The new Sydney Fish Market - Concept and Stage 1

As a local resident, pleased to see the removal of this site finally happening as it has been an eye sore for a very long time.
Fully support smooth removal and rejuvenation of the area

I do not support the project in its current form for the following reasons:
1. I am concerned about the size and scale of the project, both visually and in terms of the noise and traffic it will generate. The site for the project is adjacent to Glebe Secondary College, a well-regarded public high school with a strong music program. Have the visual and aural impacts of the development on both the adjacent school, its students and the local residents been fully considered?
There will be increased pressure on local streets for parking, as many visitors to the fish market will prefer to park on the streets. Bridge Road is a heavily used arterial road, and the moving of the fish markets to the Hanson site will increase traffic numbers and congestion around the area.
2. I am also concerned about the impact of the development on the adjacent, heritage-listed Wentworth Park. This park and many of its historic trees (notably the double avenue of fig trees along the park's boundary with Bridge Rd) is listed as significant by the National Trust, as well as by the City of Sydney. The widening of Bridge Road, and the sheer scale of the new development will cut off the park from the view of the bay. It also will further discourage pedestrian and cycle traffic along Bridge Rd (not a pleasant route to take as a pedestrian or cyclist at the moment) but this will be worsened when the road is widened. I am also concerned about the impact of development (demolition and construction, with air pollution and truck and crane movements, etc) and pollution from increased traffic once the development is completed on the health of the fig tree avenue, which were amongst the first plantings when the park was laid out in the late 1800s.
3. I understand that there are several measures in place to improve the fish market's impact on the health of the bay. The current fish market creates a large amount of pollution in the bay (discarded rubbish), much of which is carried across the bay to the small tidal beaches along the Glebe foreshore. I sincerely hope that pollution generated by the Fish Market and its fleet of fishing trawlers is reduced to nil with any new development.
4. There is a great deal of concern from local Glebe, Ultimo and city residents regarding the moving of the fish market from its present site to take over what is now the Hanson concrete batching plant as it will not only result in cutting off the view of the bay from historic Wentworth Park, but the new high-rise towers being built on the old fish market site as is planned will increase the density of population and cars in the area, and block views from Glebe to Ultimo and the city, and from Ultimo and the city to Glebe. It would be far preferable if the fish markets could remain where they are now and be completely rebuilt to become a first-class facility. The last thing locals and Sydney residents in general want is for rampant development — of the kind we have seen turn Darling Harbour into a concrete jungle — ruin Blackwattle Bay.
5. Finally, have the government considered that there is a heritage aspect to at least one concrete batching plant remaining in the bays area? White Bay was the site of the first ready-mixed concrete plant in the southern hemisphere almost 100 years ago.

Supportive but:
1) require a separate cycleway rather than on the shared zone. A shared zone never works nor is it a safe.
2) requires a future metro station
This is a long term project, don't cut corners on cost.

Hi, I think there should be more space for our current fish market and the project outlined in the artists impression. The impression includes a future two storey building rather than the current one storey building fish market we have now. There will certainly more spaces and places to shop as the area of land is also saved. This is a great idea because Sydney's population continues to grow.

With much pleasure from Patrick Li

The connection between the Glebe foreshore walk and the new fish market should be improved for pedestrians. The current plan basically forces people to walk to Bridge Rd and then back out and around the fish market building to walk along the foreshore. There should be a much shorter pedestrian route, possibly by a footbridge, which links the Glebe foreshore walk to the foreshore in front of the new fish market (on the waters edge). This would activate the foreshore in front of the fish market from early morning to late in the evenings with pedestrians that would otherwise walk down Bridge Rd. Walking down Bridge Rd with traffic noise and pollution from vehicles is not very pleasant. The pedestrian route would be shorter and encourage more people to walk from Glebe into Pyrmont/Ultimo and the CBD.

