Skip to main content

State Significant Development

Determination

Harbourside Shopping Centre Redevelopment

City of Sydney

Current Status: Determination

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination

Staged Development Application (Concept Proposal) for a residential apartment tower, non-residential podium envelope and public domain improvements.

Consolidated Consent

Consolidated Consent

Archive

Notice of Exhibition (1)

SEARs (1)

EIS (47)

Engagement (3)

Response to Submissions (72)

Agency Advice (12)

Amendments (1)

Additional Information (6)

Recommendation (3)

Determination (3)

Post-determination Notices (1)

Approved Documents

Management Plans and Strategies (6)

Agreements (2)

Reports (8)

Other Documents (16)

Note: Only documents approved by the Department after November 2019 will be published above. Any documents approved before this time can be viewed on the Applicant's website.

Complaints

Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?

Make a Complaint

Enforcements

There are no enforcements for this project.

Inspections

17/03/2023

13/04/2023

11/05/2023

31/05/2023

Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.

Submissions

Filters
Showing 1 - 20 of 284 submissions
Name Withheld
Object
Pyrmont , New South Wales
Message
As a business and property owner in Darling Harbour, I am opposed to the overdevelopment of the Darling Harbour precinct that is possible simply because it does not fall under any real controls.

Specifically Harbourside Shopping Centre wishes to encroach on Cockle Bay in a way that is totally unacceptable. I dont believe any further towers should be allowed so near the public space of Darling Harbour. Imagine if this and further proposals by Cockle Bay are allowed to proceed? We will be left with a black well instead of the current icon of Australia Day activities nationally.

Further the burden to the local traffic network by underground parking will gridlock these tiny streets, especially Darling Drive which has recently been narrowed to one lane each way.

Please dont allow Mirvac to develop what they have to be six times what they own. Don't allow pure profit to destroy our Australian iconic site because it will be gone forever.
Name Withheld
Support
Baulkham Hills , New South Wales
Message
In order to grow our future we need to redevelop and look ahead. I believe this project does so it brings darling harbour an awesome addition and extremely attractive to tourists.
Name Withheld
Object
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
Why does the building have to be so obscure. Im sure a wider and lower building would look better. A tall and thin building looks out of proportion to the rest of the development. This would really impact on the way people see Darling Harbour.
Name Withheld
Object
Pyrmont , New South Wales
Message
I am very glad that submissions have been requested from those who are impacted by the further redevelopment of Darling Harbour specifically the Harbourside Shopping Centre.

My response is very simple: please stop any further development that involves an inappropriately over height building especially in an area that is considered to be the most over populated area of Australia.

I am sure you know the logical complaints against this development: the fact that it is far too tall for an area that has height restrictions, that it is overpowering the Pyrmont Bridge - a place of historical beauty that it is ruining an area that needs no further development. I don't think we can tolerate more traffic, more people and a building that dominates an area due to its absolutely unnecessary height.

The state government has already redeveloped Darling Harbour and built Barangaroo to an extent that is sufficient if not over developed already. Perhaps we should look to the City of Adelaide for a view of how to create a green corridor in our city planning or to the City of Melbourne on its ability to maintain its heritage and paying respect to the architecture of the past.

Please refrain from development that is not harmonious with urban living.
Kind Regards
A resident of Pyrmont
Name Withheld
Object
Bexley , New South Wales
Message
OBJECTION - to Mirvac's proposal for the redevelopment of Harbourside shopping centre including the construction of a High Rise Tower.

We are frequent visitors to Darling Harbour and recently have been delighted to explore and walk around the new lawned and open paved areas that have been built near the new Convention Centre.

To have this open space in the centre of the city is like a breath of fresh air, after the long narrow streets of the CBD with high rise towers on every side.

On learning about the proposed new redevelopment for the Harbourside shopping/dining complex , we feel compelled to write to say how horrified we are - specifically about the proposed BLOT on the landscape in the shape of this new super-high rise tower, right on the edge of the water.

