellow-citizens appears to go completely against the concept of view-sharing. The increased winter heating that the foreshadowing effects will necessitate in the eastern apartments of the Goldsbrough seems at odds with the Sydney City Council's `Smart Green Apartment' initiative. Basically, for us, the new development is a financial and aesthetic disaster.
More than this, however, it is a disaster for Sydney. Naturally, people objecting to the ruin of their views and access to sunlight will be accused of carrying out yet another not-in-my-backyard campaign. But surely Darling Harbour is not just the `backyard' of Goldsbrough residents. It is the backyard of Sydney-siders in general, a sunny playground for families from all areas. With the loss of the beautiful old Exhibition Centre, with the development of the more massive new Convention Centre and, worst of all, the cramming of a twin-tower skyscraper between the Novotel and Harbourside, the current government risks turning our sunny, human-scale Darling Harbour into yet another hole full of shadows loomed over by giants.

I wish to lodge my objection to the Development Application No SSD5752.
The Goldsbrough Building has played an important part in the link between rural Australia and the city. To plan a development that will hinder and diminish this significance is very short sighted. This building has a stately presence along the Harbour foreshore and to block much of this out with another modern hotel loses part of our historical past.
Such a development will greatly reduce the value of units in the Goldsbrough Building as well as the views that the owners presently have. Owners have bought these units in
good faith believing that the value of the property will be maintained not decreased.
As well this buiding is a very popular tourist accommodation destination. Any structure that lessens this appeal will be very devasting for the current Goldsbrough Hotel arrangement.
The proposed development will block sunlight to many units and the view of the new building to residents in the Goldsbrough will be one of ugly metallic walls.
This new development will severely affect the current safe walkways and carparks. This will have a devastating effect on the thousands of tourists,workers and residents that currently use this area every day let alone those that visit the area when special events are scheduled.
The decision to remove the present Convention Centre shows no regard for a prize winning design. This is a disgrace and shows no respect for decisions made in the past.