I write in relation to the proposed redevelopment of the Sydney Fish Markets. I specifically write to support the project, and to oppose the majority of the objections raised by the Glebe Society to the project. I wish to make it clear to the Department that the Glebe Society does NOT represent the views of all Glebe and Forest Lodge residents. I left the Glebe Society some years ago as I found they had become a NIMBY organisation only and relied on disingenuous arguments in their opposition to virtually all major developments in the area. I note that the Glebe Society has recently letterbox dropped the suburb asking for form objections to be sent in to the Department objecting to this project. Again I do not believe these objections are held by all, or even a majority, of residents of the area.

I strongly support the redevelopment of the Sydney Fish Markets and its relocation to the head of Blackwattle Bay. As a resident of Forest Lodge with an office at the end of Union Street in Pyrmont I pass by the area daily - on foot, bicycle, light rail and car. The removal of the cement plant will be a boon for the area and the rest of the precinct is currently an unsightly wasteland. I no longer go to the Fish Market because I find its current state so unpleasant.

I would ask the Department consider several points in reviewing this DA:

There is a need for much better, safer cycle access along Bridge Road adjacent to the proposed new Fish Markets site, either on the water side, the road side or both;
Aligned with this is a need to rationalise the various onramps and turns where Bridge Road meets the Anzac Bridge approach, as the current situation is difficult to navigate, often congested and dangerous to (particularly) cyclists. Ideally there should be a dedicated cycleway through that intersection which connects to the cycle lane further along Union Street;
There remains merit in establishing a pedestrian link between Wentworth Park and the proposed new Fish Markets site either through (ideally) undergrounding a section of Bridge Road, or if that is unfeasible, via a well-designed pedestrian overpass;
I do agree with the Glebe Society's one comment regarding equity of access, and the project should be conditioned to require further detailed design work to establish level access along the entirety of the foreshore.

Thank you for considering my submission.

I object to this development on a number of grounds as outlined in the attached. Thanks

I object to the project on the following grounds:
- insufficient genuine green space has been created. The consultations I attended clearly voiced local residents desire to see significant new passive greeen space in the City of Sydney area close to the development, since the population density has risen steeply in recent years. Spaces where patrons of the fish market can sit while eating lunch is not the same thing at all as genuine open green space with numerous trees, no hard surfaces and which can be enjoyed passively. Too many new hard surfaces are being created without new ground for large trees and water absorption and simply enjoyment.
- the development is too large and if the marina is well used its footprint over the water will be much bigger still.
- there is no improved pededstrian access to the foreshore. Visual connection is not the same as a large grassy pedestrian overbridge, for example. There is a space without fig trees close to the traffice lights and a good architect would surely have been able to create such a connection without cutting down the trees.
The new fish market will significantly overshadow the new sea grasses which are beginning to improve water quality in Black Wattle Bay. No thought has been give to transparent or translucent walk ways to avoid this, and sea life is again at risk.
- it is not clear what disability access will be and whether steps are part of the access, without lift access.
Basically there is no improvement to Wentworth park, except some apparent visual alleged improvement.
- at the very least the greyhound track which is mainly used for telecasts could be returned to the park and a major planting program undertaken. Another big improvement would be a bricked wall at knee height around the circumference of the park to allow for off leash use by dogs.
- the new development is not balanced in that it does nothing for the local residents, and the improved sustainability of the Blackwattle Bay envronment. It is clearly motivated by the Government's desire to commercialise the markets further and make as much money as possible from developing the current site.

My objection is that the proposed development does not honestly consider the impact on traffic congestion on Bridge road and the assumption that additional traffic to the site will be forced to park in the surrounding streets in Glebe.
Without significant public transport improvements, visitors will be forced to drive, causing increased traffic and congestion in Bridge and Wentworth Park Roads. This intersection will be the only point of entry and exit for all cars, taxis, Ubers, coaches, emergency, delivery and service vehicles.

The current proposal will not include any additional parking spaces, keeping the parking on site at 417 spaces only. This means additional visitors are likely to park in Glebe’s residential streets.

