The new Sydney Fish Market - Concept and Stage 1

This is theft of the harbour.

NOISE IMPACT
The Lombard Estate where I live has not been listed has as a potentially affected receiver so no measurement has been undertaken of noise impacts from this project.

My unit in the Lombard Estate is on a hill immediately above the proposed project. As with all units in the Estate with one exception it has no air conditioning. This means most days the balcony doors and windows are required to be open to allow cooling inside. As with a number of residents of the Lombard Estate I am retired and at home during the day.
The proposal states "Acoustic impacts There will be an increase in noise above background levels associated with the construction and operation of the development." This will affect my quality of life during construction.

The current fish market site is currently very noisy and there is every expectation the completed project will also be very noisy so the noise nuisance will be ongoing. Also the additional traffic will increase traffic noise.

The Body Corporate has a policy requiring a bylaw to add air conditioning which it so far hasn't allowed because of the visual impacts on the building so it will not be possible to mitigate this nuisance and allow doors and windows to be closed.

As well as affecting my quality of life, this noise nuisance will materially affect the value of my unit.

AIR QUALITY
The project will affect air quality. "The main potential sources of air emissions from the new Sydney Fish Market were identified as odour, volatile organic compounds (VOC), products of combustion and particulates. " As noted above the requirement to keep my doors and windows open to allow cooling means I will be impacted by these compounds and odours. This will affect my quality of life and possibly my health.

VIEWS
While the new proposal is more visually attractive than the concrete works , it is bland and uninteresting (unlike the original concept design prize winner). However the major impact will be the redevelopment of the old fish market site with apartment and office towers. Originally my unit had views of the harbour bridge however the two casinos have blocked. The residual view however will be impacted leading to material loss in the value of the unit.

Refer to attachment

I am a member of Glebe Rowing Club (GRC), an amateur, volunteer based rowing club that has operated on the water of Blackwattle Bay since 1879. The Bay is our home and we rely on safe water conditions for our 150 members to continue to use the water.
I support the overall Fish Markets development as a positive for the local community and Sydney residents and visitors. It is an amazing opportunity to open up the land around Blackwattle Bay for use by the community.

I object to some key important aspects of the proposed development and strongly urge:
- improved analysis of the impact on water traffic be undertaken and factored into the design and Master Plan;
- modifications be made to the design of the Eastern Wharf to ensure the safety of rowers; and
- the implementation of necessary safety provisions during the early works project into the construction contract to ensure the safety of water users during the long construction phase.

I have provided more detail on these concerns in this attachment prepared by my club.

I, like many Glebe (& Sydney) residents, support the proposal for a redevelopment of the Sydney Fish Markets on its current location. However, I have grave concerns for what is now envisaged/outlined in the proposed redevelopment on the new market site.

My objections are as follows:

Environmental
Building on the proposed site entails disturbing existing sediments known to contain numerous toxins. The inherent financial costs of such an operation together with contamination risks to our (heartening) re-establishing marine life in Blackwattle Bay far outweigh any proposed benefits.

Disregard for equality of access for people with mobility issues
I have a physical disability and use an electric wheelchair for mobility purposes. A large building encroaching on potentially linked paved open space around the harbour foreshore can only be described as restrictive and exclusive. The foreshore is to be accessed only by entering the building, using the stairs and/or lifts, to reach the promenade. I do not experience lifts as providing access. In fact, they can be exclusionary, often placed in corners of reduced visibility away from where people gather. Sometimes heavy or closed doors are another barrier to reaching a lift. Lifts can also be in disrepair if not well maintained.
The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 requires that people with disabilities have independent, equitable and dignified access on the same terms as people without disability. What I have seen outlined in the current redevelopment proposal does not adequately address access design standards. I believe all new major developments ought to reflect design excellence in all aspects of its proposal, including location, waste management & sustainability, and equitable access.

