Environmental Assessment Report

Project Application

White Bay Cruise Passenger Terminal

Wharf No 5, White Bay

Submitted to
Department of Planning
On Behalf of Sydney Ports Corporation

September 2010 „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Contents
Executive Summary vi

1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Overview of Project Application Sought 1
1.2 Strategic Project Need 3
1.3 Existing Cruise Operations 5
1.4 Environmental Assessment and Approvals Process 6
1.5 Project Team 7

2.0 Site Analysis 8

2.1 Site Location and Context 8
2.2 Land Ownership and Legal Description 9
2.3 Existing Zoning 9
2.4 Existing Development 10
2.5 Surrounding Development 15

3.0 Planning Framework and Context 19

3.1 Relevant Commonwealth Legislation 19
3.2 NSW Legislation 20
3.3 Strategic Plans 22
3.4 Statutory Planning 24

4.0 Consultation 31
4.1 Bays Precinct Consultation 33

5.0 Project Description 35

5.1 Project Application Overview 35
5.2 Cruise Passenger Terminal at WB5 36
5.3 White Bay Wharf No.4 – Temporary Terminal for 2nd Cruise Passenger
Ship 45
5.4 Construction Activities 47

6.0 Environmental Assessment 48

6.1 Director General’s Environmental Assessment Requirements 48
6.2 Site Suitability and Implications of Proposed Land Uses 48
6.3 Noise Impact 49
6.4 Traffic and Access 61
6.5 Visual Impacts 69
6.6 European Heritage 79
6.7 Air Quality 83
6.8 Contamination 88
6.9 Stormwater 89
6.10 Other Issues 90
6.11 Construction Management 93
6.12 Environmental Sustainability 93
6.13 Environmental Risk Assessment 95

7.0 Draft Statement of Commitments 98

7.1 Construction Environmental Management Plan 98
7.2 Operational Environmental Management Plan 102

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 08244 i

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Contents
8.0 Project Justification 108

9.0 Conclusion 109

Figures
1 Figure 1 – Inbound and outbound passenger process 5
2 Figure 2 – Locality Plan 8
3 Figure 3 – Land Title 9
4 Figure 4 – Aerial photograph of the site 11
5 Figure 5 – Photograph of WB5 taken from an elevated position south of White
Bay showing the context of the site and its proximity to the city 11
6 Figure 6 – Photograph of the site looking North West across White Bay from
Pyrmont Point Park 12
7 Figure 7 – Photograph of the site looking West across Darling Harbour from
Barangaroo 12
8 Figure 8 – Photograph of the large steel framed shed on site, taken from Grafton
Street 13
9 Figure 9 – Photograph of the service road on site located between existing
building and sites northern boundary. 13
10 Figure 10 – Photograph of WB4 taken from next to White Bay Park 14
11 Figure 11 – Photograph of the existing internal port road which connects to
Roberts Street 14
12 Figure 12 – Photograph of Grafton Street, looking north easterly from the corner
of Adolphus Street 15
13 Figure 13 – Photograph of Grafton Street, looking north-west 16
14 Figure 14 – Existing view south along Adolphus Street 16
15 Figure 15 – Residential development to the west of the site (setback from WB3).
17
16 Figure 16 – Location of Heritage Items in the vicinity (Source: City Plan Heritage)
18
17 Figure 17 – Site layout 40
18 Figure 18 – WB5 Vehicle Access Routes 43
19 Figure 19 – Photograph of a temporary terminal at DH5 46
20 Figure 20 – Illustration of the interior of the style of temporary terminal 46
21 Figure 21 – Residential noise receivers 50
22 Figure 22 – Existing view looking south along Adolphus Street, Balmain 71
23 Figure 23 – Montage view looking south along Adolphus Street, Balmain 71
24 Figure 24 – Montage view from Adolphus Street, Balmain (with cruise ship) 71
25 Figure 25 – Existing view looking south west along Grafton Street 72
26 Figure 26 – Montage view looking south west along Grafton Street 72
27 Figure 27 – Montage view looking south west along Grafton Street (with cruise
ship) 72
28 Figure 28 – Montage view looking south west along Grafton Street (with 2 cruise
ships) 72

ii JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Contents
29 Figure 29 – Existing view from White Bay Park 73
30 Figure 30 – Montage view from White Bay Park 73
31 Figure 31 – Montage view from White Bay Park (with cruise ship) 73
32 Figure 32 – Existing view from Pyrmont Park 74
33 Figure 33 – Montage view from Pyrmont Park 74
34 Figure 34 – Montage view from Pyrmont Park (with cruise ship) 75
35 Figure 35 – Montage view from Pyrmont Park (with 2 cruise ships) 75
36 Figure 36 – Existing view from Barangaroo 76
37 Figure 37 – Montage view from Barangaroo 76
38 Figure 38 – Montage view from Barangaroo (with cruise ship) 76
39 Figure 39 – Montage view from Barangaroo (with 2 cruise ships) 76
40 Figure 40 – Existing view from Anzac Bridge 77
41 Figure 41 – Montage view from Anzac Bridge (with cruise ship) 77
42 Figure 42 – Montage view from Anzac Bridge (with 2 cruise ships) 77

Tables
1 Table 1 – Forecast monthly cruise passenger ship arrivals for DH5, then White
Bay (between July 2010 and June 2012). 5
2 Table 2 – Relevant provisions Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No26 – City
West 9
3 Table 3 – Relevant Provisions of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.2626
4 Table 4 – SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) matters for consideration 27
5 Table 5 – Glebe Island/ White Bay Master Plan 28
6 Table 6 – Planning for Entertainment Guidelines 30
7 Table 7 – Authority Consultation Summary 31
8 Table 8 – WB5 Numeric Overview 39
9 Table 9 – Director General’s Environmental Assessment Requirements 48
10 Table 10 – Adopted RBL and LAeq (Source: Wilkinson Murray) 49
11 Table 11 – Operational Noise Criteria (Source: Wilkinson Murray) 50
12 Table 12 – Sound Power Levels (Source Wilkinson Murray) 51
13 Table 13 – Assessment against Intrusiveness Noise Criteria (Source Wilkinson
Murray) 52
14 Table 14 – Assessment against Amenity Noise Criteria (Source Wilkinson Murray)
53
15 Table 15 – Assessment against Intrusiveness Noise Criteria (Source Wilkinson
Murray) 55
16 Table 16 – Two Way Traffic Movements (6:30am to 4:30pm) associated with a
cruise ship visit at Darling Harbour 61
17 Table 17 – Intersection Analysis Results 63
18 Table 18 – Intersection Analysis Results from Cumulative traffic Assessment65
19 Table 19 – Intersection Analysis Results from Cumulative Traffic Assessment for
Functions 66
20 Table 20 – Summary of impacts on specific items 81

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 08244 iii

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Contents
21 Table 21 – Maximum predicted ground level pollutant concentrations for
Scenarios 1 to 4. 86
22 Table 22 – Summary of Infrastructure and Utilities Provision 91
23 Table 23 – Environmental Risk Matrix 95
24 Table 24 – Environmental Risk Matrix 96
25 Table 25 – Environmental Management Commitments – Design and Construction
98
26 Table 26 – Environmental Management Measures - Operational 102

Appendices
A Director General’s Environmental Assessment Requirements
NSW Department of Planning

B White Bay Site Diagram

Sydney Ports Corporation

C Design Statement and Architectural Drawings

Johnson Pilton Walker

D Noise Impact Assessment (Cruise Activities)

Wilkinson Murray Pty Ltd

E Noise Impact Assessment (Function Activities)

Renzo Tonin & Associates Pty ltd

F Transport Impact Assessment

Halcrow

G Statement of Heritage Impact

City Plan Heritage

H Air Quality
Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd

I Services Infrastructure Report

Lincolne Scott Australia Pty ltd

J Contamination
Consulting Earth Scientists

iv JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Statement of Validity
Prepared under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979
(as amended)

Environmental Assessment prepared by

Name Tim Ward

Qualifications BSc MEnvMgt

Address Level 7, 77 Berry Street, North Sydney

In respect of Project Application for construction and operation of a

Cruise Passenger Terminal at White Bay
Project Application
Applicant name Sydney Ports Corporation

Applicant address Level 4, 20 Windmill Street, Walsh Bay, Sydney

Land to be developed Lot 1 DP 875201, Lot 4 DP 875201, Lot 10 DP 1008507,

Lot 3 DP 879549, Lot 1 DP 1063454, Lot 1 DP 1035872,
Lot 1 DP 542648, Lot 12 DP 603148, Lot 8 DP 1001928, Lot
100 DP 1017367, Lot 10 DP 1065973 and RTA road corridor
(The Crecsent).

Proposed development Cruise Passenger Terminal facilities

Environmental Assessment An Environmental Assessment (EA) is attached

Certificate I certify that I have prepared the content of this

Environmental Assessment and to the best of my
knowledge:
ƒ It is in accordance with the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act and Regulation.
ƒ It is true in all material particulars and does not, by its
presentation or omission of information, materially
mislead.
Signature

Name Tim Ward

Date 30 September 2010

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 v

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Executive Summary
Purpose of this Report
This Project Application and Environmental Assessment Report is submitted to the
Minister for Planning to fulfil the Environmental Assessment Requirements issued
by the Director General for a Cruise Passenger Terminal (CPT) at Wharf No. 5
(WB5) White Bay, Sydney within the area shown in Figure 2.

The Proponent
The proponent of the development is Sydney Ports Corporation.

Background
Sydney Harbour currently has two dedicated passenger terminals; the Overseas
Passenger Terminal (OPT) at Circular Quay and the east Darling Harbour (now
known as Barangaroo) No. 5 Cruise Passenger Terminal which is currently located
at Wharf No. 5 but was until June 2010 located at Wharf No. 8. Occasionally,
other berths at east Darling Harbour, and berths at White Bay and Glebe Island
have been used to accommodate a third or fourth cruise vessel at a cargo wharf
when the need arose.

In April 2008 the NSW Government decided to temporarily relocate the Cruise
Passenger Terminal from Darling Harbour Wharf 8 to White Bay Wharf 4/5 for a
period of five years.

In December 2008 the NSW Government decided to permanently relocate the

Darling Harbour No. 8 Cruise Passenger Terminal to facilitate and enhance the
Barangaroo redevelopment project. A Passenger Cruise Terminal (PCT) Steering
Committee was formed in May 2009 and reported in November 2009, that
Sydney requires three (3) Cruise Passenger Terminals to ensure transport growth
in the industry, and that one of these terminals will be a replacement terminal for
the existing Darling Harbour No. 8 (Barangaroo) Cruise Passenger Terminal west of
Sydney Harbour Bridge. The Committee’s studies included a detailed options
analysis for a new Cruise Passenger Terminal concluding that the preferred option
was the construction of a new purpose built Cruise Passenger Terminal facility at
WB5 with secondary berthing at WB4.

The PCT Steering Committee found that the Australian cruise industry grew by
18% per annum between 2002 and 2008, with growth forecast to continue over
the next 15 years. However, new passenger cruise ships are expected to increase
in size, so growth in the number of cruise ships visiting the proposed CPT at White
Bay is likely to be restricted in the longer term by the height limitation of the
Sydney Harbour Bridge. Based on the predicted growth forecasts and the height
limitation of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, it is expected that approximately 170
cruise ships per year could use the proposed CPT, approximately two-thirds of
these during the spring and summer months, with approximately one-third during
autumn and winter.

On 20 December 2009 the Premier announced that the NSW Government had
decided to permanently relocate the Darling Harbour No. 8 Cruise Passenger
Terminal to WB5, in accordance with the recommendation from the PCT Steering
Committee, subject to planning approval being obtained.

Project Overview
The proposal includes the construction of new purpose-built building(s), ancillary
site works, parking, and a new access road.

vi JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Sydney Ports are seeking approval for the following:

ƒ The construction and operation of a CPT at WB5
ƒ Use of wharves No. 4 and 5 White Bay, and parts of adjoining wharves No.3
and 6, for the berthing of passenger cruise ships and operation of associated
terminal facilities on a 24 hour, 7 days a week basis as required.
ƒ Erection, operation, removal and re-erection, as and when required, of a
temporary passenger terminal facility (i.e. a marquee or similar structure) at
WB4, with similar features and function to the permanent CPT proposed at
WB5, to process passengers, crew and baggage of a second cruise ship.
ƒ Demolition of a number of existing structures including the WB5 warehouse;
various smaller brick buildings west and south of the WB5 warehouse and
other existing structures such as fencing and parking structures.
ƒ A new access road connecting to James Craig Road including intersection
upgrade works.
ƒ Pavement and wharf upgrade works.
ƒ Installation of services.
ƒ Refurbishment of existing office and amenities buildings.
ƒ A long term carpark with approximately 200 parking spaces in close proximity
to the WB5 CPT.
ƒ Use of the CPT facility at WB5 on non-ship days for a variety of functions
such as exhibitions and community and / or corporate events, including the
erection of temporary structures and signage.

