Mod 4 - Dry Boat Storage & Other Design Changes

To Whom It May Concern,

I currently rent a workshop at WB6MP and firmly believe that this is a necessary evolution for Sydney Harbour.

In every aspect this is defiantly the future of boating in our beautiful harbour.

Please approve the application.

I am a local resident as well, and from the local Balmain boating community, everyone agrees that it will be a great asset to have.

Regards,
Adam Ross

I am writing in support of the White Bay 6 Dry Boat Storage.
As a local resident I am familiar with the site and proposal although I don't own a boat.
The site and those who work there keep alive the notion of 'a working harbour' in particular the historical connection to Balmain. It will also employ more people on the harbour expanding skills and light boat industry.
A dry boat rack will preclude the expansion of mariners and keep small boats off the streets of Lilyfield - at present an eyesore and dangerous to traffic .
The site is easily accessible without impacting on residents and because of its limited size and sporadic usage vehicle noise should not be of concern.
The rack storage will be within the existing gantry adjoining the new cruise terminal so will not visually affect local residents from how it is now.
The present boat movements are well managed with the latest type of lifting vehicles providing very safe procedures.
The site already services marine activity by providing safe refueling of boats so the dry rack compliments present marine use and will ensure ongoing enjoyment of our beautiful harbour.

It is my personal view that we need the boat stacking rack at White Bay.
It doesn't currently exist on the Harbour and boat users need better facilities and choice;
* the streets of Sydney are cluttered with boats taking up valuable car parking spaces, providing a road safety hazard and being unsightly;
* it helps develop waterfront industry with employment, skills and investment.

The impact will be manageble. * the proposed structures will be visually integrated with gantry and adjoining cruise terminal and blend with current marine activity;

Thank you

I support the building of the rack and stack at White Bay Marine Park

I have recently acquired a 9 meter day boat and need suitable storage and launch facilities near our apartment in Pyrmont which has no storage facilities. We have recently moved here from Florida in the USA where we had boats in dry stack facilitieswhich worked extremely well and seem to be long overdue in the Sydney harbour area.

Yachting NSW fully supports initiatives such as this one that leads to increased storage capacity for the boating public.

The facility also has the potential to provide ancillary benefits such as reducing the pressure on parking.

Facilities such as this have been mooted for a while and we look forward to this project becoming a reality.

Baileys White Bay 6 modification MP06_0037 MOD4, Submission from the Balmain/Balmain East Precinct

This is a submission in objection to the proposed modification.

The consent for a marine refuelling facility at Wharf 6 White Bay was granted to Baileys Marine on the basis of the extent of use as proposed in the preferred project report, with the lease of the site expiring in 2020. It was not approved on the basis that intensification of use of the site and waterway with additional buildings and structures and an increase in operations was to occur within the lease period or beyond.

Not all objections to the original proposal were addressed satisfactorily on issues of noise, traffic and safety.

Noise, traffic and safety issues were the main concerns raised in objections to the preferred project report prior to the consent. Increasing operations as per the proposed modification will exacerbate these impacts.

The proposal refers to the 2000 Masterplan which was regarded, even by State Government authorities, as being out-of-date in 2007 and still needs to be replaced prior to any further approvals for White Bay.
The Bays Precinct Taskforce consultation process identified the best use of the wharf 6 site to be as a public headland park once the current lease expires in 2020. Wharf 6 White Bay is a prime harbourfront site with viewlines to the Harbour Bridge, Barangaroo and the CBD. It is adjacent to a fast-growing high-density residential area. With this in mind it would not be appropriate to invest more money in, or build more structures on, the site at this time.

The increase in Waterway traffic associated with the Cruise terminal and the Glebe Island Expo makes it less safe for a large increase in boats accessing the Wharf 6 site for storage or relaunch. The proposed pontoon is an extra obstruction for the Water police and other marine traffic.

Any increase in road traffic associated with the site is unacceptable. Already traffic snarls occur at Robert St and Victoria road in conjunction with the Cruise terminal. The plan for the Glebe Island Expo has included the use of Robert St as an egress route from Glebe Island. All port traffic needs to use a dedicated port road if major traffic problems are to be avoided in suburban streets and on Victoria Rd. Access into and out of the Balmain peninsula, and adjacent suburbs, is becoming increasingly difficult. The proposed increase in parking spots and boats stored, and therefore increased associated traffic, is not acceptable.