Indifference to safeguarding/enhancing the natural amenity of the area
The documentation wrongly claims this proposal provides unrestricted access to the foreshore. Access is compromised by poor decision-making be it re-location (inappropriate), positioning (encroaching upon open bay waters), design choices (e.g. stairs, lifts), restrictive features (i.e. access limited to a promenade)
We have here an opportunity to consolidate, enhance and link up our current harbour-side green spaces; the foreshore walkways sweeping around Blackwattle Bay could provide a spacious, continuous corridor that opens out onto the tree-aligned Wentworth Park space and, more broadly, link Glebe to Rozelle and Pyrmont communities. This current development proposal has abandoned the long-held vision of acquiring/reclaiming harbour shoreline areas as open accessible green spaces for public use.

Parking Issues & Traffic Congestion
The strategy to promote the use of public transport/maintain car spaces at current level is positive. However, major concerns remain as to impact of excessive demand for parking in already stretched residential streets of Glebe & Pyrmont. The bottleneck shall only intensify at the main entry/exit point to the proposed site. The modelling cited throughout the development proposals lacks any standards of validity given projections failure to address whatever (major) redevelopment is proposed for the current fish market location.

THIS IS NOT A COMMENT BUT AN OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSAL
Contamination of Blackwattle Bay due to toxic sediment at the bottom of the bay
Loss of visual connection of Blackwattle Bay to Wentworth Park
Loss of vistas from Glebe Point to The State Heritage listed viaduct in Wentworth Park and the Central Station clock tower
Increase size of Fish Markets (FM) into a mega shopping centre with increased operating hours will increase noise and traffic congestion into the narrow streets of Glebe
Increase in operating hours will cause traffic chaos for patrons trying to go the FM to dine during peak hour on an already congested road system
Lack of public transport to the area, the closest light rail stop will be the Glebe stop which is completely inadequate for the disabled and people with mobility issues
There is a reduced parking spaces in comparison to current levels available which will cause massive parking and traffic issues in the area
Many people in Glebe and along the foreshore walk will be denied the current views that they enjoy of the city due to the proposed 2750 apartments
to be built on the current FM site
The loss of recreational space ie/ Blackwattle Bay with the new structure, rowing, fishing and general enjoyment of water views
People with mobility issues and disabilities will not be able to continue to the bays walk path on a level path due to steps and having to
find lifts to access the water front in front the proposed FM
When the FM is closed all people will denied access along the foreshore and will have to walk along Pyrmont Bridge Rd
The noise from the new operation will impact greatly on those living on the Glebe escarpment looking down to the bay
There is only a lay-by for buses therefore they will be forced to park in the local streets until their passengers are ready to be picked up
the narrow streets and street trees of Glebe will not be able to cope with this intrusion
Why not build the FM at White Bay close to the proposed rail way station and in an area that is easier to access by car and in an area that is in series need of re-vitalisation and
incorporate into the repair of the Glebe Island swing bridge as a major foot and bike link to this new precinct
Why is the NSW Gov failing to grasp the great opportunity in creating a major new inner city precinct instead of this half baked scatter approach to urban design?
What a mess

Please see attachment

Development Application for the new Sydney Fish Market - Concept and Stage 1
 
The proposed relocation of the Sydney Fish Market (SFM) provides a number of issues which do not appear to have been adequately addressed by the documents published as part of the DA. These include concerns regarding the environment, parking and traffic congestion, redevelopment of the current site as well as the broader impact of the anticipated increase in visitors.

There appears to be no Master Plan for the Bays Precinct for strategic and coordinated planning. This uncoordinated approach provides for no consideration of other developments and capacity to complement each development. With the proposed retail developments within the ‘new’ SFM, my understanding is that this development is inconsistent with pre-existing zoning of the Bays Precinct.
 
Environmental concerns
I understand that previous environmental studies have indicated concerns over toxic chemicals, including heavy metals, in the sediment under the proposed building which would have a significantly negative impact on the local bay, and potentially broader harbour areas, if disturbed. Apart from any impact on the local human population, these have the potential to significantly damage the various species (over 70?) currently inhabiting the bay. I note that other submissions quote data from PhD study by Becky Morris, in her 2016 PhD Thesis, Retrofitting Biodiversity, (unpublished PhD, available at the University of Sydney library). Given that the DA states ‘it is recommended that further site investigation activities be undertaken prior to the commencement of any works that will result in disturbance of the sediments’ it would seem imperative that before any definitive plans are approved much investigation of the site and issues related to contamination need to be explored so that the potential threat can be better understood and any remediation undertaken.