The Site
WB4 and WB5 in the main comprise the site and are located on the south eastern
arm of the Balmain Peninsula on the northern shore of White Bay. It is within a
broader area owned and controlled by Sydney Ports. The site is within the
Leichhardt LGA approximately 2.4km west of the Sydney CBD.

Planning Context
The construction and operation of the proposed CPT is subject to both
Commonwealth and NSW legislation. The proposed development is required to be
designed and operated in accordance with Maritime Transport and Offshore
Facilities Security Act 2003 and Customs Act 1901 (both Commonwealth
legislation).

The principal statutory planning instruments which apply to the site are
Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 26 – City West (SREP 26) and
State Environmental Planning Policy – Major Development 2005
(Major Development SEPP).

Under SREP 26, the site is zoned ‘Port and Employment’. Uses that facilitate the
continuation of the commercial port uses, employment uses, port and maritime
uses are permissible.

The Glebe Island/ White Bay Master Plan was prepared to guide future
development at Glebe Island and White Bay. The Master Plan provides for the
continued use of Glebe Island and White Bay as a significant commercial port
facility in Sydney Harbour.

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 vii

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

In addition, the Government has set up a long term planning process to provide
the planning framework for the future of the Bays Precinct, which includes White
Bay, as well as much of the surrounding land currently disused or used for
maritime purposes. In June 2009 the Minister for Planning established a public
consultation forum for the Bays Precinct, which included the formation of a Bays
Precinct Community Reference Group. Stage 1 of the Bays Precinct consultation
finished in early December 2009, gathering information and ideas from the
community, including the location of the Cruise Passenger Terminal west of the
Sydney Harbour Bridge. This consultation process developed a set of draft
planning principles for the consideration of the Bays Precinct Taskforce which ‘set
the scene’ for future planning and development in the area, and informed the
Government’s decision to permanently relocate the CPT to WB5. In stage 2 of the
consultation, expected to occur in the second half of 2010, the draft planning
principles will be exhibited for comment and feedback from the community will be
sought. This feedback will be used to finalise the planning principles, which will
guide all future planning processes for the precinct.

Compliance with Statutory Instruments

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the statutory
instruments, continuing the maritime and port operations on the site and other
related activities.

Environmental Impacts
The key environmental impacts identified for the proposed CPT are noise, air
quality, traffic and access, visual impact, and heritage.

The assessment concludes that these issues are all able to be managed and
mitigated through the design and through the implementation of construction and
operational management plans and other mitigation measures.

Conclusion
The continued provision of facilities that can cater for up to three passenger ships
at berth in Sydney at any one time provides a significant contribution to the NSW
economy. In 2007/2008 it was estimated to provide a total output expenditure
(direct and indirect expenditure) of $291 million in NSW and a total employment of
approximately 1,500 full-time equivalent jobs.

The proposed CPT will facilitate the continued economic investment by the cruise
shipping industry in a manner which is consistent with statutory planning
documents and strategic plans, and is of a high quality design, which will not have
a detrimental impact on the amenity or environment of the surrounding area.

viii JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

1.0 Introduction
This Project Application and Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) is submitted
to the Minister for Planning pursuant to Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). This is to fulfil the Environmental Assessment
Requirements issued by the Director General for the preparation of an
Environmental Assessment to support a Project Application for the construction
and operation of a Passenger Terminal at White Bay Wharf No. 5 (WB5), with
secondary berthing and cruise operations at White Bay No. 4 (WB4), Sydney. The
proposed Passenger Terminal is referred to hereinafter as the Cruise Passenger
Terminal (CPT).

1.1 Overview of Project Application Sought

The proposed WB5 CPT will include:
ƒ Construction of new purpose-built building(s) containing:
- arrivals hall;
- baggage hall;
- storage and amenities area;
- Customs and AQIS facilities, x-ray equipment and offices; and
- storage facilities.
ƒ Building signage.
ƒ Car parking, covered set down and pick up points and coach queuing areas.
ƒ Secured providoring waiting area and wharf access.
ƒ Offices, lunch room and amenities.
ƒ Up to two passenger gangways.
ƒ A Land Side Restricted Zone including a Cleared Zone (Customs, Immigration
and Security).
ƒ Operational and security lighting as well as other required security
infrastructure.
Sydney Ports are seeking approval for the following:
ƒ The construction and operation of a CPT at WB5.
ƒ Use of wharves No. 4 and 5 White Bay, and parts of adjoining wharves No.3
and 6, for the berthing of passenger cruise ships and operation of associated
terminal facilities on a 24 hour, 7 days a week basis as required.
ƒ Erection, operation, removal and re-erection, as and when required, of a
temporary passenger terminal facility (i.e. a marquee or similar structure) at
WB4, with similar features and function to the permanent CPT proposed at
WB5, to process passengers, crew and baggage of a second cruise ship.
ƒ Demolition of a number of existing structures including the WB5 warehouse,
various smaller brick buildings west and south of the WB5 warehouse and
other existing structures such as fencing and parking structures.
ƒ A new access road connecting to James Craig Road including intersection
upgrade works.
ƒ Pavement and wharf upgrade works.

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 1

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

ƒ Installation of services.
ƒ Refurbishment of existing office and amenities buildings.
ƒ A long term carpark with approximately 200 parking spaces in close proximity
to the WB5 CPT.
ƒ Works to provide public access to the WB5 CPT building surrounds and berth
face (e.g. stairs, fencing and gates) from either Stephen St or from White Bay
Park.
ƒ Use of the CPT facility at WB5 on non-ship days for a variety of functions
such as exhibitions and community and/or corporate events, including the
erection of temporary structures and signage.

This report has been prepared by JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd, for the
proponent, Sydney Ports Corporation, and is based on design information provided
by Johnson Pilton Walker architects (JPW) and supporting technical documents
provided by the expert consultant team.

This EAR describes the site, its environs and the proposed development, and
includes an assessment of the proposal in accordance with the Director General’s
Environmental Assessment Requirements issued under Part 3A of the EP&A Act.
It should be read in conjunction with the information contained within and
appended to this report.

The report is structured as follows:

Section 1: Introduction, background, Environmental Assessment and approvals

process and project team.

Section 2: Site analysis, overview of existing site conditions, surrounding

development, and summary of opportunities and constraints.

Section 3: The current strategic and statutory planning framework and context
applying to the site.

Section 4: Summary of the key issues from consultation.

Section 5: The Project Application

Section 6: Environmental Assessment of the Project Application.

Section 7: Draft Statement of Commitments.

Section 8: Project Justification

Section 9: Conclusion

The Appendices include a range of technical studies undertaken to inform the

Project Application and its environmental assessment. These studies address the
Director General’s requirements for the environmental assessment. They provide a
technical assessment of the environmental impact of the proposed development,
and recommend proposed mitigation measures to manage potential environmental
impacts associated with the proposal.

2 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

1.2 Strategic Project Need

1.2.1 Background
Sydney Harbour currently has two dedicated passenger terminals; the Overseas
Passenger Terminal (OPT) at Circular Quay and the east Darling Harbour (now
known as Barangaroo) Cruise Passenger Terminal which is currently located at
Wharf No. 5 but was until recently located at Wharf No. 8. In June 2010 Darling
Harbour No. 8 was officially closed and the new interim facility at Wharf No. 5
(known as Barangaroo No.5) became operational until a permanent passenger
terminal is available. Occasionally, other berths at east Darling Harbour, and
berths at White Bay and Glebe Island have been used to accommodate a third or
fourth cruise vessel at a cargo wharf when the need arose. In addition to this,
cruise vessels on a transit call only may be allocated one of the two mooring
buoys in the harbour, these being the Athol Buoy or the Point Piper Buoy.

In December 2008 the NSW Government decided to permanently relocate the

Darling Harbour No. 8 Cruise Passenger Terminal to facilitate and enhance the
Barangaroo redevelopment project. A Passenger Cruise Terminal (PCT) Steering
Committee was subsequently formed to study the growth projections for the
cruise shipping industry in Sydney Harbour and to identify and investigate potential
locations for new cruise terminals. The PCT Steering Committee comprised
representatives from the cruise industry as well as from relevant State and federal
agencies. Feedback was also received from members of the public on the
potential location for a new Cruise Passenger Terminal on the western side of
Sydney Harbour Bridge via the Cruise Terminal Forum (established on the Bays
Precinct Website) and members of the Bays Precinct Community Reference Group
(see also Section 4.1).

The PCT Steering Committee reported in November 2009 that Sydney requires
three (3) Cruise Passenger Terminals to ensure transport growth in the industry,
and that one of these terminals will be a replacement terminal for the existing
Darling Harbour No. 8 (Barangaroo) Cruise Passenger Terminal west of Sydney
Harbour Bridge. The Committee’s studies included a detailed options analysis for
a new Cruise Passenger Terminal west of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, concluding
that the preferred option was the construction of a new purpose built Cruise
Passenger Terminal facility at WB5 with secondary berthing at WB4. It was also
recommended that the new Terminal at WB5 implement a traffic management
solution for passenger vehicle access using James Craig Road to protect local
residents’ amenity.

On 20 December 2009 the Premier announced that the NSW Government had
decided to permanently relocate the Darling Harbour No. 8 Cruise Passenger
Terminal to WB5, in accordance with the recommendation from the PCT Steering
Committee, subject to planning approval being obtained.

Wharf No.5 at White Bay is the preferred location for a replacement CPT in
Sydney Harbour for the following reasons:
ƒ the facility would be contained within an existing port precinct;
ƒ the site provides a high level of control which will assist in enforcing maritime
security legislative requirements, particularly during instances of heightened
levels of threat;
ƒ two cruise passenger ships can be berthed at the same time with the use of
the adjacent berth at WB4, which allows Sydney to continue to provide berths
for up to three passenger ships in port at any one time;

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 3

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

ƒ the site includes adequate space for staging and servicing of the CPT;
ƒ the site allows flexibility to meet operators space and facility requirements;
ƒ the site will be easily accessible prior to cruise ship visits by Shipping Agents
and operators for deliveries; and
ƒ the site enables the provision of adequate storage facilities in a secured area.

1.2.2 Forecast Cruise Ship Arrivals

Cruise shipping activity in Sydney consists of three operating segments with
different seasonal calling patterns, them being: domestic; regional (i.e. seasonal);
and round the world. Ships within the domestic or home port segment are based
in Sydney, and their calling pattern is relatively consistent across the year. Ships
within the seasonal segment are based in Sydney for regional cruises typically
between October and April, peaking during Australia’s summer season, with more
frequent calls in the months of January and February. In the round the world
segment ships are not based in Sydney. They visit Sydney for short periods, with
a strong preference for calls in the peak summer months.

The domestic (home port) segment of the cruise industry is based at the East
Darling Harbour Passenger Terminal which currently provides adequate space and
facilities for a full exchange of passengers and associated servicing of the ship.
The Overseas Passenger Terminal at Circular Quay is the base for regional and
round the world cruises which occasionally accepts the domestic segment cruises
if the East Darling Harbour Passenger Terminal is unavailable. The East Darling
Harbour Passenger Terminal also accepts a small portion of the regional and round
the world segment cruises subject to the ship being able to meet the height
clearance requirements to pass under the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

The Passenger Cruise Terminal Steering Committee (PCTSC) found that the
Australian cruise industry grew by 18% per annum between 2002 and 2008, with
growth forecast to continue over the next 15 years. In assessing potential
location options for a Cruise Passenger Terminal west of the Sydney Harbour
Bridge, the PCTSC considered forecast cruise ship arrival data based on the
estimated 7% global growth trend and the cruise industry’s forecast. The global
growth forecast estimates approximately 173 cruise ships berthing on the western
side of the Harbour Bridge in 2021/22 while the cruise industry estimates the peak
cruise ship numbers being 157 in 2014/15 and then reducing to 103 cruise ships
in 2021/22. The cruise industry forecast takes into consideration the changing
ship sizes over time as there is an expectation that the existing fleet servicing the
local domestic segment will be replaced by larger (in height) ships. Whilst there is
a need for a cruise terminal west of the Sydney Harbour Bridge it is anticipated
that the number of cruise ships berthing at White Bay could be restricted in the
longer term by the height limitation of the Sydney Harbour Bridge (i.e. the air draft
restriction on ships berthing west of the Bridge).