There is no provision for waiting coaches to park, other than in local residential streets.

The transport modelling that has been completed for this project does not account for the impact of the proposed development of over 2,700 new apartments on the site of the old Sydney Fish Market which will add to local traffic congestion, public transport over-crowding and local parking stress.

Traffic congestion and parking:
- The proposed location is unsuitable for a larger new fish market (NFM) given the projected doubling in the number of visitors and site impact. Pyrmont Bridge Rd (PBR) is a major route for traffic from the west heading to the casino, convention centre and other Darling harbour attractions. It also carries a heavy flow of traffic westwards from the city via the Western Distributor and the south via Wattle St. Dual westbound lanes with a planned short slip lane for traffic to enter the NFM car park will be inadequate to cope with heavy weekend traffic. It is obvious that the area will not cope with the projected increase in traffic that will funnel into the single entrance to the car park and a new set of traffic lights at the intersection of PBR and Wentworth Park Rd will not mitigate the congestion. Gridlock will reign along Wentworth Park Rd all the way back to the traffic lights at Bay St where heavy traffic already exists on a weekend due to cars exiting Broadway Shopping Centre.

- Despite lip service paid to an increase in public transport services these are not specified and are not guaranteed. Even if there were to be an introduction of new services, most people will still prefer to drive especially those purchasing fish and other produce to take home. Sydney residents typically shun public transport as it is not as convenient as driving. The new car parking will be limited in space and it can be predicted that the local Glebe streets will clog with visitors trying to find parking and, even more concerning, tourist buses trying to find a convenient spot to unload. These factors will severely impact the amenity of the local residents and should justify the disqualification of the planned location in any objective evaluation of the development applications.

- No consideration has been given to the additional traffic that will be generated by the unspecified, but no doubt large, number of residents that will occupy apartments to be built on the existing FM site. This is a critical flaw and the failure to consider the additional impact of this prospective residential development will invalidate the conclusions arising from the traffic modelling used to support the development applications.

Public access to the foreshore path:
- This is the long awaited opportunity to complete the ‘missing link’ of a foreshore path from Annandale to Woolloomooloo. A strict condition of the Stage 2 application should be unrestricted 24 hour public access to this path. The path should not be routed through any part of the NFM. Also the path, and foreshore access in general, must not be compromised by any future development on the existing FM site.

- More green space needs to be allocated to the plaza and ‘park’ planned for both sides of the NFM even if this means reducing the footprint of the NFM. As planned they are token ‘pocket parks’.

Environment:
- A strict condition of the Stage 2 application should be mandated solar panel installation that will provide for 100% of the NFM’s electricity demand. This is not unreasonable given the large roof area and favourable shade-free orientation of the NFM.

- Dredging of the site to allow for construction of the car park will no doubt disturb sediment that contains high concentrations of heavy metals and carcinogenic hydrocarbons released in the bay from early industrial activity on the foreshore. These high risk substances will enter the water column and will be widely distributed causing undesirable impact to aquatic flora and fauna and also the public using the bay for recreation.

- The colour scheme for the NFM, although visually appealing in the various PR media, is a poor choice given the predictable detrimental impact of the bird life attracted to fish markets in any location. The exterior will deteriorate quickly and its future appearance can be easily modelled by examination of any white horizontal surface exposed at the existing FM.

- A strict condition of both applications should be the preservation of all Moreton Bay fig and Ironbark trees that line the northern boundary of Wentworth Park on PBR opposite the proposed site of the NFM.

Development proposal for existing FM site:
- Apparently there are new apartments planned for the site of the existing FM however a development application is not yet available for public exhibition. Why are no details available for the development of the existing site? This is a serious deficiency and calls into question the transparency and integrity of the planning process as the development of the existing FM site is inextricably linked to the current Stage 1 and 2 applications and cannot be considered as separate.