Darling Harbour is an escape from the concrete jungle of the CBD. It's a tourist destination for everybody - Australians and overseas visitors alike - it's Sydney's playground with it's wide promenades, al fresco restaurants and frequent firework displays.

Can someone please stop the GREED of the developer bringing the CBD landscape over to the Pyrmont side of the city? At least the 4 dark Barangaroo Towers are on the CBD side of the city.

The new hotel next to the convention centre is bad enough but at least that is setback from the water.

It's only going to be the rich who can afford to buy in this proposed tower looming over Darling Harbour which is going to take away the sky and air space for the ordinary visitor.

We understand that the Harbourside complex needs updating but please keep the buidings near the water low rise and no higher than the existing complex.

Once again it is all down to the greed of Mirvac who want to make the most bang out of their buck.

Pyrmont Bridge is the busiest pedestrian bridge in the Southern Hemisphere . There is now the opportunity to celebrate it with a new development starting much further away and giving it a bit of space so that everyone can see it from all parts of Darling Harbour (unlike how it is now and what is also being proposed with Mirvac).

If Sydney-siders were aware of Mirvac's proposal we guarantee that you would be receiving plenty more objections to a tower on the water's edge and on the Pyrmont side of Darling Harbour.

Can someone in power please have the courage to stop the developer's plans to ruin the foreshore of our beautiful harbour.
Richard Barry
Support
North Willoughby , New South Wales
Message
I support the proposed redevelopment of Harbourside and the basis of a primarily residential tower above the retail podium. However, there could be the possibility of commercial office space in the lower 3-5 floors of the tower, with residential in the remaining floors above. This would provide needed commercial office space in the area, along with injecting residential capacity into a key precinct of Sydney. In turn, more residential accommodation would encourag greater presence of people throughout the week to boost Sydney CBD's vibrancy and activity.

According to the Aspect Studio Public Domain Study, the treatment of the space below Pyrmont Bridge is subject to additional works and Stage 2 detailed design. I believe it is important that the design of the space below Pyrmont Bridge is integrated closely into this development to form a cohesive public domain between the new Harbourside Development, Australian Maritime Museum and Pyrmont Bridge itself. The current space is sadly neglected and requires activation. The concepts inclusion of lighting, public seating and artworks are supported to provide a continuation of the primary boulevarde and a desirable pedestrian connection throughout the precinct, while remaining respectful of Pyrmont Bridge's heritage. I hope this design solution for the public domain is greatly encouraged and resolved as much as the importance of the building architecture.
Name Withheld
Object
Oatley , New South Wales
Message
I write to voice my diapproval of the intended development of the Harbourside shopping Centre.

The area around Cockle Bay is a state and indeed nationaly significent site. That the towering Sofitel hotel is currently being built and the Imax being torn down to be replaced by a far higher building is sorrowful enough but the greedy intent at Harbourside must surely be beyond what responsible planners woudl allow. Cockle Bay could shoon becoma shadowy black hole surrounded by towers if Mirvac and other developers get their way.

There is a need to redevelop the aging Harbourside building, maybe even make it one storey higher but what gain is there for us as Sydneysiders if any residential tower is built, no matter how small? The outcome can only be detrimental to all ecxept the developer.

I strongly oppose the threat that is posed on our skyline over this most significant asset to our city.
Russell Waddington
Support
sydney , New South Wales
Message
Dear Sir
I would like to ask that some better design be developed over the LOADING DOCK and WASTE MANAGEMENT which at present is unsatisfactory.
I ask that the loading dock be internal and activities be carried out behind roller doors. Noise travels upwards and the arrival, loading and unloading of trucks at all hours causes stress to residents. The closed roller door dock is most necessary as the loading dock operating hours and conditions agreed with SHFA on 25th February, 2004 signed off by Mr Trevan Robinson, Property Manager are ignored by Mirvac Management team. I ask that all waste be taken off site to be sorted. The present method of sorting bottles on the dock from 6pm onwards even Saturday and Sunday is not acceptable. The bottle recycle man has facilitated access granted by the security guards despite assurances of Mirvac management. Also I point out that the present dock is used as warehouse for empty beer, soft drink barrels and plastic bread and cake baskets are stacked for long periods before collection.
As Mirvac management team are not successful at operating the Loading Dock and Waste collection under the present situation with the much larger building I ask that you Design the Loading Dock to make it impossible for the present situation carry over.