The forecast cruise ship schedule for the next two years has been obtained from
the Sydney Ports Corporation. The number of cruise ships scheduled to arrive at
Wharf No. 5 – Barangaroo, the interim CPT until a permanent replacement
terminal is built is summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 indicates that over the next 2 years, up to 120 ships per year will use the
CPT, approximately two-thirds of these during the spring and summer months,
with approximately one-third during autumn and winter. Given this and the
forecast cruise ship arrival data growth presented to the PCTSC in November
2009, it is expected that approximately 170 cruise ships per year could use the
proposed CPT.

4 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Table 1 – Forecast monthly cruise passenger ship arrivals for DH5, then White Bay (between July
2010 and June 2012).

Year/Month J A S O N D J F M A M J Total
2010/11 5 8 4 7 11 12 9 16 13 8 5 4 102
2011/12 9 6 8 8 14 17 13 15 11 8 5 3 117

1.3 Existing Cruise Operations

As discussed in Section 1.2.1, the East Darling Harbour Passenger Terminal
mainly caters for the domestic segment of the cruise industry and therefore
specifically caters for the ships that undertake a full exchange of passengers.
The activities undertaken in the Darling Harbour CPT facility during cruise ship
visits are outlined below.

During a typical domestic cruise ship visit, approximately 4,800 passengers and
crew will exchange. A diagrammatic illustration of the inbound and outbound and
passenger process for a typical one day ship visit is provided at Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Inbound and outbound passenger process

Disembarking Passengers (Post-Cruise)

The cruise ship typically arrives and berths around 6:30am. Disembarking
passengers leave the ship via the ship’s gangways or gangways that link the ship
to the CPT building. The gangways lead the passengers into the Baggage Hall
where luggage is laid out and collected. Passengers then proceed through
checkpoints manned by Immigration, Customs and Quarantine officials. The
Baggage Hall forms part of the Cleared Zone which is a secured, restricted zone
and not accessible to the general public.

Once passengers are through the Customs, Immigration and Quarantine process,
they proceed to the Arrivals Hall which is accessible to greeting friends, family,
tour operators etc.

Typically, the disembarking process takes place from around 7:30am until
around 11:00am.

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 5

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Embarking/Departing Passengers (Pre-Cruise)

Passengers departing on the ship generally arrive between 10:00am and midday.
They deposit their luggage / baggage at a drop off point outside the Arrivals Hall
(where it is scanned and sent to the ship) and then they proceed to the
Arrivals Hall where cruise check-in occurs. From the Arrivals Hall they farewell
friends, family etc and proceed into the Baggage Hall and the Cleared Zone.
Within the Baggage Hall, passengers undertake immigration procedures for
departing Australia.

From the Baggage Hall, passengers travel via the mezzanine to the gangways
connecting the CPT building to the ship or via the ship’s gangways.

Hours of Operation
The East Darling Harbour CPT facility is permitted to operate on a 24 hour, 7 days
a week basis. The domestic cruise ships typically have a turnaround period of 10-
12hrs, berthing around 6.30am and sailing generally by 6pm. International cruise
ships could berth for up to 72 hours in accordance with Sydney Ports’ protocols.
Ships which berth for more than a day generally only account for around 10% of
the ships berthing on the western side of the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

Vehicle Movements
During a typical domestic cruise ship arrival and departure at East Darling Harbour,
the two way traffic movements are generally from 6:30am to 4:30pm. Within
this period, the traffic generation rates fluctuate. Whilst a domestic cruise ship is
generally berthed by approximately 7.00am, traffic movements in the morning
(resulting from the inbound ships) can be characterised as follows:
ƒ “early morning” truck traffic before and after 7:00am;
ƒ significant car traffic movements do not occur until after 9:00am; and
ƒ peak traffic activity typically occurs between 9:45am and 10:45am.
Peak (ship arrival) traffic generation therefore occurs after the main morning
commuter peak.

A domestic cruise ship generally departs the berth by 6.00pm. Traffic movements
in the afternoon (resulting from the outbound ship) generally occur in the early
afternoon and are generally complete (or minimal) from 3.00pm. Peak (ship
departure) traffic generation therefore occurs prior to the main afternoon
commuter peak.

The international cruise ship arrival and departure times vary however, the vehicle
movements generated are significantly less than the domestic cruise ships due to
the fact that these ships do not undertake a full passenger exchange in Sydney.
Traffic associated with the international vessels is significantly less than traffic
associated with domestic cruise ships with traffic spread out throughout the day
and evenings.

1.4 Environmental Assessment and

Approvals Process
State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005 (the Major
Development SEPP) identifies development to which Part 3A of the Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) applies and for which the Minister
is the consent authority.

Clause 6 of the Major Development SEPP states that development, which in the
opinion of the Minister is development of a kind referred to in Schedule 1 (Classes

6 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

of Development, Schedule 2 (Specified Sites) or Schedule 3 (State significant

development) of the SEPP, is declared to be a project to which Part 3A applies.

Clause 22 of Schedule 1 of the Major Development SEPP identifies development

for the purposes of the port facilities, shipping berths or terminals, that has a
capital investment value of more than $30 million.

Clause 7 of Schedule 2 of the Major Development SEPP identifies the whole of the
area identified as Glebe Island, White Bay, Rozelle Bay and Blackwattle Bay as a
specified site (as identified on Map 6B of the SEPP) if a proposal has a capital
investment value of more than $5 million.

The proposal will have a capital investment value of more than $30 million, so on
14 May 2010, a delegate for the Minister formed the opinion that the proposed
CPT is a “Major Project” to which Part 3A of the EP&A Act applies.

In accordance with Section 75B of the EP&A Act, and Clause 6 of the Major
Development SEPP, on 4 May 2010 JBA Urban Planning Consultants, on behalf of
Sydney Ports Corporation, requested that the Director-General of the Department
of Planning issue the requirements for the preparation of an Environmental
Assessment Report (EAR) to accompany the Project Application for the proposed
development.

On 7 June 2010, in accordance with Section 75F of the EP&A Act, the
Director-General of the Department of Planning issued the requirements for the
preparation of an Environmental Assessment to accompany a Project Application
for the project.

A copy of the Director General’s Environmental Assessment requirements is

included in Appendix A. This report constitutes the EAR for the proposed
development at White Bay.

1.5 Project Team

An expert project team has been formed to deliver the project and includes:
Proponent Sydney Ports Corporation

Architecture Johnson Pilton Walker

Urban Planning JBA Planning

Infrastructure and Utilities Lincolne Scott Australia

Traffic and Transport Halcrow

Air Quality Sinclair Knight Merz

Noise Wilkinson Murray and Renzo Tonin and Associates

Heritage City Plan Heritage

Contamination Consulting Earth Scientists

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 7

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

2.0 Site Analysis

2.1 Site Location and Context
WB4 and WB5 in the main comprise the site and are located on the south eastern
arm of the Balmain Peninsula on the northern shore of White Bay. It is within a
broader area owned and controlled by Sydney Ports. The site is within the
Leichhardt LGA approximately 2.4km west of the Sydney CBD. The site’s
location is shown at Figure 1.

Figure 2 – Locality Plan

8 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Figure 3 – Land Title

2.2 Land Ownership and Legal Description

The site is legally described as:
ƒ For the CPT and new internal road: Lot 1 DP 875201, Lot 10 DP 1065973,
Lot 10 DP 1008507, Lot 3 DP 879549, Lot 12 DP 603148, Lot 1 DP
542648 and Lot 1 DP 1063454 owned by Sydney Ports Corporation, Lot 1
DP 1035872 owned by the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) and Lot 4 DP
875201 owned by NSW Maritime but leased to and controlled by Sydney
Ports Corporation.
ƒ To provide for works on James Craig Road and its intersection with the
Crescent: Lot 8 DP 1001928 (owned by SPC), Lot 100 DP 1017367
(owned by NSW Maritime) and land owned by the RTA within the RTA road
corridor around the intersection of James Craig Road and The Crescent.

The Land Title plan is shown in Figure 2.

2.3 Existing Zoning

The site is zoned ‘Port and Employment’ under Sydney Regional Environmental
Plan No.26 – City West (SREP 26). The key relevant provisions of SREP 26 are
set out in Table 2 below.

Table 2 – Relevant provisions Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No26 – City West

Issue Standard
Zone Port and Employment
Permissible uses Uses that facilitate the continuation of the commercial port
uses, employment uses, port and maritime uses
Prohibited uses All uses which do not comply with the objectives of the zone

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 9

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

2.4 Existing Development

Site History
As industry grew in the Balmain area in the middle of the 19th Century, land was
extensively reclaimed along the shoreline of White and Johnston’s Bay to create
deep water berths and by the 1880s the subject site was occupied by industrial
development. Construction of the White Bay Container Terminal began in 1967
with the eastern part of the terminal (presently WB 4, 5 and 6) being built first.
By 1968 WB5 and WB6 were equipped and in 1969 the container terminal was
officially opened. Work continued on site through the 1970’s and by completion
in 1978, the White Bay container terminal comprised 27 acres (11ha) of land.

Initially, the White Bay terminal was used mainly for container traffic, however,
the construction of a dedicated container terminal at Port Botany in the early
1980s saw much of the container trade relocate there. From that time the White
Bay terminal was used for containers and mixed general cargo until late 2004,
when the general cargo operations were consolidated to Darling Harbour.

From 2004 to the present day, the site has been utilised for other port uses such
as the import and exportation of bulk liquids, ship maintenance and lay-up,
temporary car storage and harbour construction activities. Other port uses will
continue at White Bay.

Existing Development
The site is largely reclaimed land and is bounded on the south by an existing
caisson wharf and retaining structure.

Existing development on the site is characterised by a large steel framed cargo

shed at WB5, clad in corrugated panels, some of which are of asbestos sheeting.
This shed is approximately 240m long and 50m wide. The western end of the
shed (about 85m) has a high roofline (approximately 30m high from floor level),
while the remainder of the shed has a lower (approximately 13m high) roofline.
The shed is set back approximately 45m from the water. Figures 4 to 10 provide
images of the WB5 and WB4 site which are proposed to accommodate the
new CPT.

Two rows of 35 free-standing trussed columns run towards the east, which
supported an overhead travelling crane (removed circa 1984).

There are a number of ancillary buildings on the site. To the west are:
ƒ a small gatehouse;
ƒ a small complex with a Sydney Water sewer pumping station, a small two
storey substation and switch room building, a single storey staff canteen and
a single storey fuel tank; and
ƒ three small additions attached to the building on its western face – a storage
facility covering approximately 220m2, a 7 metre wide carport and a portable
shed used as an office.
To the north, adjacent the cliff under Grafton Street, are:
ƒ a two-storey office building;
ƒ a single storey substation building; and
ƒ a covered parking area (78 metres long).

10 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

To the immediate east of the shed are two water tanks and a pump room. Along
the southern facade are a toilet block (which is to be demolished) and two
substations which are to be retained.

It should be noted that existing port activities and uses at White Bay No.5 will
continue when the WB5 CPT is not in use. Port activities at other White Bay
wharves will continue to occur. In particular WB4 and Glebe Island Wharf 1 will
continue to be used for unloading bulk liquids. Where there is a shipping schedule
conflict between a bulk liquids ship and a cruise passenger ship then the cruise
passenger ship will have preference at WB4.

Figure 4 – Aerial photograph of the site

Figure 5 – Photograph of WB5 taken from an elevated position south of White Bay showing the
context of the site and its proximity to the city

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 11

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Figure 6 – Photograph of the site looking North West across White Bay from Pyrmont Point Park

Figure 7 – Photograph of the site looking West across Darling Harbour from Barangaroo

12 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Figure 8 – Photograph of the large steel framed shed on site, taken from Grafton Street

Figure 9 – Photograph of the service road on site located between existing building and sites
northern boundary.