The use of a fork lift with noise impacts is also outside the limits of the original approval and should be refused. An increase in disturbance for our residential area by stealth, as approval of this modification would mean, will cause much angst in the community and seem to convey a total disregard by the determining authority for the quality of life in the surrounding residential area.

The increased height of the buildings is a major issue for local residents and the general public as the buildings will restrict iconic viewlines - this is considered to be unacceptable by State Government, Council and residents for foreshore sites at White Bay.

The statement in the proposal that public foreshore access has been improved is wrong. There is NO public access to the foreshore at Wharf 6 or even behind the site or to the mangrove area. Public foreshore access is a priority in the Bays Precinct Taskforce report, as in many other recent reports produced by State Government and local Councils. Public foreshore access for pedestrians and cyclists is a very valuable asset for our inner-city and assists in quality of life for residents.

The Baileys Marine development has not been profitable in its operations. It has demonstrated that this is not the best use of valuable harbour foreshore land next to a residential area close to the CBD. The boat storage facility that was proposed for Rozelle Bay has not yet eventuated due to financial issues prior to construction but it may still be developed in the near future. The site in Rozelle Bay is not adjacent to a residential area and may well be regarded as a more suitable site for boat storage and refuelling than White Bay, particularly when the lease expires at Wharf 6 in 2020.

Given the increasing need for public passive and active recreation areas for the growing number of families in the surrounding suburbs, the White Bay foreshore is perfectly positioned to provide such benefit in a beautiful harbourside setting.

The Precinct asks that this Modification proposal be refused and that State Government ensures public access is provided without delay at Wharf 6 and a new Masterplan, with full community consultation, is progressed for White Bay.

Christina Ritchie
Chair Balmain Precinct

Opposition to MP06_0037 Mod4
The application for modifications to Berth 6 White Bay is opposed on the following grounds:
1. Inappropriate activity adjoining high density residential development
2. Safety concerns
3.Traffic congestion
4. On site density
5. Visual pollution
6. Government policy

1. The Balmain peninsula is a high density residential area. Refuelling & boat storage with "ancillary activities" is not a compatible use of facilities like Berth 6. Calls for a Master Plan have repeatedly included the need for integrated planning which protects residents from inappropriate site developments eg placing fuel storage next to residential development.

2. Safety concerns.
Fuel is stored in tanks adjoining housing and the Cruise Passenger Terminal. Now additional boat storage & expanded refuelling are envisioned. Any increase in these uses at the site, increases hazards & potential danger for the community.

3. Traffic congestion
Fuel is delivered by trucks using one of only four roads which access the peninsula. By applying to increase available car parks from 30 to 68, this project will further exacerbate traffic congestion. The numbers are in the application are vague about motor cycles - "approximately 10". Is this a carefully considered application or a vague, ambit claim ?

4. On site density.
This is a foreshore headland which should be part of the walkway linking harbour access and increasing pedestrian access & recreation activities. This application is worded so that the overwhelming impact is not obvious. Consider 2 more buildings + 3 demountables + more than doubled parking. That means density at a level so great that safety and access are compromised.

5. Visual pollution.
The height of this proposal needs to be considered from the water, from Pyrmont & from Balmain / White Bay. This foreshore headland should be open, not a conglomerate of tanks & high level boat storage. Indications of height do not seem to include vistas from the length of Grafton St. That indicates another serious flaw in this application.

6. Government policy
The State Government has made much of the advantages in opening foreshore access to NSW residents & the commercial attractiveness of Sydney Harbour for the tourist industry. A Cruise ship terminal has been placed at White Bay & this proposal now reveals how poor the future planning for our harbour has been. Approval of this application to modify the consent at Berth 6 is contradictory of policy announcements / stated goals. Consider:
a)Work on restoring the foreshore at Barangaroo allows public access to the foreshore with work to restore a "natural" headland. Therefore,why would Bailey's Marine modification which is overly dense, incompatible & hazardous be considered?
b)The proposed pontoon is another obstacle for shipping & future transport options. The Water Police base, ferries & tugs, pleasure craft should not have to contend with another obstacle
c) Public land has been transferred to private use / ownership without any recognisable benefit, in the short or long term, for residents of NSW.