Traffic and parking
The DA estimates three million people a year visit the SFM and that this number will double with the proposed redevelopment.
 
There is already congestion and, at times, parking problems with the current site. With the proposed redevelopment these problems are likely to increase significantly and while ‘suggestions’ are made and ‘options’ identified, no firm answers are provided as to how these could be adequate dealt with. There is also no realistic consideration given to the very significant high rise residential developments being proposed for the local area. Given the number of dwellings proposed, although this is extremely difficult to identify with any certainty, there are likely to be even greater traffic congestion generated in a relatively small area.

The traffic modelling, while only a projection, appears to indicate at least 400 additional vehicles utilising Bridge Road to enter parking facilities during weekdays with further traffic from taxis and other such transport unaccounted for. Verbal advice from government staff attending community meetings indicates that the number of parking spaces will remain the same as on the current site(417) although I can find no written confirmation of that. This implies that there is likely to be a significant overflow of cars probably seeking ‘street parking’ in the local areas causing problems for residents who already can find parking a problem at times. The increase in tourism is also likely to increase the number of buses dropping off and picking up passengers in Bridge Road. The new SFM it is proposed that “once passengers are dropped off, coaches will be required to park and wait off site on nearby streets.” (Appendix 11, 8.3.1 p.81). Again, verbal advice from staff involved in the DA developments attending community meetings indicated that excess vehicles would be able to park in the area of Miller Street in Pyrmont. This seems a very ad hoc approach to such a significant issue. The ‘management plan’ which, it is suggested, will deal with these problems of vehicle ‘overflow’ provides no guarantee nor does it account for ‘human behaviour’.

It is not clear what the statement “key intersections in the vicinity of the new SFM site will operate at the same level of service compared to existing conditions” means. As the number of visitors, and probably traffic, will potentially double, how can the ‘same level of service’ possibly deal with the new situation regardless of new traffic signals. The DA forecasts increases in traffic in both AM and PM peak hours as well as over 30% increase at weekends. It would appear that traffic heading west on Bridge Road will also be able to use a turning lane to enter the SFM causing further, potential, traffic ‘back-up’. The DA acknowledges that weekend demand will exceed the available on-site capacity by approximately 80 car spaces during the middle of the day and that during major events, for example Christmas and Easter, parking demand will increase further.
 
While increased parking spaces within the SFM may provide a solution, a much better one would be firm commitments by the NSW Government to significant improvements/increases in public transport including buses, ferries and light rail. For example, while a pier for a ferry stop is proposed there is no firm commitment by Government to provide such a service.
 
Less than 10% of the fish catch arrives by water but it is not clear how, given the anticipated increase in traffic, the remaining catch delivered by commercial vehicles has been accounted for. As shown in the photograph on the front of one of the Deloitte Access Economics publications, there are a large number of delivery trucks accessing the SFM. Appendix 11, clause 4.10.4, p.44, states that, over the course of a typical weekday, heavy vehicles (Gross vehicle mass or aggregate trailer mass of more than 4.5 tonnes) were found to comprise approximately 13% of total traffic entering and exiting the site.

The promenade
The current foreshore walk, despite the speeding cyclists many of whom pay little attention to the recommended 10 km limit and, having been run over by one, seem to pay little attention to the safety and well-being of pedestrians, is excellent. However, the proposed extension through the SFM does not seem to adhere to requirements regarding those with disabilities given the the stairs and lifts which some will need to use. How can this possibly be considered equitable and ‘sharing on the same terms as people without disabilities’; it implies that those with disabilities are of secondary importance to the ‘style’ of the building as determined by the designers/architects.
 
Appendix 17, Accessibility Compliance Report, refers to the intention of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1992 - ‘The DDA objectives focus on the provision of equitable, independent, and dignified access to services, facilities and premises for people with mobility, sensory and cognitive disability. The DDA makes it is unlawful to discriminate against people on the grounds of disability.’
 