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 13

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Figure 10 – Photograph of WB4 taken from next to White Bay Park

Site Access
The site is currently accessed via an internal private road which connects through
to Robert Street (refer to Figure 11). The internal access road is accessed from
Victoria Road via Mullins and Roberts Streets. Victoria Road provides direct
access to the Sydney CBD and the eastern suburbs via the Anzac Bridge to the
east, and direct access to the City West Link, which provides access to the Great
Western Highway and the western suburbs. Victoria Road also provides a link
over the harbour to the north western suburbs.

Figure 11 – Photograph of the existing internal port road which connects to Roberts Street

14 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

2.5 Surrounding Development

To the north, the site is bounded by residential areas of Balmain which are
elevated and physically separated from the site by a cliff and retaining wall
(identified in Figure 7). These residences are located in Grafton, Vincent,
Adolphus and Stephen Streets, Balmain (Refer to Figures 12 – 14).

To the north west of the site, at the top of the cliff is White Bay Park and
Donnelly Street. The residences located along these streets are typically two
storeys, inter-dispersed with single or three storey dwellings.

Figure 12 – Photograph of Grafton Street, looking north easterly from the corner of
Adolphus Street

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 15

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Figure 13 – Photograph of Grafton Street, looking north-west

Figure 14 – Existing view south along Adolphus Street

To the south of the site across White Bay is Glebe Island which was until recently
occupied by Australian Amalgamated Terminals (AAT), as an automotive import
terminal. Automotive imports at Glebe Island ceased in November 2008, due to
the relocation of AAT’s operations to Port Kembla.

Also Glebe Island Wharves 6, 7 and 8 are occupied by dry bulk terminals for
gypsum, cement & sugar which have long term leases on the adjacent sites.

16 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Beyond WB6 to the south east (approximately 400m at the closest point across
the water of White Bay/Johnston’s Bay) is the suburb of Pyrmont. Pyrmont
comprises a range of typically high rise residential/mixed use development.

To the east of the site is WB6, which was subject to a Project Approval for
Baileys Marine Fuels Australia (BMFA) to construct and operate a marine fuelling
facility and marine depot. Sydney Ports considers that a CPT at WB5 would not
be inconsistent with the proposed land use of WB6 as a marine fuelling facility and
maritime depot.

Beyond WB6, across Darling Harbour (approximately 1km), is the development site
of Barangaroo (East Darling Harbour).

To the immediate west of the site is White Bay Wharf No.3 (WB3) which also
remains in port use and is partly subject to this application. Beyond WB3 is the
typically four storey residential flat building development, known as Somerset
Mews (refer to Figure 14), bound by Buchanan Street, Hyan, Palmer and
Booth Street.

Figure 15 – Residential development to the west of the site (setback from WB3).

Heritage Items
There are no listed heritage items at WB5, however the proposed access road will
cross one heritage item, being the Beattie Street Stormwater Channel No. 15
listed on Sydney Water’s Section 170 Heritage Register as being of local
significance (refer to item H10 in Figure 16).

There are a number of heritage items located in the immediate vicinity of the site
(refer to Figure 16), principally along the residential streets located to the north of
the site. In addition to the item described above, prominent identified heritage
items located adjacent to the site are:
ƒ H1: Dwellings 3-33 Adolphus Street, Balmain (listed in Leichhardt LEP 2000);
ƒ H2: White Bay Park (listed in Leichhardt LEP 2000);

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 17

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

ƒ H3: The Grange, 7 Vincent Street, Balmain (listed in Leichhardt LEP 2000);
ƒ H4: Ardenlea, 14 Vincent Street, Balmain (listed in Leichhardt LEP 2000);
ƒ H5: the sandstone rock cliff (indicated as a landscape heritage item on the
Heritage Conservation Map of the LEP)
ƒ H6: White Bay Power Station (listed in State Heritage Register);
ƒ H7: Glebe Island Silos (listed in City West REP No. 26 - Sch. 4, SPC S.170
Register);
ƒ H8: Sewerage Pumping Station No 7, Robert Street (REP listing & Sydney
Water S.170 Register listing);
ƒ H9: Old Glebe Island Bridge, abutments and approach (listed in Leichhardt LEP
2000, RTA S. 170 Register, SPC S.170 Register); and
ƒ H11: Hampton Villa, 12B Grafton Street, Balmain (listed in Leichhardt LEP
2000, State Heritage Register and National Trust).
ƒ H 12: White Bay Power Station Canal (listed on SPC’s S. 170 Heritage
Register).

Those heritage items located in the vicinity of the site are considered further as
part of the Statement of Heritage Impact prepared by City Plan Heritage, provided
at Appendix G and are identified in Figure 16. Assessment of the heritage impact
of the proposed development is provided at Section 6.6.

H1
H3
H4 H11
H5
H2

H10
H10

H8
H6 H7

H12
H9

Figure 16 – Location of Heritage Items in the vicinity (Source: City Plan Heritage)

18 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

3.0 Planning Framework and Context

The construction and operation of the proposed CPT is subject to both
Commonwealth and NSW legislation and associated regulation and policy.

With regard to Commonwealth Legislation, the proposed development is required

to be designed and operated in accordance with the following Acts:
ƒ Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003;
ƒ Customs Act 1901; and
ƒ Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

In terms of NSW, the following NSW Legislation and strategic policy documents
are of key relevance to the proposed development:
ƒ Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act 1979);
ƒ Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act);
ƒ Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995;
ƒ Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Regulation);
ƒ NSW State Plan;
ƒ Sydney Metropolitan Strategy; and
ƒ Inner West Subregion, Draft Subregional Strategy.
ƒ NSW Sea Level Rise Policy Statement 2009
ƒ Action for Air

The following statutory planning instruments and policy documents are of key
relevance to the proposed development:
ƒ State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005;
ƒ State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007;
ƒ State Environmental Planning Policy (Temporary Structures) 2007;
ƒ State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land;
ƒ Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 26 – City West;
ƒ Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005; and
ƒ Glebe Island/ White Bay Masterplan.
ƒ Planning for Entertainment Guidelines (Department of Planning, October 2009)

3.1 Relevant Commonwealth Legislation

Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003
The purpose of the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003
is to safeguard against unlawful interference with maritime transport facilities,
through the development of security plans for ships, other maritime transport
operations and offshore facilities.

The proposed development has been located and designed to ensure compliance
with the provisions of the Act, particularly with regard to security planning and the
provision of a Land Side Restricted Zone extending 30 metres from the wharf face
and including the Customs and storage and amenities area within the terminal.

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 19

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Customs Act 1901

The Customs Act 1901 regulates customs operations at the terminal including the
designation of the port area for customs purposes, waterfront area control
(customs security) and processes for customs control of goods entering Australia
through the terminal.

All the wharves at White Bay are “Customs Areas” under Section 15 of the
Customs Act 1901. The design of the CPT includes a Cleared Zone which is
physically isolated from all other areas, with access and egress from this zone
through clearly defined control and screening points. Within this zone is the
Baggage Hall which is maintained and managed in accordance with this Act.

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)
requires approval from the Federal Minister for the Environment and Heritage to
carry out a 'controlled action' where it is likely to have a significant impact on a
‘matter of national environmental significance’. Matters of National Environmental
Significance include listed threatened species, ecological communities and
migratory species.

There are no known matters of National Environmental Significance occurring on

or in the vicinity of the proposed development site. Therefore it is considered that
referral of the project to the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment, to
determine if it is a ‘controlled action’, is not required.

3.2 NSW Legislation

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act)
The proposal is subject to environmental assessment and approval under Part 3A
of the EP&A Act by virtue of meeting Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of the Major
Development SEPP (see Section 3.3 below). The Minister for Planning is therefore
the approval authority.

The objects of the EP&A Act are listed below, together with consideration of how
the proposed development relates to each of the objects. :
(a) to encourage:
(i) the proper management, development and conservation of
natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land,
natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and
villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic
welfare of the community and a better environment,

The proposal constitutes the proper development of land for the

purpose of promoting the economic welfare of the community.

(ii) the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic

use and development of land,

The proposal is for the orderly and economic use and development of
land.

(iii) the protection, provision and co-ordination of communication

and utility services,

The proposal takes into account the protection and provision of utility
services.

(iv) the provision of land for public purposes,

20 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

The proposal is not for the purpose of providing land for public
purposes, however public access to some parts of the land may
be facilitated at certain times or for certain functions or events.

(v) the provision and co-ordination of community services and

facilities, and

The proposal provides a facility which will be available for use by

members of the community for functions or events.

(vi) the protection of the environment, including the protection

and conservation of native animals and plants, including
threatened species, populations and ecological communities,
and their habitats, and

The proposal does not affect the protection or conservation of native

animals and plants.

(vii) ecologically sustainable development, and

The proposal takes into account the principles of ecologically

sustainable development (ESD) and will not result in significant
environmental damage. Further consideration of the principles of ESD
is provided in Section 12.1.

(viii) the provision and maintenance of affordable housing, and

The proposal does not affect the provision and maintenance of

affordable housing.

Under Section 75A of the EP&A Act, a number of authorisations under other NSW
Legislation are not required. These include:
ƒ Heritage Act 1977 (Part 4 & s139); and
ƒ Water Management Act 2000 (ss89, 90 & 91)

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act)

The proposed WB5 CPT, and the cruise ships which berth at the facility, are not
scheduled premises or activities for the purpose of Sections 48, 49 and Schedule 1
of the POEO Act. Therefore, an Environment Protection Licence is not required for
the construction or operation of the CPT, or any activities at WB5.
Notwithstanding this, the proposal has been assessed in accordance with the
relevant policies and guidelines issued by the Department of Environment, Climate
Change and Water for air quality and noise emissions, and potential for water
pollution. These issues are addressed in Section 6.

An Environmental Protection Licence exists for operations at WB4 and in the future
a licence may be required for operations at WB6.

The operation of the CPT at WB5 will require ships to be secured with ropes to a
small part of WB6 immediately adjacent to WB5 on the wharf edge. The operation
of the proposed CPT will not require any activities to occur at WB6 which would:
ƒ be affected by any Environment Protection Licence for WB6,
ƒ impact on the ability of the licence holder at WB6 to comply with its licence
conditions.

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 21

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

The occasional operation of temporary cruise passenger facilities at WB4 would be

subject to the relevant licence conditions for port activities at WB4. Sydney Ports
will discuss further the applicability of these licence conditions on cruise operations
at White Bay with DECCW during the detailed design.

Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

There is not likely to be a significant effect on any threatened species, populations
or ecological communities or their habitats as a result of the proposed
development. The proposed CPT and associated temporary terminal facilities are
to be located within an operating port area. The site is largely located on land
reclaimed in the late 1960s and occupied by various port uses from that time on.
The site is sealed by asphalt and concrete. There is no significant vegetation on
the site.

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

Clause 98C and 98D of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation
2000 (EP&A Regulation) sets out prescribed conditions of development consent
for the use of a building as an entertainment venue. These prescribed conditions
of consent are listed in Schedule 3A of the EP&A Regulation and relate to:
ƒ Nitrate film;
ƒ Stage management;
ƒ Proscenium safety curtains;
ƒ Projection suites;
ƒ Emergency evacuation plans; and
ƒ Display of signs that state the maximum number of people permitted in the
building.

In terms of the use of the CPT at WB5 as a function venue, the safety of persons
on site is addressed through Sydney Ports Corporation’s site security and
management procedures and Security Management Plan. Sydney Ports
Corporation will review their Security Management Plan to incorporate function
activities at White Bay.

3.3 Strategic Plans

NSW State Plan
The proposed development is consistent with the achievement of Priority P1 –
Increased Business Investment. Priority P1 seeks to continue to increase business
investment through making NSW a more attractive place to do business and to
increase tourism in NSW by 10 million visitor nights by 2016. The continued
provision of adequate CPT facilities in Sydney is consistent with achieving this
target.

Sydney Metropolitan Strategy

The Sydney Metropolitan Strategy provides a broad framework to facilitate and
manage growth and development within Sydney over the next 25 years. The
provision of a replacement CPT west of the Harbour Bridge in Sydney fulfils some
of the objectives of the Metropolitan Strategy through:
ƒ the provision of facilities for receiving cruise ships, which in turn increases the
attractiveness of visiting Sydney for tourist and/or business reasons (Sydney’s
Competitive Strengths (Page 44) and Tourism and Hospitality (Page 51)); and
ƒ creation of additional jobs (Objective A1.1 and Sydney’s Economic and
Employment Growth).

