The new Sydney Fish Market - Stage 2

Planning and Assessment
Department of Planning, Industry and Environment
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Attention – Key Sites Assessments
RE SSD-8924 - The new Sydney Fish Market Concept and Stage 1
RE SSD – 8925 – the new Sydney Fish Market Stage 2
LETTER OF COMMENT
Dear Sir/Madam
I am a resident of Glebe living in Ferry Road close to the proposed site for the new Fish Markets. I generally support these two proposals which will provide the wider Sydney community with a long overdue world class venue but I am very concerned that the project as set out fails to resolve the longer term issues of Bridge Road and the natural connection from Wentworth Park to the new site. It also should incorporate the clean up one of the longstanding environmental challenges in our area – the drainage of the old cesspit swamp from Broadway to Blackwattle Bay.
The project should involve a major re-think of the Bridge Road alignment to avoid a repeat of the costly disaster which the overground rail line has been for Circular Quay. Clearly that project should have included the burying of the rail line to allow both an unimpeded view between the heart of the city and the harbour and the free flow of pedestrian traffic. Without some major adjustment, Bridge Road similarly will impact adversely on the flow between Wentworth Park ( and Broadway beyond) and the new Fish Markets. Action should be taken now to drop the level of Bridge Road for the length of the new Fish Markets and spanning it with 2 or 3 wide land bridges which would facilitate access from Wentworth Park. The lower level should also have direct access to the proposed underground parking. All of this should reduce the need for more traffic lights etc and free up traffic flows on Bridge Road. It might also entail some adjustments to local traffic flows into and out of Wentworth Park Road and Taylor Street but these could prove to be helpful impediments to the parking of Fish Market patrons spilling onto already overcrowded neighbouring Glebe streets such as ours in lower Ferry Road.
I would be happy to expand if required.

Yours sincerely

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.

Alongside my objection to the new Fish Market Concept and Stage 1 DA, in particular the intent to locate the new Fish Market away from the present site and next to the Blackwattle Bay Senior College and over Blackwattle Bay, I wish to object to the Stage 2 designs. I object to the encroachment over the Bay, the loss of light to the marine fauna and flora affecting biodiversity values and the likely resultant disturbing of toxic sediments which will also risk harming the fish species, molluscs and other species that are known in these waters. As a resident of the area, I am deeply concerned about the traffic congestion that will occur on an already busy road, especially having only one entrance to the site from Bridge Rd, not to mention an inevitable increase in parking in residential streets and impacts this may have on the next door school and access and amenity for students and teachers. Changes proposed to the road do not allow for a dedicated bike path either! This is a really busy commuter bike route during peak hour mornings. As a pedestrian I have not found ‘shared’ paths to be very successful in bike commuter routes. Will the tour buses which currently park everywhere, also be using these spaces, as there seems to be no other plan for them?
However, one of my strongest objections regards the loss of opportunity to have a unique natural amenity where Wentworth Park meets the Bay – an opportunity to restore some of the previous natural features and continue the Glebe Foreshore Walk in keeping with its scale and landscaping. The proposed Fish Market is out of scale, will cause major disruption to road users and residents and affect the health of the marine and other fauna now beginning to return to Blackwattle Bay.

I am concerned at the piece meal approach to development in the area. There should be a master plan for the whole Bay Precinct. Separating out the Fish Market development on a new site from the re-development of the old site (let alone all the other sites around the Bay Precinct) leads to poorer and less holistic outcomes.

My specific concern with this submission is I don't believe the Fish Markets needs 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.

I object to the relocation of the fish markets to its proposed new site along Bridge Rd, however i support the redevelopment of the fish markets in its current location.

My attached letter applies to both Stage 1 and Stage 2

My letter of objection applies to both Stages 1 and 2.

The proposed new FishMarket building should not be built on the Bridge Road site, over the water at Blackwattle Bay. The proposed development will reduce access to Harbour shore and block the visual and natural connection of Wentworth Parkland with the Harbour and Blackwattle Bay. The opportunity is now with Government to link the eastern side of the bay with the existing fishmarket site, with the construction and restoration of the natural inlet shoreline. The local community and wider community, who visit the area, will lose this natural connection, if the planned project goes ahead. We do not want, what is virtually a giant shopping centre, plonked on this delicate part of Blackwattle Bay. There is over 60,000 square metres of land on the existing market site which can be used for a new market and some housing. Profits for developers and attracting overseas visitors, are not the priority for our community. This is supposed to be a working Fish Market within a village style urban community. The proposed building is on the wrong site and contains too much commercial space unrelated to the needs of the community.
I strongly object to the current proposal as it will have detrimental effects on traffic, parking and social amenity in Glebe. The Harbour shores are precious and we can't allow this horrible and oversized building to be built over the such a delicate natural area. Restore the proposed site to a natural access for residents, and contain a redesigned market within the current fishmarket site.