Alternative sites for the NFM:
- Given the serious issues arising from the planned relocation of the existing FM to the proposed site on PBR, alternative sites should be seriously considered. These should include:
~ building the NFM on the existing site, and
~ relocation to the White Bay precinct. This site is much better served by Victoria Rd, in regard to both private vehicle and public bus access, and the upcoming Metro West station at The Bays Precinct (White Bay). Any suggestion that the (currently optional) Metro West station at Pyrmont will service the proposed NFM on PBR is fanciful as it will be at least a 20 minute walk for most people.

I have been a regular shopper at the Fishmarkets for over 20 years. I agree it needs refurbishment. However I submit that the present site is by far the best location for the Fish Market and that additional logistical work and planning should be done in order to keep the Fishmarket operating while rebuilding is undertaken. This current location is far more suitable in terms of traffic and access then the proposed new site and has limited impact on traffic on Bridge Road and Wentworth Park Road. The main traffic problem that needs to be better managed is the parking of tour buses. I do not see any indication that this problem has been resolved in the new proposals. Using the current site also limits the need to extend the overshadowing of Blackwattle Bay (thereby limiting light to marine flora and fauna and affecting recent hard-won biodiversity gains) and the environmental contamination that would ensure as part of the new development.
However most importantly by keeping the Fishmarket in the current location would allow for a continuation of the foreshore park, with more open space and linkages to Wentworth Park. The images of the proposal that have been shown at the community consultation show a building hugely out of scale, destroying the natural ambience of the foreshore and surrounding parkland. This area urgently needs new open space amenity for the growing number of residents in surrounding new high rise not yet another speculative land development on Sydney's urban foreshores. I object to this DA and submit that this DA for the new Sydney Fish Market meets neither the needs of the fishmarket customers, tourists or residents. Only the developers - again.

My partner, Gay McKinley, and I both object to both DAs for the two stages of the new Sydney Fish Market (Stages 1 and 2) essentially because:
Living in close proximity to the existing Fish Market and as frequent visitors/shoppers there for 25 years, we have witnessed the congestion around both the ingress and egress of the markets made all the worse by the inadequate design of the present road design around the markets and Bridge Road intersections. The problem is bad enough on weekends but is greatly exacerbated over the Christmas and Easter holiday seasons. Considering that present car parking spaces appear to outnumber those being proposed (just 400) , the current proposal is ludicrous. It may be admirable to encourage walking and public transport but in reality private vehicles will remain a preferred mode of transport, particularly for those who are infirm, wheelchair bound or where there is no public transport. And, not to mention the busloads of foreign visitors. For those living in Glebe and adjacent suburbs, Bridge Road is a main thoroughfare to and out of the city as well as to neighbouring suburbs. At peak times it is congested, a situation that certain turn restrictions do not help. Now we learn it is going to take more traffic and be slowed by the addition of traffic signals. Nowhere in the proposal can we see where there is adequate turning space into and out of the markets to maintain the flow along Bridge Road. Will this too be controlled by traffic lights? God forbid. We also fear that parking in Glebe's residential streets will greatly increase. And, in addition, there is the proposal to erect an additional 2750 apartments with all the inherent problems that entails. Please let's have a world class Fish Market, one that is easy to access that more than adequately caters for all modes of transport including private vehicles. We have all seen what congestion has resulted in not allowing adequate parking around the Light Rail stations - all suffer but none more so than the residents. Thanking you for your time. David Jones and Gay McKinley.

I don't believe the Fish Markets need to be moved from the current site. Moving the Fish Markets will
- reduce foreshore access to the harbour
- any meaningful link between Wentworth Park and the harbour / Blackwattle Bay will not be possible
- further reduce open space (in this case open space over water).
From a funding perspective, I understand the reasoning is that building apartments on the existing site will help pay for the re-development, but I don't see why the existing site couldn't be used and apartments included above the re-developed fish market. I would however question the commercial viability of the project if it requires a large number of apartments to be build.