22 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

The Sydney Metropolitan Strategy also seeks to preserve Sydney Harbour as a

working port (Objective D5.1).

Inner West Subregion, Draft Subregional Strategy

The second of seven key outcomes of the Inner West Subregion, Draft
Subregional Strategy, published in July 2008 acknowledges (Action A1.2.1) that
the Bays Precinct (which includes White Bay):

“Has significant potential in the region’s and Global Sydney’s urban

development. It has the last remaining deep water commercial berth
within the harbour.”

The draft Strategy also refers to the establishment by the NSW Government of a
Task Force to investigate options for the long-term use of the area, including a
range of wider employment uses. The proposed CPT is not inconsistent with this
draft strategy as it makes use of the deep water commercial berth attributes of
the site. The Government also created the Bays Precinct Community Reference
Group in parallel with the Task Force.

Sydney Metropolitan Transport Plan 2010

The Sydney Metropolitan Transport Plan 2010 is the companion document to the
Metropolitan Strategy and provides a 25 year vision for land use planning for
Sydney and a 10 year funded program of transport infrastructure to support this
growth. It is proposed that the plan will be consolidated into the Metropolitan
Strategy following the latter's consultation and review.

The document doesn't contain any aims and objectives as such, however it
provides an overview of Sydney's current transport issues and outlines a number
of key infrastructure proposals to be implemented over the next decade. The
proposed CPT is not directly addressed in the document nor connected to or
reliant on any of the projects proposed. The CPT would not compromise the
implementation of the plan.

NSW Sea Level Rise Policy Statement 2009

The NSW Sea Level Rise Policy Statement identifies expected sea level rise for
NSW, being 40cm by 2050 and 90 cm by 2100 over 1990 sea levels. The
current height of the edge of the wharf apron at White Bay is approximately +3m
AHD, which is well above the predicted sea level levels.

Action for Air

Action for Air is the NSW Government’s 25-year air quality management plan for
Sydney, Wollongong and the Lower Hunter. While there is a substantial focus on
reducing motor vehicle emissions, as these make a large contribution to ozone
(photochemical smog) formation in Sydney, it contains a range of measures to
reduce emissions from major industry and small businesses, and for making our
homes and local environments even cleaner, healthier and more liveable.

It is important to understand that:

ƒ The development of the CPT at WB5 is a relocation of an existing facility and
therefore the net impact to regional emissions from cruise ships is negligible.
ƒ The emissions from cruise ships are not under the influence or control of
Sydney Ports Corporation.

Few of the specific objectives or actions within Action for Air are relevant to the
proposed development. Those that are considered to be relevant relate to
Objective 1, which is to reduce motor vehicle emissions, in part through reducing
vehicle use and through improving and influencing transport choice. Specific
actions include:

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 23

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

ƒ Action 1.10 Subregional Strategies and Local Environmental Plans

ƒ Action 1.13 Rail initiatives

These two actions highlight the importance of locating people’s home, jobs and
recreational areas by public transport to reduce car trips. In particular, Action
1.13 notes that the Sydney Metro (Stage 1 – Rozelle to Central) will be the spine
of a new public transport network for Sydney. The proposed CPT has been
designed to protect the route and potential station site for the Central to Rozelle
Metro railway line. The site will also have pedestrian and bicycle connections to
the surrounding area. It is highlighted that because of the nature of cruise
passenger travel, it would not be justified to divert bus routes closer to the site as
the amount of bus patronage would not warrant it.

Further, the location of the cruise passenger facility at WB5 permits the
development of Barangaroo for higher density uses, including residential and
commercial development, which makes better use of the public transport
attributes of that site.

3.4 Statutory Planning

State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005
The Major Development SEPP identifies development to which the development
assessment and approval process under Part 3A of the EP&A Act applies.

The proposed CPT is development for the purposes of the port facilities, shipping
berths or terminals that has a capital investment value of more than $30 million,
being development that is identified in clause 22 of Schedule 1 of the Major
Development SEPP.

Additionally, under the Major Development SEPP the site is located within the area
identified on Map 6B ‘Port and Related Employment Lands’ under Schedule 2,
‘Part 3A projects – specified sites’, Part 7 ‘Port and Related Employment Lands’
and being a development with a capital investment value of more than $5 million.

Development for a CPT on the proposed site therefore meets the Major
Development SEPP criteria as a major project and as such, on 14 May 2010 a
delegate for the Minister for Planning declared the project a Major Project, and
subject to assessment under Part 3A of the EP&A Act.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

The aim of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (the
Infrastructure SEPP) is to facilitate the effective delivery of infrastructure across
the State. It aims to achieve this by way of, amongst other things, improving
regulatory certainty and efficiency through a consistent planning regime for
infrastructure, and identifying environmental assessment categories into which
different types of infrastructure fall.

The provisions of the Major Development SEPP prevail over the Infrastructure
SEPP to the extent of any inconsistency between the two policies. Therefore,
notwithstanding that the Infrastructure SEPP (Division 13) would permit
development of Port Facilities without the need for development consent, the
assessment regime applicable to the CPT is dictated by the Major Development
SEPP and the proposal is subject to assessment and approval under Part 3A of the
EP&A Act.

As the proposal will have the capacity for 200 or more motor vehicles, the
Infrastructure SEPP (Clause 104) requires that the Project Application be referred to
the Roads and Traffic Authority for comment during the assessment process. The

24 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

RTA has been consulted during the preparation of the Project Application and a
traffic impact assessment is discussed in Section 6.4 of this Report and included in
Appendix F. The report concludes that the site is appropriate for its intended uses.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Temporary Structures) 2007

The Temporary Structures SEPP provides matters for consideration as part of the
approval process for the erection of temporary structures under the EP&A Act.

The relevant aims of the SEPP are to ensure that suitable provision is made
to manage matters including noise, parking and traffic impacts and ensuring
heritage protection.

The proposed CPT development includes the installation and use of temporary
terminal structures (i.e. marquee) at WB4, and the relevant matters of
consideration relating to the potential environmental impacts from the operation of
the temporary terminal facility, such as noise, parking and traffic impacts and
ensuring heritage protection have been considered in Section 6 of the report.

State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land

The aim of SEPP 55 is to promote the remediation of contaminated land for the
purpose of reducing risk of harm to human health or any other part of the
environment. The policy specifies considerations that are relevant to consent and
approval authorities in determining applications for development.

In accordance with this policy, The Minister, in considering whether to approve

development, must be satisfied that the land is suitable for its proposed use or the
land will be remediated before it is used for that purpose. This issue is addressed
in Section 6.8.

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 26 – City West

The relevant provisions of the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 26 –
City West (SREP 26) are set out in Table 3 below, and it is noted that since
1 July 2009 SREP 26 has been a deemed State Environmental Planning Policy.
The proposed use on the site is permissible under Clause 20(c) of SREP 26.
Under Section 75J(3) of the EP&A Act, the Minister is able to approve the
carrying out of a project that is permissible and is therefore able to consider the
Project Application.

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 25

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Table 3 – Relevant Provisions of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.26

Issue Standard Comment

Zone Port and Employment NA
(Clause
20C)
Permissible Only uses which the consent authority is satisfied The
uses/Zone are generally consistent with one or more of the development
Objectives zone objectives are permissible within this zone. will facilitate
(Clause the
20C) The relevant objectives of this zone are: continuation of
maritime uses
ƒ to facilitate the continuation of commercial port
at White Bay
uses; and
and is for a
ƒ to allow a range of commercial port facilities land use which
(such as buildings, structures, activities or will generate
operations and uses ancillary to these, associated employment.
with carrying goods from one port to another and It is therefore
associated with storage and handling and access consistent
to the port); and with more than
ƒ to encourage development on Glebe Island and one of the
land adjoining White Bay which requires close zone
proximity to the port; and objectives and
ƒ to encourage a mix of land uses which generate permissible in
employment opportunities, particularly in relation the zone.
to port and maritime uses; and
ƒ to provide for the ongoing rail access to the port
and related activities, and
ƒ to provide pedestrian and cyclist links with
surrounding public access networks, and
ƒ to encourage port-related uses which optimise
use of existing rail facilities, and
ƒ to provide road and rail access to port activities.
Prohibited All uses which do not comply with the objectives NA
uses of the zone.
(Clause
20C)
Height 12m above wharf level (Glebe Island White Bay The proposed
Master Plan) CPT will
exceed the
12 m height
level.
Floor Space No specific controls NA
Ratio

The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the Port and
Employment zone and is therefore permissible with consent.

The proposed CPT will exceed the 12 m height level established by the Glebe and
White Bay Masterplan. However, the proposed CPT will be lower than the height
of the existing high bay structure that it will replace. It is therefore deemed
appropriate for the site.

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

The site is located within ‘Foreshores and Waterways Area’ as defined in the
Sydney Harbour Catchment SREP, and it is noted that since 1 July 2009 the
Sydney Harbour Catchment SREP has been a deemed State Environmental
Planning Policy. For development in the foreshores and waterways area the

26 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Sydney Harbour Catchment SREP lists several matters under Division 2 of Part 3
that must be considered during the assessment of an application, these are listed
and considered in Table 4 below.

Table 4 – SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) matters for consideration

Matter for Consideration Comment

Biodiversity, ecology and The existing stormwater drainage infrastructure will
environment protection continue to service the site, and will be supplemented
by the capture and treatment from car parking and
internal road areas. As such it is expected that the
development will not have a negative impact on the
quality of water entering the waterways.
There are no existing ecological communities, aquatic
species or populations existing on or adjacent to the
site that would be impacted by the development.
Soil and water management measures will be
implemented to avoid runoff into the harbour during
construction works (Refer to Draft Statement of
Commitments).
Public access to, and use The proposed development is located within an
of, foreshores and operational port area. Due to Commonwealth
waterways. legislation, (Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities
Security Act 2003) and Sydney Ports Corporation's
security and safety requirements, there will be no
public access to the foreshore provided on a
permanent basis. Public access to the CPT building
surrounds and the berth face would be made available
on non-ship days during daylight hours. Public access
to the WB5 site during a function which is not a public
or community event would be with the agreement of
the individual hirer / lessee.
Maintenance of a No change to the existing approved use of the site is
working harbour proposed.
The proposal is consistent with current and historic use
of the site for Port purposes.
The provision of a CPT retains and preserves the
character and functions of a working harbour.
Interrelationship of The continued provision of a second CPT within
waterway to foreshore Sydney Harbour continues the equitable use of the
uses waterway and does not result in any adverse impact
on the use of the waterway.
CPT is a water-dependent land use.
Foreshore and The scale, form and character of the proposed building
waterways scenic quality are consistent with surrounding buildings and will
complement the character of the surrounding locality.
The proposed development will improve the visual
appearance of the existing main building at WB5 and
the scenic quality of the foreshore and waterways. A
design statement is included at Appendix C of this
report.
Maintenance, protection A visual analysis is contained in the architectural
and enhancement of design statement at Appendix C and at Section 6.5.
views The statement concludes that the proposed
development will not have any adverse view impacts,
but will create new views to and from the harbour.
Boat Storage facilities Not applicable to this proposal

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 27

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Glebe Island/ White Bay Master Plan

In May 2000, the Glebe Island and White Bay Master Plan was adopted by the then
Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning. The Master Plan, a requirement of SREP
26, was prepared to guide future development at Glebe Island and White Bay.

The Master Plan provides for the continued use of Glebe Island and White Bay as a
significant commercial port facility in Sydney Harbour. The Master Plan sets out
the vision for the future development of Glebe Island and White Bay and a series
of principles and actions in relation to land uses, road and rail infrastructure,
views, building heights and building zones, build quality, environmental controls,
landscaping, pedestrian and cycle links and heritage conservation.

For development at Glebe Island/ White Bay, the Master Plan provides objectives
and guidelines. The relevant principles are considered in Table 5 below.