I own a property approximately 200m from the proposed development and completely support the application in its entirety. The current fish market is rundown and an eyesore; It is underutilised by local residents due to the lack of quality public space surrounding the markets and is an embarrassment for local/international tourists. I strongly believe that the current proposal will provide significant cultural and economic benefits/opportunities, for nearby residents, Sydney residents and local/international tourists. The design appears to be well resolved and the iconic roof form directly responds to the waterfront locality and fish markets.

I am a long-term resident of Glebe and I strongly object to the current proposal for the new Sydney Fish Market.
The current proposal is a gross overdevelopment of the site. It is my view that the current Fish Market should remain on the site and be upgraded and the site re-utilised for this purpose. To not do so and to give it over to apartment buildings once again smacks of developer greed.
The removal of the concrete plant is a wonderful opportunity for the foreshore to be rehabilitated along the lines of the Blackwattle Bay area. The existing walkway should be continued and new green open space linking Glebe with Pyrmont and the waterfront with Wentworth Park should be created. Availability of parking and the impact of hugely increased traffic concerns me greatly. It is already very difficult for residents to find street parking and Bridge Road and St Johns Road are already regularly congested with non-local traffic. Parking will become impossible as the residential streets of Glebe will become free parking for the Fishmarkets. Any new development should match the other local malls as having at least 2 hour free parking.
I am also concerned that the new development is more like a shopping mall than a Fish market. With Broadway Shopping Centre and the new Tramsheds development we do not need another shopping mall in Glebe. It is much too big and polluting.
I am also very concerned about the impact of waste and pollution coming from the Fish Market and its visitors on the immediate area of Glebe and its foreshore. We already have a very bad rat problem but this will be totally out of control with the amount of food waste coming from the proposed development. Pretty artists impressions do not honestly portray the reality. There are no garbage trucks, overflowing waste bins and filthy waterways.
Please do not proceed with this proposal. It will be hugely detrimental to the local area.

Please see attachement.

I object to Sydney Fish Market being relocated to Blackwattle Bay. I object to NSW public land being sold for developement in order to finance the construction and relocation of a new building. see attachment

I object because I am concerned that the new Sydney Fish market is taking up foreshore space which should be available for greenspace or ordinary public activities. This is the prime space and should be usable for ordinary people and continue to be part of the foreshore walk. Why not use the original fish market space? I am also very concerned that stirring up that space will release toxic metals which could further affect the fish population which is only starting to recover. These are my major concerns. It is clear that the fishmarket needs to be remodelled but it seems very problematic to further prevent access to the water front and not to take the opportunity to make this area accessible as well as reducing the possible disturbance of the area.