Extractor Fans be organised so there is no noise at night or dirty black cooking oil stains as now event on the roof. The present shopping centre is putrid with cooking smells and smoke. The new development should have a filter replacement mandate and a auto shut down of fans when the restaurants are closed. I suggest that all the ducts in the present building could be laden with cooking fat deposits which may be a fire hazard.
I ask that some Design genius be directed at the above.
I have no objection to the present proposal that low Podium, Needle Tower as far south away from the Bridge, SHARE THE VIEW and we will have a much improved precinct to enjoy.
Russell Waddington 12.01.2017
Name Withheld
Object
Pyrmont , New South Wales
Message
OBJECTION to the Concept Proposal for the Redevelopment of Harbourside Shopping Centre

I strongly object to the above proposal.

To quote Paul Berkemeier (SMH 31.12.16) "Darling Harbour was renowned for its immediate visual and spatial connection from the land to the water and it references to the wharves and maritime history of the area"

How can building a high rise tower on the water's edge be in line with Darling Harbour's Maritime history

Darling Harbour in common with the majority of Sydney Harbour seems to have a stepped development height from the water's edge. As I travel around our beautiful harbour by ferry this seems to be the usual case except for the tragic example of "Blues Point" where the common consensus is what a travesty to Sydney Harbour to allow that ugly tower to be built so close to the water.

To suddenly plonk another disproportionate tower in the proposed location would surely be the first step on a slippery slope and should be rejected in it's entirety.

Surely building a new high rise tower adjacent to the iconic Pyrmont Bridge and much too close to the Harbour's edge, cannot realistically gain the support of any rational Sydney sider.

Having read the concept proposal, how ironic that the first bullet point of this describes a "network of open places and pedestrian links" whereas when I examine the detail on the website I am afraid that I am pushed to determine ANY improvement over what already exists.

I would also urge you to pay close attention to the proposed expansion and increased height of the Harbourside Shopping Centre which presently is in keeping with the surrounding buildings and this stepped development concept. Any new development should be kept low and stick to the existing footprint, to allow as much area for the pedestrian promenade as possible around the harbour's edge.

Darling Harbour has a fun feeling about it, is not the CBD but a place for tourists and Sydney siders alike to enjoy the water, open skies and space, together with views of the busiest pedestrian bridge in the Southern Hemisphere.
Name Withheld
Object
Pyrmont , New South Wales
Message
I have read this proposal with dismay. The suburb of Pyrmont is already far too overbuilt and there is a severe strain on roads leading into and out of the suburb. Parking is already unavailable and we are subject to ridiculous traffic on Pyrmont St., Murray St and Pyrmont Bridge Road at all hours, weekends being of a greater nuisance value. The public has a right to more open spaces rather than greater congestion and overbuilding. The residents of Pyrmont strongly oppose these attempts to force our residential area to become a commercial area, thereby dragging the suburb into another Chinatown. You have no right to do this. PYRMONT DOES NOT NEED MORE APARTMENTS AND TALL BUILDINGS in an attempt to satisfy commercial interests which are at odds with residents.
Brendan O'Reilly
Support
Pyrmont , New South Wales
Message
I am in favor of the development.
Trevor Dean
Object
Pyrmont , New South Wales
Message
Objection to the Proposed Redevelopment of the Harbourside Shopping Centre - SSD 7874

As a permanent resident of the building One Darling Harbour, my wife and I are appalled by the planned 40+ Story Office Tower above a Multi Level Retail Centre, proposed by the Mirvac Group.