Table 5 – Glebe Island/ White Bay Master Plan

Matter for Consideration Comment

Overall Vision - The planning and The proposal accords with the vision of
design vision for Glebe Island and the Glebe Island/White Bay Master Plan
White Bay follows the objectives in as follows:
SREP 26 and is to: ƒ Upgrading the port facilities on site
ƒ Upgrade existing infrastructure to to provide for a modern and
allow for growth and to improve operationally efficient cruise
efficiency; passenger terminal, thereby
ƒ Provide guidelines for all port maintaining an active port use on
development; site.
ƒ Improve the public presentation of ƒ Improves the public presentation of
the port; the port by removing the high bay
ƒ Ensure new development is of a high element of the existing shed, and
standard of urban design; providing a terminal building of high
ƒ Improve management of noise, light quality urban design.
spill and traffic; ƒ The proposed CPT has been
ƒ Provide a framework to resolve designed and assessed with regard
potential conflicts between Port to minimising and managing noise,
operations and adjoining land uses; air quality, traffic and light spill.
and
ƒ Improve ESD practices to minimise ƒ The proposed CPT has been
the impacts of current and proposed designed in accordance with the
development and activities. principles set out in Sydney Ports
Corporation’s Green Port Guidelines.
Land Use - Principles
ƒ Recognise the continued role of ƒ The proposed CPT will provide a
White Bay/Glebe Island as the modern and operationally efficient
significant commercial port facility in cruise passenger terminal,
Sydney Harbour and facilitate maintaining a continued active port
continued use. use at White Bay.
ƒ Provide for improved port efficiency ƒ Has been assessed against current
and competitiveness. environmental standards for noise,
ƒ Provide for enhanced environmental air quality and traffic management.
performance. ƒ Has been designed to accommodate
ƒ Define a set of development the forecast growth in the cruise ship
standards for future development industry.
activities within the Port to improve
the appearance of the port.
ƒ Accommodate forecast trade
growth.

28 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Matter for Consideration Comment

Road and Rail – Relevant Principles ƒ The access and internal traffic
Establish an efficient movement pattern circulation provides for an
of the site for all forms of transport. appropriate level of segregation and
efficient management of different
transport forms (private cars, taxis,
coaches and providore delivery
vehicles). The traffic generated by
the proposal and its impacts on the
surrounding road network have been
assessed in detail and are considered
appropriate.
Views, Building Heights and Building ƒ The proposed CPT will remove
Zones – Relevant Principles elements of the high bay shed which
Maintaining general views of the will improve views to Pyrmont from
Pyrmont Skyline and Anzac Bridge as Balmain and White Bay Park.
seen from the Balmain Residential area ƒ The proposed CPT will open up,
and White Bay Park. currently blocked views along
Adolphus Street.
Maintain and protect vistas where
practicable along streets which
terminate at the water.
Built Quality – Relevant Principles ƒ The proposed terminal building is of
Improve the overall appearance of the high quality urban design which will
port. improve the visual amenity of the
locality.
Provide a framework to ensure that ƒ The internal design of the proposed
development within the Port achieves a terminal and use of appropriate
high standard of urban design. materials will ensure noise generation
Provide urban design principles which associated with ship day activities or
recognise the location of the Port non-ship day functions is largely
internalised.
adjacent to residential areas with
particular attention to the physical
provision of noise control measures.

Planning for Entertainment Guidelines

Changes to the way in which places of public entertainment are regulated came
into force in 2009. These changes identify that premises do not require separate
development consent to provide entertainment, and that providing entertainment
of itself does not require development consent.

The proposed development includes the use of WB5 as a function centre on non-
ship days. A ‘function centre’ is defined as follows under the Standard Instrument
– Principal Local Environmental Plan:

a building or place used for the holding of events, functions, conferences

and the like, and includes convention centres, exhibition centres and
reception centres, but does not include an entertainment facility.

An ‘entertainment facility’ is defined as follows:

a theatre, cinema, music hall, concert hall, dance hall and the like, but
does not include a pub or registered club.

The issues associated with the use of the proposed CPT as a function centre need
to be considered as part of this Part 3A Project Application. The Planning for

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 29

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Entertainment Guidelines identify issues that a consent authority should consider

as part of its merit based assessment of any proposed development.

The key issues associated with the use of the proposed CPT as a function centre
have been addressed in the relevant section of this EAR. A summary is provided
in Table 6 below.

Table 6 – Planning for Entertainment Guidelines

Matter for Comment

Consideration
Character and In keeping with the use of the cruise passenger terminals at
context of the Circular Quay and previously at Darling Harbour, when not
area:
being used for port uses the proposed CPT can take advantage
of its unique position to provide an exciting location for
functions and events to take place.
The location of the venue contributes to the cultural and
tourism attributes of the local area and to Sydney generally.
Local amenity Potential noise issues associated with the use of the proposed
CPT as a function centre, including patrons and traffic, have
been assessed in Section 6.3.
Potential traffic impacts from the use of the proposed CPT as a
function centre have been assessed in Section 6.4.
The proposed development could be used for functions /
events such as community and corporate events, exhibitions,
conventions, product launches, film shoots, etc. Based on the
operation of the previous CPT at Darling Harbour No. 8,
Sydney Ports estimates that the WB5 CPT site could be used
for up to 50 functions / events in any calendar year. Sydney
Ports will ensure that events which have more than 1500
persons on site at any one time is restricted to no more than
20 events per year.
Hours of When the proposed CPT is being used a function centre, the
operation proposed hours of operation are as follows:
ƒ Use of internal and external areas from 7am – 11:30pm
(with all patrons to have vacated the site by 12 midnight);
ƒ Set-up and cleaning of internal areas of the facility could
occur at any time.
ƒ Set-up and cleaning of external areas will be undertaken
between 7am – 12 midnight.
Number of The largest function that would be held at the CPT would be
patrons for approximately 2,500 persons (including staff).
Building safety The proposed CPT complies with the Building Code of
Australia.
Management of An operational management plan will be provided for the use
the premises of the proposed CPT as a function centre, which includes a
Traffic Management Plan.

30 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

4.0 Consultation
In accordance with Part 3A of the EP&A Act consultation is required to occur at
the following stages:
the Director General of the Department of Planning is required to consult with
relevant public authorities in preparing the Environmental Assessment
requirements for the Project Application; and
the Director-General is required to advertise and exhibit the Environmental
Assessment and appended reports and documentation.

During the preparation of the Environmental Assessment, Sydney Ports

Corporation undertook, or attempted to undertake, consultation with the following
key regulatory and other authorities.
ƒ NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW);
ƒ NSW Department of Planning (Heritage Branch)
ƒ NSW Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA);
ƒ Sydney Harbour Foreshores Authority (SHFA)
ƒ Sydney Water;
ƒ Transport NSW;
ƒ NSW Maritime;
ƒ Industry and Investment NSW (Tourism NSW division);
ƒ Leichhardt Council;
ƒ Australian Customs;
ƒ Australian Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS) ; and
ƒ Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local
Government (maritime security regulator).
Comments and issues raised by these authorities were considered in preparing the
Environmental Assessment and are summarised in Table 7.

Table 7 – Authority Consultation Summary

Authority Issues Raised Location in EA where

the Issue is
addressed
DECCW ƒ Noise assessments conducted in ƒ Section 6.3 and
accordance with the INP, ECRTN and Appendix E (Noise)
draft Construction Noise Guidelines. ƒ Section 6.7 and
ƒ Air quality assessment conducted in Appendix H (Air
accordance with the Approved Quality)
Methods for the Modelling and ƒ Section 6.8
Assessment of Air Pollutants in NSW.
ƒ Cumulative Impacts of noise and air
quality.
ƒ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
DoP (Heritage ƒ The Heritage Branch supported Section 6.6 and
Branch) interpretation through the continued Appendix G
port use and use of the existing shed
super-structure (i.e. the former grantry
crane support structure).
ƒ Identified potential impacts on

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 31

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Authority Issues Raised Location in EA where

the Issue is
addressed
surrounding heritage items.
ƒ It was agreed that the site contained
minimal archaeological potential.
RTA ƒ Takes into consideration high level Section 5.0, Section
NSW Government strategies. 6.4 and Appendix F
Including how users of CPT can make
travel choices.
ƒ Modelling of key intersections (James
Craig Road and City West Link
Road/The Crescent).
ƒ Access and parking provisions.
ƒ Details of car parking and service
vehicle movements.
ƒ Implications of the proposed
development for non-car travel modes.
ƒ Traffic Management Plan.
Sydney Harbour SHFA has been briefed on a number of -
Foreshores occasions through the planning and
Authority design for the project. No specific
issues have been identified by SHFA,
however SHFA has provided ongoing
input and review of the project’s design.
Sydney Water ƒ Service and capacity of Sydney Water Section 5.0 and
sewerage pumping station No.9. Appendix I
ƒ Construction timeframe of other
neighbouring Sydney Water Works.
Transport NSW Requested that the following issues be Section 6.4 and
addressed: Appendix F
ƒ Description of public transport routes
etc in the locality.
ƒ Consideration of traffic management
measures to reduce car use.
ƒ Cycle access and facilities for staff
working at the facility.
ƒ Consideration of the Sydney Metro
approval.
Identified that it was not viable to
provide public transport to the facility.
ƒ Key issue raised by NSW Maritime is Section 6.4 and
NSW Maritime
the traffic arrangements through the Appendix F
NSW Maritime land and the
performance of the intersection of
James Craig Road with the Crescent.
ƒ Owner of the bed of Sydney Harbour
and part landowner of the site.
ƒ Requirements for appropriate
navigation aids.
Industry and Investment NSW (Tourism Section 6.4 and
Industry and
NSW division) generally supports the Appendix F
Investment
proposal as it is generally consistent with
NSW (Tourism Section 1.2.1
the Passenger Cruise Terminal Steering
NSW)
Committee’s recommendations.

32 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Authority Issues Raised Location in EA where

the Issue is
addressed
Issues identified for inclusion in the EA
include:
ƒ Details of the traffic arrangements
using James Craig Road, including the
suitability of the road and details of
any necessary improvements.
ƒ Description of the likely usage of the
facility, in terms of number and type
of ships.
ƒ Suitability of the proposed car parking
arrangements considering the usage of
the terminal for functions
A meeting between SPC and Leichhardt In order, these issues
Leichhardt
Council officers was held on 2 have been addressed
Council
September 2010. Issues addressed by in:
Council officers were: ƒ Section 6.4 and
ƒ Pedestrian and cycle access. Appendix F (traffic
ƒ Broader strategy for the Bays Precinct. and public access)
ƒ Public access to foreshore. ƒ Section 1.2
(strategic project
ƒ Impacts on views.
need) and Section
3.3 (strategic
planning)
ƒ Section 6.5
(views)
ƒ No specific issues. Section 5.3
Australian
Customs / AQIS ƒ Requested a number of operational
needs be accommodated in the
detailed design of the terminals.
ƒ Agreed with the proposed security -
Maritime
Security arrangements

Sydney Ports Corporation has also consulted with cruise industry representatives
with regard to their operational requirements for the terminal based on
international experience and the existing operations at the Darling Harbour No. 8
(DH8) CPT. Where appropriate, these requirements have been addressed in the
terminal design.

4.1 Bays Precinct Consultation

The Government has set up a long term planning process to provide the planning
framework for the future of Bays Precinct, which includes White Bay, as well as
Glebe Island; commercial maritime uses in Rozelle Bay; a large amount of disused
land in the Rozelle Rail Yards and White Bay Power Station.

In June 2009 the Minister for Planning established a public consultation forum for
the Bays Precinct, which included the formation of a Bays Precinct Community
Reference Group. Stage 1 of the Bays Precinct consultation was scheduled to
finish in early December 2009 but was extended to the end of March 2010 at the
community’s request. Amongst other things, it gathered information and ideas
from the community, including representatives from Leichhardt Council, in relation
to the location of the Cruise Passenger Terminal west of the Sydney Harbour
Bridge. This consultation process developed a set of draft planning principles for
the consideration of the Bays Precinct Taskforce which ‘set the scene’ for future

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 33

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

planning and development in the area, and informed the Government’s decision to
permanently relocate the CPT to WB5.

In stage 2 of the consultation, expected to occur in the second half of 2010, the
draft planning principles will be exhibited for comment and feedback from the
community will be sought. This feedback will be used to finalise the planning
principles, which will guide all future planning processes for the precinct.

34 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

5.0 Project Description

5.1 Project Application Overview
The Project Application seeks approval for the construction and operation of a new
CPT at WB5, use of adjoining wharfs and curtilage.