In order to be proactive, I met with Baileys on several occasions to discuss my concerns. I now support the above amendment at the approved marine refueling facility. It will enhance usage of waterfront facilities & encourage `light' marine activity. However, the following points should be considered prior to final approval.

As facilities grow, noise will inevitably increase. High volume noise, in particular from mechanical activity, should be restricted and reviewed quarterly.
Mitigate the visual impact of the gantry by:
* Remove gantry horizontal top 'bar' at both the Cliff side & Waterfront side. Remove all rust from remaining Gantry & paint/make good any repairs.
. suggest roof to be BLACK, such as the existing portable office structure on site, or dark GREY in keeping with the new shed roof & wall built at Western End of Cruise Terminal . This colour will be less reflective than white roof as per previous structure.
remove the overbearing central tower/pillar of flood lights obsolete since 1990.
thank you.

I would again like to express my disgust and objection to this development in the strongest possible terms. Like many of us who were part of the original community rejection of this development I am again appalled by the lack of regard for fairness and transparency in the process. Bailey's (now owned by Caltex) has again failed to provide surrounding residents adequate and timely notice of this application. At least this time someone at our local council (Leichhardt) alerted us to the fact that notice of this application had not be distributed widely enough (which is exactly what happened last time, i.e. those most affected were not made of aware of the application until it had already been approved at the State Government level and then had go on to fight it [unsuccessfully] at the local level). And now having been made aware of an even bigger, noisier and intrusive extension to the development, we have approx. 3 days to read a 180 page document!
I work full time and what I object to amongst other things is that I have spent many hours defending my right to live peacefully and happily in a residential area I chose to live in many years ago. I don't object to developments, I just want appropriate developments that don't detract from the environment or lifestyle of the community it shares. Surely residents have the right to a good night's sleep ,to not be choked by traffic and bombarded with noise, for the surrounding buildings to be ascetically pleasing and appropriate and sympathetic to the green environment, with regard and consideration to the community within which it resides. Bailey's is none of those things.
Anyway, these are our concerns, apart from the lack of notice and that fact that Bailey's Marine appears to be owned by a multi-national in Caltex which means we have about zero chance of having any say in this site.
1. The Site context clause 1.3 of the modification request document states there are residences to the North but there are also homes to the North East/South of the site, such as Hosking St and Datchett St. These are extremely close to the site within approximately 300 metres and the new parking is extremely close to these residences.
2. The noise study which was highly controversial and much disputed in the original application appears to be referred to many times as being a baseline or source of truth and it would appear by any measure that the new noise level s are going to exceed those presented earlier and that they will be on or approaching the upper most limit of what is deemed to be acceptable. This is really worrying, noise is something that you can't get away from, it disrupts your sleep, it disturbs your day to day life and generally upsets your emotional and physical well-being. Do we all have to now live indoors with windows and doors shut to get some peace? Why do we have laws that protect neighbourhoods against load noise and unacceptable hours when a business can move in next doors and break these laws? An individual can't play music or rev an engine at night but its ok for a corporation that moves in next door to wake you up if they feel like it?
3. The proposed buildings themselves are plain and ugly and cheap and while this may be a value judgement - they do nothing to add to the area or the built environment. They refer to other buildings adjacent to the site, they don't actually look like the Water Police Buildings which are somewhat attractive. Why can't buildings be tasteful when everyone has to look at them from residents and tourists in Pyrmont, commuters on Anzac Bridge, boats from the harbour and the Overseas Passenger Terminal and residents from Balmain - it's a highly visible area on the waterfront, any building has a social responsibility to be attractive or to blend with the environment.
4. The only landscaping for the site I can see is about 3 plants, there seems no effort at all to make the site greener and blend with the environment.
5. To state that the streets of Balmain, Anzac Bridge and Victoria Road can cope with extra traffic is completely untrue the area is choked and you don't have to a pay a consultant to see that on any day of the week and especially weekends when much of the activity for such a business would peak. It's highly congested and again this proposal only exacerbates the problem of already inadequate infrastructure.
6. The site sits adjacent to Cameron Cove and White Bay - the increased marine activity around these extended activities must surely cause a problem for the nearby Water Police, the Overseas Passenger Terminal and the existing re-fuelling operations. These are very narrow stretches of water and the extra traffic and noise will be obstructive to marine traffic.
7. And lastly, as I said before, if Bailey's had nothing to hide why weren't nearby residences given notice of this application in the first place, if there is no impact to the residents then why not follow guidelines set out by the government, they didn't do it the first time and so they thought they could get away with it again.
Why do we as honest, hardworking citizens continually have to defend our rights and our space and our environment against greedy corporations to take and don't give back. Is it unreasonable for developments and the governments that approve them to be fair and inclusive and why can't a development enhance an area instead of just detracting from it - noise beyond reasonable limits, excessive traffic, ugly buildings, minimal or non-existent landscaping and just overall bad taste.
There has been too much bad government, even a criminal element that has seen bad planning and ugly inappropriate developments thrive in Sydney and NSW for too long. Greed, lack of foresight or regard for our beautiful city is rampant and it just makes me sad. It's an ugly legacy we pass on, why can't we just share and care and make this a better place rather than an increasingly sorry and depressing one.