Loss of amenity
The Environmental Impact Statement Overview indicates, in one of its diagrams on page 10, that there are ‘new views of Blackwattle Bay from Wentworth Park’. At the risk of being somewhat flippant, that is like the stereotypical real estate agent statement of ‘harbour views’: if you lean far enough out of the window and peer round you might just get a glimpse of water - if you’re lucky! The building would be 238 metres long and and 25.5 m high and will almost completely block view of the Bay from almost the entire length of Wentworth Park.

The Stage 1 DA states that ‘the proposal will allow for greater views of Blackwattle Bay...from the proposed public domain area. Currently these areas are not accessible as a result of the concrete batching plan and the former Jones Coal Loader.’ The site may not allow public access but, in fact, there are probably better views of the bay available now than there are likely to be with the proposed development.
 
This Government has, potentially, a wonderful opportunity to provide a world class site which could be an excellent tourism attraction as well as an incredible asset to the local community. It could enhance the local area, provide world class entertainment and retail opportunities as well as preserving and enhancing the facilities that the fish market already provides - given some further thought and planning!

Please find the Glebe Rowing Club submission in the attached document.

1205/21 Cadigal Ave Pyrmont 2009
SUBMISSION RE RE-LOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION NEW SYDNEY FISH MARKET 12/11/2019
I object strongly to the suggested site for the new Sydney fish markets on following grounds:
(1) TRAFFIC
The location along the Blackwattle Bay foreshore will increase traffic congestion along Bridge Road and the three worst traffic pinch points will remain;: Bridge Rd and Wattle Street (to/from CBD, Harbour Bridge and eastern suburbs),Bridge & Bank St (Anzac Bridge, Pyrmont, CBD and presently SFM), and Bridge & Harris (Pyrmont, CBD, Harbour Bridge, Ultimo & eastern suburbs).
Then to this often-congested Bridge Road traffic, the new Fish Markets would add at least 500 daily SFM Bridge Road ingresses/egresses.
Accommodation for pedestrians is not carefully addressed
The provision of parking doesn’t allow for ANY INCREASE although predictions are for hugely increased visitors. It must be assumed the 3,000,000 additional visitors will have to arrive by public transport. What public transport exactly? !
(2) Encroaching on Blackwattle Bay & parkland
I object to the idea that it is OK to cover a huge segment of Blackwattle Bay (approx. 40,000 square metres) With increased population density the city must keep its open spaces – and this includes water space – space for vistas, space for boats (the dragon boats ,the rowers , the tinnies!)
I object to the threat of losing the row of large old fig trees along Bridge Road and the threat of losing some of the park land as well
The height of the proposed fish market building will further compromise existing cross views between Wentworth Park and Anzac Bridge.
(3) Piecemeal development, and not an integrated development.
The Greater Sydney Planning Commission (GSC) in its recent review of this broad precinct concluded that emphasis should be given to place management rather than project management.
The same theme was resolved at successive state government Bays Precinct forums conducted over several years; the need for integrated rather than piecemeal development solutions.
And the same request was made by the Blackwattle Cove Coalition (BCC). This body was formed by representatives of local community groups from Glebe, Ultimo and Pyrmont.
These same conclusions appear to have been ignored by Infrastructure NSW which is blatantly ignoring so many of the above processes and consultations – not to mention a shocking way to approach re-development in a major city
We are being told nothing of possible plans for redevelopment of crown land presently occupied and leased by SFM and how such eventual developments may integrate with the SFM and beyond.

Emily Bullock
Email; [email protected]

Submission by Emily Bullock on
Stage 1, SSD 8924, Concept Development Application and early works
Stage 2, SSD 8925, Construction and operation of a new Fish Market

These documents are incomplete and complex.
Work should not go ahead until more details have been confirmed. The community cannot make judgements on a document with so many holes in it.

The new fish market is an oversized building in the wrong place.

There is no comparison with the expense of building on the contaminated site over the water, with a clean site at somewhere else like Glebe Island. I ask how much extra will this folly cost the taxpayer?