The proposed WB5 CPT will include:

ƒ Construction of new purpose-built buildings containing:
- arrivals hall;
- baggage hall;
- storage and amenities area;
- Customs and AQIS facilities, x-ray equipment and offices; and
- storage facilities.
ƒ Building signage.
ƒ Car parking, covered set down and pick up points and coach queuing areas.
ƒ Secured providoring waiting area and wharf access.
ƒ Offices, lunch room and amenities.
ƒ Up to two passenger gangways.
ƒ A Land Side Restricted Zone including a Cleared Zone (Customs, Immigration
and Security).
ƒ Operational and security lighting as well as other required security
infrastructure.
Sydney Ports are seeking approval for the following:
ƒ Construction and operation of a CPT at WB5
ƒ Use of wharves No. 4 and 5 White Bay, and parts of adjoining wharves No.3
and 6, for the berthing of cruise ships and the operation of associated terminal
facilities on a 24 hour, 7 days a week basis as required.
ƒ Erection, operation, removal and re-erection, as and when required, of a
temporary passenger terminal facility (i.e. a marquee or similar structure) at
WB4, with similar features and function to the permanent CPT proposed at
WB5, to process passengers, crew and baggage of a second cruise ship.
ƒ Demolition of a number of existing structures including the WB5 warehouse,
various smaller brick buildings west and south of the WB5 warehouse and
other existing structures such as fencing and parking structures.
ƒ A new access road connecting to James Craig Road including intersection
upgrade works.
ƒ Pavement and wharf upgrade works.
ƒ Installation of services.
ƒ Refurbishment of existing office and amenities buildings.
ƒ A long term carpark with approximately 200 parking spaces in close proximity
to the WB5 CPT.
ƒ Works to provide public access to the WB5 CPT building surrounds and berth
face (e.g. stairs, fencing and gates) from either Stephen St or from White Bay
Park.

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 35

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

ƒ Use of the CPT facility at WB5 on non-ship days for a variety of functions
such as exhibitions and community and / or corporate events, including the
erection of temporary structures and signage.

5.2 Cruise Passenger Terminal at WB5

5.2.1 Design Principles
The Architectural Plans and Design Statement for the proposed CPT have been
prepared by the architects JPW and are at Appendix C. The principles that
underpin the design of the proposed CPT have been devised in response to the
development brief prepared by the Passenger Cruise Terminal Steering Committee.

The following section is an extract from the JPW Design Statement:

The proposal seeks to create an iconic building; a pavilion that accommodates a

diverse range of functions and appreciates its unique context.

The design takes advantage of the high-visibility of the site and iconographic
nature of the arrival and departure procession. It invites the opportunity to
welcome and excite visitors with a unique and expressive building. The building
orientates to the significant landmarks of Sydney Harbour and references
significant aspects of site history to create a distinctive sense of place for
the visitor.

The iconographic element of the project is envisaged as a floating roof canopy that
strongly expresses ESD principles including natural ventilation and lighting.
Functional spaces are inserted beneath the roof canopy and within a transparent
pavilion between the rows of existing columns. During the daytime, the dramatic
roof gesture would be visible on approach from the Inner Harbour. During the
night-time, the underside would glow softly.

5.2.2 The CPT Building

The building envelope of the new terminal will be contained within the existing
trussed column system. The height of the modulating roof varies but remains
below the line of the gantry crane support structure which is approximately 21m
high. The high roof element of the existing building (being 23m from the wharf
level to the underside of the roof trusses and approximately 30m to the apex of
the roof) will be removed.

The existing trussed columns (i.e. the former gantry crane support structure) are
to be retained. Exposure of the trussed columns will create a simple building form,
enclosed within the strong line of trussed columns marching in two continuous
lines from west to east. Where the existing building partially conceals these
columns, the proposed design will expose the full height of each column by
relocating the new walls to the inside line of the columns. Reuse of the trussed
columns also interprets the previous port uses at the site, providing visitors with
an understanding of the nature and scale of port uses and activities.

The general appearance of the columns will remain unaltered, apart from essential
patching, repairs and painting as required.

Refer to Appendix C for the proposed external materials and finishes. As a

contemporary pavilion placed within a working harbour context, the proposed
design responds in form and materiality to a range of existing site conditions:
The existing columns will be retained as a celebration of the port heritage of
the site.

36 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

The columns perform an integral structural role and act as an ordering device
across the site upon which the various new building elements interact and
are supported.
Within the existing framework, a corrugated metal roof is draped from a series of
trusses above, extending across 17 column bays.
The roof form varies in height in response to view considerations of overlooking
residents and internal functional requirements. It generally remains at or below the
height of the existing low bay shed. This variation in pitch heights minimises the
roof reflectance.
Beneath the roof, the arrivals hall and baggage hall areas are clad in clear glass
that wraps continuously around all sides. Two passenger gangways punctuate
the facade, which provide access directly to the ship.
Concentration of lighting on the harbourside and location of building mass on the
northern side minimises light spillage to neighbouring Balmain residents.

The key components of the CPT building and its immediate surrounds are:
ƒ Short Term Car Park;
ƒ Forecourt;
ƒ Arrivals Hall;
ƒ Baggage Hall;
ƒ Gangway Structure;
ƒ Storage and amenities area; and
ƒ Ancillary offices, staff and passenger amenities, storage rooms etc.

Short-Term Car Park

The facility accommodates short term car parking spaces for approximately 200
vehicles, located within walking distance of the main forecourt on the western
side of the CPT. Within this contained area there is also the provision for drop off
and pick up of passengers. Covered pedestrian walkways are provided along the
north and south edges. These act as covered waiting areas and also direct
passengers towards the CPT. The car park operates in a similar manner on ship
days and during functions.

Forecourt and Covered Setdown

The building forecourt, located on the western side of the proposed CPT, is
conceived as a designated passenger pick-up and drop-off waiting area. It will be
composed of various ground materials including hard surfaces and soft
landscaping, which together create visual interest and introduce human scale to
the area.

A landscape zone to the west acts as a visual as well as spatial buffer between
the car park and waiting area. A series of bollards line the edge of the drop
off/pick up area. These provide security from vehicle intrusion and also provide a
transition to the pedestrian zone. A clearance space between the bollards and the
vehicle drop off/ pick up allows adequate space for the movement of people
and luggage.

Arrivals Hall
A broad hall space forms the entrance to the Cruise Passenger Terminal. All
passengers and non-travelling visitors access this space directly from the
forecourt, moving through from west to east. The hall consists of a glazed, open
space that sits within the existing trussed columns with views over White Bay and

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 37

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

to the city beyond. In this expansive hall, a diverse range of uses can be
accommodated. Internal functions will generally match those previously
undertaken at Darling Harbour Wharf No.8. These primarily include processing
cruise passengers and serving as an adaptable space for functions and events.

Along the northern facade, amenities including toilets and plant areas are
contained within a series of highly-finished boxes, inserted between the existing
columns. This rhythm of boxes recalls the historic stacking of shipping containers
along a similar line in the original shed structure. A kiosk is situated along the
southern facade, with seating available both within the hall interior and outside on
an external deck. These are positioned to take advantage of panoramic views of
White Bay and the city.

Baggage Hall
The Baggage Hall adjoins the Arrivals Hall and it similarly consists of a large, open
hall that is glazed along the southern facade to permit views of White Bay and the
city. During ship days, only passengers may proceed to this space from the
Arrivals Hall. Upon departure, ticket processing and Customs checks occur here.
On arrival, this hall is used for bag pick up prior to screening by Australian
Customs. As an uninterrupted space of grand scale, the Baggage Hall also has the
capacity for flexible arrangements tailored to the requirements of specific events
and functions.

A series of boxes contain amenities including toilets and plant areas, as well as a
separate Customs office and AQIS washroom facility for the treatment of potentially
contaminated articles brought by passengers on arriving passenger ships.

A mezzanine is located along the southern face of the Baggage Hall, which leads
into to the main departure areas. This level is accessed by escalator, stairs and a
lift. It can also be used as an elevated function space.

Gangway Structure
Two airport style gangways provide access directly from the mezzanine level of
the Cruise Passenger Terminal to the ship. Two airport style retractable gangways
will be utilised between the CPT and the docked cruise ships. On occasions when
the terminal gangways cannot be used the ship’s gangways will be utilised.

Storage and Amenities Area

At the eastern most end is the storage and amenities area, used primarily for
general storage and the transfer of bags to and from ships. It is comprised of a
secure storage space and a series of boxes which accommodate staff facilities
including meal room and toilet/shower facilities, a kitchen and plant areas. On
non-ship days, this area could also be used for functions and events.

Support Facilities
In addition to the main passenger processing halls and the storage and amenities
area, the CPT includes a number of areas which house ancillary functions,
including:
ƒ Australian Customs and Immigration interview rooms;
ƒ storage space for shipping service providers and Sydney Ports Corporation;
ƒ AQIS wash station (a room) accessible from the Baggage Hall to provide
washroom facilities for the treatment of potentially contaminated articles
brought in by passengers on arriving passenger ships;
ƒ public/passenger toilets;
ƒ staff facilities, including a meal room and toilet/shower rooms;

38 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

ƒ facilities including a kiosk; and

ƒ a kitchen for functions.
In addition to the CPT, the existing office block and security buildings on site will
be retained and fitted out.

A numeric overview of the proposed development at WB5 is provided in

Table 8 below.

Table 8 – WB5 Numeric Overview

White Bay Wharf No.5 Proposal

Component
Building Area (GFA) ƒ Internal: 4,600m2
ƒ External undercover area: 5,200m2
Height ƒ The undulating roof generally varies between
approximately 10m and 13m externally from
ground to eaves.
Car parking spaces ƒ Approximately 200 short term parking spaces

Long term car parking providing approximately 200 car park spaces may also be
provided for at the site. These car parking spaces would be used by ship
passengers who chose to drive to the CPT and leave their car while they are away
on the ship, normally about 9-10 days. As such, these car parking spaces would
not be available for any short term car parking use, including for functions, as they
may be occupied by ship passenger’s vehicles.

5.2.3 CPT Internal Layout

On days when there is a cruise ship at berth, the CPT building is divided into a
number of segregated areas in accordance with Commonwealth Customs and
security legislation. The flow of inward and outward bound passengers involves
different processes and the activities undertaken in different areas of the facility
therefore change during the course of the day’s operations as discussed in
Section 1.3.

Figure 17 shows the layout of the terminal building and the key components.

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 39

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Figure 17 – Site layout

40 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

5.2.4 Landscape Treatment

The objective of the landscape surrounding the White Bay CPT is to create public
areas that recognise and interpret the industrial and port related uses at White
Bay, while addressing the need for the site to meet the specific requirements of
the visitors and staff in its role as a “gateway” to Sydney for cruise ships.

The intent of the area surrounding the CPT is to create a functional landscape that
links the arrival and departure experience between land transport and ship and to
cater for the movement of both large pedestrian groups and small informal
gatherings. The areas surrounding the CPT will mostly be hard landscaped,
consisting of hard, functional surfaces (such as concrete, bitumen or paving), with
components including seating and infrastructure for pedestrian movements. There
will be minimal amounts of soft landscaping, however, where plant material is
proposed it will be low maintenance and distinctive to the Sydney region.

Crime Prevention through Environmental Design principles will be upheld with

landscaping structures or plantings to allow clear visibility between and within
spaces and to ensure sightlines across outdoor spaces are maintained.

Where the new access road runs parallel close to Robert Street landscaping and a
footpath along Robert St will be provided consistent with the Glebe Island and
White Bay Master Plan and Ports Improvement Program.

A landscape plan for the site will be prepared as part of the detailed design of
the CPT.

5.2.5 Environmental Sustainability

The development will incorporate sustainable green initiatives. The sustainable
green initiatives have been established with regard to Sydney Ports Corporations
‘Green Port Guidelines’, published in May 2006, and are outlined in Section 6.12.

5.2.6 Security Management

On cruise ship days, the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act
2003 and Customs Act 1901 are applicable to the site. These Acts require a
certain level of access control and security to be implemented. As a minimum, the
below security measures will be implemented for the proposed development:
ƒ A cleared secure zone will be established from the wharf edge to
accommodate vehicle loading and unloading activities. The zone will be
secured by a security fence erected generally along a 30m clearance zone line,
parallel to the wharf face. Concrete barriers will also be used in areas along
the cleared zone boundary line as required to act as barriers, to port security
standards. Only passengers screened and making their way to or from the
ships are allowed within this zone. Authorised staff may also enter this zone.
ƒ A network of security fencing and gates will be installed around WB4 and
WB5 and along the new access road for personnel and vehicle control. The
general extent of the proposed fencing is shown in the drawings in
Appendix C. Fencing (including posts, rails and gates) proposed to be
provided on the perimeter of the Port will be black in colour (i.e. black PVC,
powder coated or the like).
ƒ Low fencing will be used where required to keep vehicles within
designated areas.
ƒ Bollards will be used in the proximity of the terminal building to keep cars from
pedestrian areas. The bollards would allow for pedestrian movement to pass
through and minimise visual impact.
ƒ A security gate house and appropriate automatic gate.