Yours Sincerely

I consider that the modification contemplates a substantially different usedr and should be the subject of a DA which will take into account the amenity considerations for the local (residential) environs..The scale of use and boat storage on the site has increased significantly from the original,anticipated use of the site.It has in effect doubled,with carspaces more than doubling,,motorcycle spaces and building numbers increased..The floating pontoon and waiting area demountables suggest a more intense level of usage,increasing boat traffic in the area with concomitant noise impacts (boat and traffic) which need to be examined afresh for hours of operation and impact on amenity.The scale of the increase is not consistent with a modification

DO NOT USE MY NAME AND ADDRESS OR EMAIL.
I am the owner of a unit next door to Berth 6. My enjoyment of my property has already been negatively affected by this facility. My view has been ruined and it is an eyesore and does not belong in this area. Now it is proposed to make it huge and this is completely unacceptable. It will take up so much of the available land, will be a huge facility, will affect my view even more - and in a very significant way. It is ugly. I only found out about this proposal TODAY in a letter I received from the Mayor of Leichhardt. Why wasn't I told about it. I live next door! This is completely wrong and needs to be investigated. It is very unethical and the Department has not fulfilled its legal obligations.

See submission attached, signed by Geoff Bailey, Executive Director, Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. The original letter is in today's post.

In order to be proactive, we met with Baileys on several occasions to discuss the modification. We both now support the above amendment at the approved marine refueling facility. It will enhance usage of waterfront facilities & encourage `light' marine activity. However, the following points should be considered & addressed prior to modifications being approved.
1. MINIMISE NOISE
Baileys have always been quick to concur, when contacted on several occasions regarding intrusive noise. As facilities grow, noise will inevitably increase. High volume noise, in particular from mechanical activity, should be restricted, with operating hours reviewed where possible. We suggest annual meetings be held with immediate residents to allay any concerns arising from the proposed facility in the future.
2. MITIGATE VISUAL IMPACT (pix attach)
GANTRY
The steel gantry was built in 1969. National, State & Local registers confirm the Gantry is not Heritage Listed. Sydney Ports Auth (SPA) report `Heritage Interpretation Strategy April 2013' indicates the gantry is `of historical importance' only. The long awaited opportunity now exists to improve the visual impact of the site.
An SPA resident survey-2013 shows overwhelming support from residents & wider community to DISMANTLE the Gantry . The gantry was part of the design to float the roof of Passenger Cruise Terminal but it is not integral to the design of Dry Boat Storage. It is rusty , requiring maintenance & attention after 50 years BEFORE it becomes a liability.

Mitigate the visual impact of the overbearing gantry by:
* Remove gantry horizontal top 'bar' at both the Cliff side & Waterfront side.
* Remove gantry rust & paint "steel grey" any remaining columns/bars especially those facing Cliff side/ directly facing onto Grafton Street, Balmain.

ROOF COLOUR
White is too reflective. We suggest roof to be BLACK, such as the existing portable office structure on site, or dark GREY. Black or Grey colour roofing will minimize reflection, complement existing Cruise Terminal structure, and `blend' as best it can into the landscape.
LIGHTING
Consider ambient lighting onsite at night so city skyline is not competing with bright lights. In addition, remove or relocate the tall, overbearing central tower/pillar of flood lights, now obsolete- not been in operation for 20 years.

Thank you for your consideration.