The building is very large, blocking the vista of the ANZAC Bridge form Wentworth Park. The public from all over Sydney enjoys this view when on the light rail and travelling on Pyrmont Bridge Road. Why are fish market users (mostly tourist I believe) getting preferential treatment and the uninterrupted view of the bridge? I am a local and a user of the park I wish to enjoy the new outlook over the water, which has recently been restored to all Sydneysiders.
People on the Anzac bridge can now enjoy the view back to Wentworth Park, but only until this horrendous building is built.

I have been to a few of your “Consultation Events” and have never received any response to my concerns about the placement and size of this building. Why has this unsuitable site been selected? I have been informed numerous times that the building will not extend beyond the existing wharves, but you are unable to produce a map the shows me that.
Also I have been assured by Urban Growth Staff that the height of the new building will not be higher than the fig trees in Wentworth Park. The drawing in the document do not make these issues clear. All the drawing are vague. It is a poorly prepared ad hoc document.

Bay Environment
You talk about the environmental kudos of the building but fail to satisfy me that the environment within Blackwattle Bay will be protected. Fish and shellfish have recently returned to the bay. How will they be protected from the disturbance caused by the construction? Where is the sedimentation and erosion plan?

Parking and Traffic
At one of the meeting justifying the construction I was informed that the predicted number of people visiting the market would double from 3 to 6 million. That means double the present number of trucks, cars, taxis etc. You boldly say “people can use the light rail,” but that is working at full capacity now. The proposed underground car park will be the same as the present fish markets car park yet you predict double the visitors. So the local streets will be crammed with workers’ cars, and shoppers’ cars. The DA claims that the traffic will only increase 5%. Where does this percentage come from? I predict that there will be more than 5% increase in the staff at the fish markets needing long-term parking and your DA does not address this issue.

School
There is a high school almost next door to the proposed markets. The DA has not looked into how the noise and dust at the construction stage will affect the students and staff. When the markets are operating, how will the smell be controlled?

Cyclists
Cyclists use Pyrmont Bridge Road constantly. Where are they going to go when the traffic expands when it is being constructed? And when the numerous trucks deliver the fish from the airport and the south coast? I believe that 90% of the fish comes to the fish market by truck – does the fish markets even have to be on the coast?

Noise
Proposed traffic lights on the corner of Wentworth Park Rd and Pyrmont Bridge Rd will have large truck stopping and starting outside residences on these streets and all times of the night. The buzzer for pedestrians will be going 24 hours. Residents have not been considered.
The operating hours are until late even though I was informed at your consulting meetings that the hours of the new market were to be the same as the old market. How many alcohol licenses will be issued?
Patrons will be noisy when walking from and especially to the light rail, Glebe Point Rd and to Broadway after drinking.

Business
We are told that the Fish industry is thriving. Will this continue? Isn’t overfishing becoming an issue? Has the possible collapse of the fishing industry been considered? You are planning a gigantic building.

All of Blackwattle Bay
Where is the overview? What will the bay look like after the West connex is completed? What are the plans for Glebe Island area? What will happen to the old fish market site? (Rumored 2,500 flats) Why not build the new fish market at the White Bay power station site? The whole area should be being discussed. Not taking a broad overview of the whole area fails the whole community and the state. This proposed building will immediately become an eyesore as it blocks views and is unsympathic to the gentle relationships other building have to the bay. The soft leafy features of the nearby school and the two historic boathouses will be overwhelmed. Wentworth Park will be enclosed compromised and demeaned. Quiet areas of Glebe will over come by noise and traffic. The proposed fish market will cause great grief in the community.