Objections to the Sydney Fish Market redevelopment proposal

1. My first objection to the current proposal is that it is not a ‘redevelopment’ of the Sydney Fish Market at all, but a land grab by the Sydney Fish Market authority, together with the NSW Government, to move the existing Fish Market to another site at the head of Blackwattle Bay. This will involve occupying not one but two sites for up to four year – or longer. The notion of ‘redeveloping’ the existing site has been cast aside completely by the current proposal. No details, or even an outline, appears to be available for the use of the existing site of the Fish Market once the ‘new’ Sydney Fish Market is in operation. In the course of the proposal, it seems that it is taken for granted that the building will fundamentally alter the character of the Bay, renaming it ‘the Bays Market District (now Blackwattle Bay)…’
2. Following on from point 1 above, I think that a comprehensive plan was promised for the Bays Precinct. To my knowledge no such plan has been put forward. Such a plan would necessarily involve detailed proposals for the existing Fish Market site as well as adjacent sites to the East of Blackwattle Bay, the waterfront beneath the Anzac Bridge, the White Bay Power Station site, the former container wharves at Glebe Island, etc. I believe that one plan is to make this site available for high-rise development and I am appalled at this thought. It would add to traffic congestion, and put extra strain on the limited public transport in the area.
3. The scale of the current building proposed is far too big (gross floor area is variously given as 26,751 sq m, 30,000 sq m and even one refrerence to 40,000 sq m). The plans show the site under consideration to be out of scale with the Bay itself, extending well beyond the existing wharves out into Blackwattle Bay and from the public footpath and cycleway alongside the western edge of the bay to the access path of the current Fish Market on the eastern side.
4. The height for three above-ground levels is given as RL28.AHD. What seems clear is that the building height would exceed the height of the fig trees in Wentworth Park opposite the proposed building.
5. Far from allowing Wentworth Park to ‘better connect to the harbour’ I believe the proposed building would close off the park from the harbour, rendering Bridge Road an even greater barrier than it currently is. The claim that the two tiny open spaces on either side of the building allow ‘new views/vistas’ from Wentworth Park (shown on the plans as giant eyeballs!) over Blackwattle Bay is absurd.
6. There seems to be inadequate provision for traffic management to the site both during construction and once the building is complete. Access to the proposed building (opposite Wentworth Park Rd) appears to be completely inadequate and the impact on traffic along Bridge Rd not dealt with to my satisfaction in the proposal. The existing Fish Market has access to the major road network (Western distributor, accessing Anzac bridge), whereas Bridge Rd is already severely congested both morning and afternoon, particularly at the ‘choke point’ where the road goes under the light rail bridge as a single lane in each direction near Taylor Street. To suggest that the increased traffic generated by the proposed Fish Market in this location can be managed effectively, with a doubling of visitors within the space of a few years, is preposterous.
7. There appears to be inaequate provision for parking and it is therefore likely that surrounding streets in Glebe will suffer increased illegal parking and associated frustration for residents. The parking situation is already difficult and under this Fish Market proposal will deteriorate markedly.
I believe that this proposal needs significant modification and incorporation into a broader set of proposals for the Bays Precinct before it should be allowed to proceed.

The Department of Primary Industries has reviewed the proposal and advises that all permanent seawalls and foreshore structures must be fish friendly (refer to the Environmentally Friendly Seawalls Guidelines, OEH 2009) with the aim of increasing aquatic biodiversity in the area.
For more information please contact Sarah Conacher on [email protected].

Please refer attached submission.

I believe the markets are in need of an upgrade but object to the current proposal on the following grounds:
1. The site. The business case to relocate from the current site is not clearly justified. The current site has entry and access points that cause far less disruption than that planned under the proposal. If the current site is developed for apartments, this will create even more traffic and parking congestion, making traffic worse than has been modelled for the current proposal. Possible plans for the current site, must be factored in to the decision on this DA applying to the new site. In addition, the use of this proposed site means a significant lost opportunity to provide open space and access to the harbour that all Sydneysiders and visitors could enjoy.
2. Traffic congestion. As a local resident we continually suffer traffic bottlenecks regularly occurring on Bridge Road and surrounding streets especially during peak hour. It can take several changes of lights to turn right from Bridge Road into Wattle Street, often resulting in the right-hand turn lane traffic being banked back and overflowing into the other lanes. Trying to turn right into Wentworth Park Road from Bridge Road is almost impossible sometimes. Moving the markets to the proposed site, which has additional amenities and seeks to attract more visitors, even though traffic measures are planned, and there is an aim to encourage the use of public transport, will only make things worse. The government's own modelling suggests there will be at least 400 additional vehicles utilising Bridge Road to enter the car park during the week day peak period of 5 to 7pm, which is a 100% increase on current levels.
3. Parking in Glebe's residential streets. The proposal states that overflow of demand on the car park will be managed but these measures cannot be guaranteed. I live within 10 minutes walk of the current site, and will be 5 minutes from the new site. Parking issues already occur in my street from time to time even though timed parking limits apply. These limits are rarely policed by council inspectors, and it is expected additional cars will seek to park in my street and other nearby streets, and this will not be actively policed, causing problems for local residents who will not be able to park within a reasonable distance from their homes. I am especially concerned about the impact of this issue over the weekends.
4. Environmental. If building on the proposed site takes place this will disturb existing toxic sediments, and contamination will place at risk the 26 species of fish and over 50 species of molluscs, starfish, sponges, oysters and macroalgae that have been identified. Significant costs will be incurred in remediation.