For ourselves and the many other permanent residents of One Darling Harbour, this construction would result in a number of adverse effects, including :

1. Total Loss of Morning Sun (Photographic proof available)
2. Total Loss of Privacy
3. Loss of our current view of Cockle Bay
4. Incredible increase in noise and pollution levels during construction
5. Severe Devaluation of the value of our apartment

If the reason given for this development is the need for more hotel accommodation in the area, I would point out the almost completed 35 Storey Sofitel Hotel (thankfully set back from Cockle Bay) and the newly completed Hyatt Regency, now offering almost 600 rooms !

Local, Interstate and Overseas Visitors to Darling Harbour admire the water views, take pleasure in the variety of dining facilities available, enjoy the visual experience of watching the ferries, sailing and cruising boats in operation, and explore the many activities and entertainment available.

Many visitors to Darling Harbour also walk across the historically significant, still operating Pyrmont Bridge, which will be dwarfed by a modern Tower, the size of which is not appropriate for Cockle Bay. It will not only overshadow existing buildings, but will be an eyesore to ALL visitors because of its height and close proximity to the water's edge. The Tower will stand out in respect to all other buildings in this area, and goes against the current form of development, ie being set back from the edge of Cockle Bay.

Darling Harbour was intended to be a precinct for the people of Sydney, and the uniqueness of the area should always be considered ahead of developments that distract or do worse. This Tower will certainly not "transform" Darling Harbour for the better !

Please give the rejection of the Mirvac Group Office Tower Complex serious consideration.

If the Tower must be approved, please at least insist it be located SOUTH of the current proposal, closer to the new Sofitel and back from the edge of Cockle Bay.


Kind regards

Trevor and Lesley Dean
ONE DARLING HARBOUR
12502/50 Murray Street, Pyrmont 2009.
(9212 2987 - 0408 439 274)
[email protected]
Name Withheld
Object
Pyrmont , New South Wales
Message
I have read this proposal with dismay. The suburb of Pyrmont is already far too overbuilt and there is a severe strain on roads leading into and out of the suburb. Parking is already unavailable and we are subject to ridiculous traffic on Pyrmont St., Murray St and Pyrmont Bridge Road at all hours, weekends being of a greater nuisance value. The public has a right to more open spaces rather than greater congestion and overbuilding. The residents of Pyrmont strongly oppose these attempts to force our residential area to become a commercial area. You have no right to do this. PYRMONT DOES NOT NEED MORE APARTMENTS AND TALL BUILDINGS in an attempt to satisfy commercial interests which are at odds with the wishes of the residents.
Name Withheld
Object
Pyrmont , New South Wales
Message
There are numerous reasons that make this development objectionable. Some of which are below:

*Further 'boxing in' of the waterfront area. The building of such high towers in close proximity to waters edge is poor urban planning. The scale and siting of the tower is not suitable to the site. The close proximity to the Pyrmont Bridge obliterates the heritage significance of the Bridge. The tower, now shown longer in an east‐west direction compared to the previous (short‐lived) office envelope, will have drastic overshadowing impacts on the public foreshore and Harbour
*Darling Harbour is a precinct for the people which is owned and operated by a public authority. Permanent ownership of public land through strata titled apartments is not consistent with the intent and purposes of Darling Harbour.
*The project is pure and simple profiteering. There is no need for a residential block specifically here. Harbourside in its current format is profitable and in demand as seen by a significant number of new leases recently signed and high quality shop re-fits. Any 'facelift' for Harbourside could be economically viable without altering the structures footprint
*Impact of light blocking to buildings in Murray & Bunn St
*The consideration of this proposal underlines a lack of a clear strategic vision for planning in Darling Harbour,
*A tower with no aesthetic merit. My toddler could have planned better with her Lego blocks in 5 minutes.
Russell Waddington
Object
sydney , New South Wales
Message
Waste Management. 4.7.6
The present waste management is most unsatisfactory as noise is excessive day and night.
The bottle recycling with the sorting clear, greens and special types is an industrial process and not part of the present DA. However this process is carried out late evening after the dock is closed up to 10 pm/11 pm on Saturdays, Sundays and even midnight Christmas eve. No secondary processing of waste should be allowed as a condition of approval.
To dump waist in the yard is third world practice and encourages
vermin, Ibis birds and water rats. Again I ask that this be not approved as there are many Waste disposal contractors that take bulk waste and sort of sight.
This development is large and should not be approved until the Waste disposal is taken seriously by Mirvac . I am in support of the development as proposed provided that all the waste is carried out in an in door dock behind closed roller door.
Alistair Henchman
Object
Sutton , New South Wales
Message
I object to the overly large (i.e. tall) nature of this proposal.
Buildings adjacent to the waterfront should step down from Pyrmont to Cockle Bay and Darling Harbour.
Also I oppose any development which contains any form of strata ownership or sub lease in this location. This is public land and developments should retain a medium (say 20-30 year) term tenure to allow iconic sites such as this to be redeveloped as required in line with changing community needs and expectations.
Marielle Bernie
Object
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
To,
The Director,
Department of Planning and Environment,
Level 22/320 Pitt Street,
Sydney,
N.S.W. 2000.

To The Attention of Michelle Nettleford.
Ref: Redevelopment of the Harbourside Shopping Centre Reference (application no. SSD 16_7874)

Also To The Attention of Pilar Aberasturi.
Ref: Cockle Bay Wharf Demolition and Construction of New Building (application no. SSD 16_7684)

Dear Sir/Madam

I refer to the above named development proposals, these developments are quite significant and are sure to have a negative impact upon the entire Darling Harbour Foreshore. I as well as many others strongly oppose these developments for the below listed reasons;

Firstly, these poorly designed buildings will block the sunlight across the entire Darling Harbour precinct including the park where many families take their children to play and cultural events are regularly held in front of the stage.

Secondly as you are aware traffic congestion in and around the harbour precinct is already a significant problem. The issue has only grown with the introduction of the new Entertainment, Exhibition and Internal Centres. There has already been a number of submissions to various agencies about the problems with traffic and transport to Darling Harbour. The listed proposals will only see this problem grow in severity.

Thirdly, you know there are many other large proposals in the Darling Harbour Foreshore such as the new IMAX development, including ones yet to be lodged such as the Star City Casino proposal. All of these are exceedingly large high-rise/compounds which will significantly alter the entire visual landscape of the Darling Harbour area. Your department must examine the impact of all of these for the precinct as a whole rather than gauging them individually.

Fourth, the foreshore of darling Harbour is

Fifth, Darling Harbour is a major Sydney landmark, well known and visited by many Australians and International visitors alike, especially during public events such as Australia Day and New Year's Eve. Don't destroy this public space by circling the foreshore with so many tall high-rises, making the harbour appear like nothing more than a garden pond surrounded by concrete towers. You must consider the impact on the visual landscape of the area. Furthermore if you approve these a new precedent will be set, likely leading to more developments in the future. It is very important to understand that Darling Harbour was not created for this purpose. It was created for the public to enjoy. These towers should be in other streets away from the waterfront.

Sixth, These two corporate towers will be located near the historic heritage bridge which has played a very important part in the history of New South Wales. It will become an "eyesore" and diminish the presence of the old bridge which is a vital attraction of Darling Harbour.

You must consider why Darling Harbour was created; the purpose of this area was for recreation, an open space waterfront area for every citizen to enjoy. It is a place people come to go for walks, enjoy dinner or take in the sights, not stare at concrete towers all round them. No commercial towers should be placed at all in Darling Harbour area. Do not spoil a precious Sydney landmark and social avenue.