It should be shelved until a better design and position is sort.

see attachment

see attachment

Our major concerns relate to:
TRANSPORT, TRAFFIC, LOCAL PARKING, AND PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE FORESHORE:
The new Fish Market is to be relocated to Bridge Road from its current site, a busy road from the city through Glebe to a number of suburbs with little real consideration for the capacity of public transport or the impact on traffic or local parking or walking and public access to the foreshore.
Once the new Sydney Fish Market is constructed, visitor numbers are expected to double to 6 million a year but there is no plan for major additional local public transport improvements. The plan lists public transport options as:
o A single new on-demand ferry stop - this ferry only has the capacity to carry 60 passengers and will not be able to accommodate a majority of new visitors.
o Existing three light rail stops - light rail services are already often at or over capacity especially through Pyrmont into the city.
o New, undescribed bus routes – the Environmental Impact Statement lists that this will be ‘investigated’ but provides no detail or commitment.
o Planned Sydney Metro stop at White Bay – this stop is over 30 minutes’ walk away and doesn’t provide a realistic transport option for most visitors.
• 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.

The new Sydney Fish Market should be built on the existing site as the new location restricts public access to the harbour and the motivation for moving is simply to profit from the development of thousands of new apartments on the old site.
• The current design severely restricts public access to the foreshore in Glebe. The building has been billed as part of a day-long walking experience from Woolloomooloo through Darling Harbour to Glebe but the foreshore walk actually forces pedestrians into the Fish Market building rather than continuing outside.
This public consultation does not consider in any way the proposed development of over 2,700 new apartments on the site of the old Sydney Fish Market. This development will be necessitated by the relocation and redevelopment of the current Fish Market and must be considered alongside it so the cumulative impacts can be established.

LOSS OF AMENITY – We finally have the opportunity to deliver a unique natural amenity where Wentworth Park meets The Bay. The Government leaves no legacy to those generations if its short term motivation is speculative land development coupled with building over water and it shows once again that it is governed by economic considerations rather than quality of life for its citizens.

I realise there is a lot of community opposition to the project which is why I want my name withheld. But I feel it is very exciting, that it will make water access to this area viable, that it will allow vendors to keep trading while it is being built, that building apartments on the site to pay for it makes good economic sense, that it will be a world class building replacing an ugly streetscape, that it will be marvellous to be able to walk to buy our fish. I think the fierce opposition to it is petty and short-sighted. How many major cities have people driving to their fish markets? E.g Billingsgate in London Les Halles in Paris? We will now have good infrastructure with ferries and trains to enable people to come. I can’t wait for it to be built!

This project provides an opportunity to continue the rejuvenation of one of Sydney Harbour's most underdeveloped bays. Whilst I acknowledge the historical links of Blackwattle Bay to its former industrial beginnings, the new Sydney Fish Market will enhance the head of the bay and at the same time retain the market's unique position as the only authentic and truly working fish markets in the world.

I first commenced working at the original fish market site in 1981 (current car park). Shortly after starting, those who had worked at the market and adjoining businesses often referred to Black Wattle Bay as the Ugly Duckling of Sydney Harbour. The New Sydney Fish Market will transform the Ugly Duckling to a wondrous and graceful Swan that Sydney, NSW and Australia will be proud to call its own.

I am a member of Glebe Rowing Club (GRC), an amateur, volunteer based rowing club that has operated on the water of Blackwattle Bay since 1879. The Bay is our home and we rely on safe water conditions for our 150 members to continue to use the water.

I support the overall Fish Markets development as a positive for the local community and Sydney residents and visitors. It is an amazing opportunity to open up the land around Blackwattle Bay for use by the community.

I object to some important aspects of the proposed development and request:

- improved analysis of the impact on water traffic be undertaken and factored into the design and Master Plan;

- modifications be made to the design of the Eastern Wharf to ensure the safety of rowers; and

- the implementation of necessary safety provisions during the early works project into the construction contract to ensure the safety of water users during the long construction phase.

I have provided more detail on these concerns in this attachment prepared by my club.

I object to this project on the basis of
1.incresed visitor number & project has not shown that the present transport systems will be in any way sufficient
2 Increased car movements & need for parking in surrounding streets - already at capacity.
3 insufficient car parking on site -no increas from previous site
4 environmental impact - due to disturbing heavy metals
4No forshore walk way on site
A better proposal would be a new Fishmarket on the present site & full public access to the Blackwattle Bay forshore for walking,biking & passive recreation

we recognise the overdue need for the redevelopment to occur