Please consider all of the above carefully.

Thank you,

Regards,
Marielle Bernie
Neville Jukes
Object
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
RE: Application No SSD 7874
I hereby lodge a formal objection to the Mirvac proposal for the redevelopment of Harbourside Shopping Centre.
The proposal in its current form should be rejected on a number of grounds.
(1) This company "Mirvac" should be treated warily as they are not to be trusted. I particularly asked their representative (at a public information meeting at the Maritime Museum) if there was any intention to have residential apartments in the proposed development, or to convert it to residential apartments at a later date. His statement to me was "there will never be residential apartments in this development as they are not allowed within the planning law". The current proposal demonstrates the lies previously told by their representatives in order to appease a member of the public, while purporting to the planning department that they had engaged in community consultation.
(2) The proposed tower will reconfigure Darling Harbour from the current highly utilised tourist district, with an open air atmosphere, into an overshadowed, uninviting environment totally conflicting with what is expected of one of the world's great cities.
(3) Current Planning Departments have an obligation to future generations not to allow over development of sensitive areas of this great city. The question must be asked, "Will this tower add to the vision of Sydney for 2050?" Answer "NO". Any future development should be strongly scrutinised as to its visual appeal.
(4) If any tower is allowed this close to Darling Harbour it will set a precedent for future developers to argue for a similar monstrosity which will further diminish the ambience of Darling Harbour.
(5) The imprudent removal of the monorail, which was used extensively by tourists, has already put pressure on transport in the area and a development the size of this proposal will create a traffic problem of mammoth proportions.
On a personal note, should a tower be allowed our privacy will be significantly impacted. We would no longer be able to lie naked in bed and enjoy the morning sunrise as our bedrooms would be overlooked by the majority of the rooms in a tower. Our apartment in One Darling Harbour will be overshadowed during early morning and our view of Darling Harbour and the city will be obscured by a tower of any size.
Ronald Tucker
Object
One Darling Harbour , New South Wales
Message
Darling Harbour:

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 retain the history of the location and enhance the tourism and public purpose values of the area. 

2. We live in Darling Harbor One and although we do not face Cockle Bay our building is situated at a satisfactory position particularly from the Heritage bridge - Pyrmont Bridge. It is the positioning of the proposed redevelopment of Harbourside Shopping Centre and relative buildings being close in proximity to the Pyrmont Bridge that is our biggest concern. 
We are therefore not in favour of these plans.
3. 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. 

4. 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. detract from the significant heritage values of the State Heritage listed Pyrmont Bridge
b. significantly impact and in some cases completely destroy iconic views of Darling Harbour/city skyline from private residences facing Cockle Bay - this directly impacts on the shadowing of our building (One Darling Harbour). 

Jayne Meyer Tucker
Object
One Daring Harbour , New South Wales
Message
Darling Harbour:

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 retain the history of the location and enhance the tourism and public purpose values of the area. 

2. We live in Darling Harbor One and although we do not face Cockle Bay our building is situated at a satisfactory position particularly from the Heritage bridge - Pyrmont Bridge. It is the positioning of the proposed redevelopment of Harbourside Shopping Centre and relative buildings being close in proximity to the Pyrmont Bridge that is our biggest concern. 
We are therefore not in favour of these plans.
3. 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. 

4. 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. detract from the significant heritage values of the State Heritage listed Pyrmont Bridge
b. significantly impact and in some cases completely destroy iconic views of Darling Harbour/city skyline from private residences facing Cockle Bay - this directly impacts on the shadowing of our building (One Darling Harbour). 


Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSD-7874
Assessment Type
State Significant Development
Development Type
Residential & Commercial
Local Government Areas
City of Sydney
Decision
Approved
Determination Date
Decider
IPC-N
Last Modified By
SSD-7874-Mod-3
Last Modified On
04/12/2023

Contact Planner

Name
David Glasgow