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 41

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

ƒ CCTV cameras and security lighting.

ƒ Security vehicle barriers.

5.2.7 Access and Traffic Circulation

The PCT Steering Committee Part A Report (November 2009) recommended the
permanent CPT proposed for the western side of the Sydney Harbour Bridge be
located at WB5 based on, among other reasons, that access to the new facility
could be provided via James Craig Road. This Report also identified the potential
for some traffic access to the WB5 CPT to be provided via Robert Street subject
to a traffic impact assessment being undertaken.

In order to provide this new access road Sydney Ports are proposing to move the
existing fence line to the west to align with the Sydney Ports property boundary.
This is required to provide sufficient space within the port area for passenger
vehicle access via James Craig Road. The relocation of the fence will result in the
narrowing of Robert St, south-west of Buchanan Street, as well as the loss of
some on street parking to the south of Buchanan Street being removed. A new
security gate and check point will be provided at the Robert Street entry to the
Port.

Taxis, coaches and cars will access the terminal using the new access road via
James Craig Road. Security checks of service vehicles are performed in the area
of the existing security checkpoint near the Robert St entrance to the site.
Generally, the vehicular circulation has been designed to segregate traffic,
specifically private vehicles, taxis, buses, and service vehicles. Figure 18
illustrates the access routes for each mode of transport.

A full assessment of the impact of the proposed CPT operation on the surrounding
road network is at Section 6.4.

Private Cars
The short term car park including the drop off spaces would be located to the
immediate west of the main terminal building. The access to the short term car
would be located approximately 130m to the west of the terminal building. It
would provide access to the short term car park, as well as the coach drop off
spaces and general public drop off spaces adjacent to the terminal building.

Mini Buses and Coaches

The coach and mini-bus drop off spaces would be located to the south of the
short term car park, while the taxi drop off area would be located along the access
road to the immediate north of the terminal building and the short term parking
area respectively. On the other side of the access road, two u-turn loop roads are
proposed for taxis to allow these vehicles to access the drop off spaces.

Service and Providore Vehicles

Service vehicle parking would be provided in two areas. Within the cargo area
located to the immediate east of the proposed terminal, there would be adequate
area to accommodate parking for up to six small sized trucks. This parking area
would be non-secured.

A separate secured area would be available for large trucks (up to 19m semi-
trailers). This area would be located adjacent to the short term car park, and
south of the overflow coach parking area. This area would have six truck bays.

42 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Figure 18 – WB5 Vehicle Access Routes

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 43

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

5.2.8 Building Accessibility

Entry from the street is flush, as are the floors to internal spaces. A lift within
WB5 CPT provides access to the mezzanine area and passenger ship via the
proposed gangways.

For WB5 new accessible toilets will be located on the ground floor, enabling wheel
chair or others with disabilities to make use of all facilities within the building. For
WB4 accessible toilets will be provided, enabling wheel chair or others with
disabilities to make use of all facilities within the building. Access will also be
provided at wharf level to the terminal building when ship gangways are utilised.

5.2.9 Waste Management

Private contractors will be engaged for removal of waste generated at the CPT.
A waste collection point is located within the storage and amenities area, using
skips sized to suit. Waste will be separated where practical into recyclable and
non recyclable.

Waste from the cruise ships can be separated between quarantine waste and non-
quarantine waste. Non-quarantine waste will be taken off the ship by regular
waste contractors for disposal at a suitably licensed facility. Quarantine waste
will have different requirements for storage, treatment and disposal and will be
dealt with separately in accordance with those requirements.

5.2.10 Bunkering (Refuelling)

Bunkering (refuelling) of the cruise passenger ships is anticipated to emulate the
refuelling regime undertaken at the Darling Harbour Wharf No.8 CPT and the
interim CPT at Darling Harbour No.5, where fuel is provided to ships while they
are at berth, typically undertaken from a bunker barge berthed next to the ship.
From time to time, small quantities of distillate fuel may also be provided by
road tanker.

As part of the bunkering process, Sydney Ports staff ensure a checklist is

completed by the cruise passenger ship and barge prior to the start of the transfer
operation. This is to address safety issues (for example protocols concerning
pump rates, communications, emergency shutdown, etc). Random audits are also
conducted on the transfer operation.

5.2.11 Functions
On non ship days, the CPT facility at WB5 will be able to be used for a variety of
functions, with Arrival and Baggage halls within the building having the capacity to
be adapted for functions/events (providing for functions of up to 2,500 persons).
It is also intended to use external areas to the CPT for temporary structures
associated with events including but not limited to stalls, marquees, signage,
temporary toilets and amusement rides. As with the DH8 CPT, it is proposed that
the site be used as a venue for a range of activities when it is not being utilised as
a passenger terminal. The types of functions/events that will make use of WB5
may include:
ƒ community and / or corporate events;
ƒ exhibitions and conventions;
ƒ food and beverage festivals;
ƒ film shoots;
ƒ product launches;
ƒ charity and fundraising functions;

44 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

ƒ cultural events; and

ƒ special uses (during city wide events such as APEC).

For functions and events, the main elements for which consent is sought for are:
use of the site for functions / events when the site is not being used as a
passenger terminal;
ƒ use of internal and external areas of the site from 7am until 11:30pm;
ƒ use of internal and external areas for amusement rides no more than 5 times a
year; and
ƒ temporary structures and signage for functions / events as required.

Approval is also sought to undertake functions / events outside the above stated
hours of operation for special events (e.g. New Years Eve, Australia Day, etc)
subject to approval by the Director-General of the Department of Planning.

The short term car park will be used for parking associated with events.
Corporate functions would be encouraged to transport patrons via organised
buses/coaches.

5.3 White Bay Wharf No.4 – Temporary

Terminal for 2nd Cruise Passenger Ship
In the event that two cruise passenger ships are required to be berthed at White
Bay, provision has been made for the erection and use of a temporary structure at
WB4 as and when required. The erection and removal of the temporary structure
will be undertaken within the proposed construction work hours (refer to Table
25).

The facility will be housed in a marquee or similar structure that would be erected
prior to the arrival of the ship and removed following departure of the ship. The
temporary structure however, may remain erected after a cruise ship departs
should it be required for another cruise ship within the ensuing weeks.

Similar to the WB5 CPT, the WB4 temporary terminal will include:
ƒ Arrivals Hall;
ƒ Baggage Hall;
ƒ Cargo handling area;
ƒ Customs and AQIS facilities;
ƒ Amenities; and
ƒ Storage facilities.
The height (at the apex) of the temporary marquee is approximately 8 m, and it would
be approximately 25m wide. The WB4 temporary terminal will not include gangways
for passenger access to ships. Passengers will access ships directly from the wharf
side using ship gangways.

The approximate location and ship berthing at WB4 are shown in the White Bay
Site Diagram in Appendix B.

The WB4 temporary terminal will accommodate largely the same ship-day
activities as the WB5 CPT (i.e. arrivals, customs and cargo handling) and be
designed to meet the same customs, immigration and quarantine requirements as

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 45

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

the WB5 CPT with regard to Land Side Restricted Zones and Cleared Zones. As
with the security management of WB5, a network of fencing will be installed
around WB4 terminal to meet Port security requirements. Where existing security
fencing at White Bay is of an appropriate standard, reuse of such fencing for the
temporary terminal will be considered.

The WB4 temporary terminal will be accessed via the new access road connecting
to James Craig Road for private vehicles, taxis and buses / coaches.

Figures 19 and 20 show an example of the type of structure proposed to be used

for the temporary terminal at WB4.

The hours of operation, security management, waste management and bunkering

(refuelling) practices for the temporary terminal for a 2nd cruise ship will adopt the
same practice as the CPT at WB5.

Figure 19 – Photograph of a temporary terminal at DH5

Figure 20 – Illustration of the interior of the style of temporary terminal

46 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

5.4 Construction Activities

The main Construction Activities associated with the WB5 CPT can be
summarised as follows:
ƒ Potential requirement for piling to support mezzanine level structures,
passenger gangways and disembarkation balcony.
ƒ Trenching to provide for ground services, additional foundation requirements,
passenger gangway support foundations, storage tanks, security vehicle
barriers and bollards, possible cooling system, kerbing, fencing and the like.
ƒ Use of cranes to remove the upper elements of the existing shed in addition to
any other lifting operations required during construction.
ƒ Demolition works, including the high level shed’s existing cladding and
ancillary buildings.
ƒ General construction works associated with the construction of the new CPT
at WB5 and temporary CPT at WB4.
ƒ Construction of the new access road, and other road improvement/
upgrade works.
ƒ Minor excavation and minor ground improvement works associated with the
short/long-term car park.
ƒ Making good of the existing concrete including the cutting and breaking of
existing concrete on site and the provision of new concreting as required.
ƒ Upgrades to existing services, including power, sewer and stormwater.
ƒ Internal and external painting and coating systems.

It is anticipated that the construction activities will be staged. In particular early

works may include securing the site and removal of hazardous materials, followed
by general cladding and steel work removal and recycling.

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 47

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

6.0 Environmental Assessment

This section of the report assesses and responds to the environmental impacts of
the Project Application proposal. It addresses the matters for consideration set out
in the Director-General’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (DGRs).

The draft Statement of Commitments complements the findings of this section.

6.1 Director General’s Environmental

Assessment Requirements
Table 9 provides a detailed summary of the individual matters listed in the DGRs
and / or identifies where each of these requirements has been addressed in this
report and the accompanying technical studies.

Table 9 – Director General’s Environmental Assessment Requirements

Director General’s requirements Location in Report/Application

Executive Summary Executive Summary
Detailed description of the project Section 5.0
Assessment of the key issues (including Section 6.0
key assessment requirements)
Strategic and Project justification Section 3.0 and Section 8.0
Noise Section 6.3 and Appendix D and E
Traffic and Access Section 6.4 and Appendix F
Urban Design and Visual Impact Section 5.0 & 6.5 and Appendix C
Heritage Section 6.6 and Appendix G
Air Quality Section 6.7 and Appendix H
Contaminated Land Section 6.8 and Appendix J
Stormwater Section 6.9
Draft Statement of Commitments Section 7.0
Certification Statement of Validity
Environmental Risk Assessment Section 6.11
Consultation Section 4.0

6.2 Site Suitability and Implications of

Proposed Land Uses
The site is suitable for the proposed development, as:
ƒ the site is an established port facility and zoned Port and Employment;
ƒ the existing berths are accessible by cruise ships as they provide suitable
water depth and space to safely manoeuvre and position cruise ships;
ƒ the site is large and has the potential to accommodate the uses of a CPT
which require a large building footprint and circulation space for vehicles;
ƒ the site allows for the reuse of existing infrastructure, including reuse of
elements of the existing cargo shed and berthing facilities;
ƒ the site is currently zoned for the proposed use, and supported by relevant
strategies and plans for the area;

48 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

ƒ the site is serviced by a suitable road network, which can accommodate

buses, commercial vehicles as well as private cars, taxis; and
ƒ the site can be secured appropriately.

6.3 Noise Impact

To determine the noise impact of the proposed development, an assessment of all
aspects of the proposal has been conducted in accordance with the NSW
Government’s Industrial Noise Policy (INP) for the industrial / stationary
components of the proposal; Environmental Criteria for Road Traffic Noise
(ECRTN) for the traffic noise related impacts; and the Interim Construction Noise
Guideline for the construction noise impacts.

A Noise and Vibration Assessment of the port activities and traffic was
undertaken by Wilkinson Murray and is included at Appendix D.

A further noise impact assessment has been undertaken by Renzo Tonin &
Associates (provided at Appendix E) for functions/events undertaken in the CPT
and external areas at WB5 and the building’s required acoustic treatment.

6.3.1 Cruise Ship Operations

Background Noise Levels
To assess the potential noise impacts of cruise ships berthed at White Bay,
background noise levels in the locality were determined using data from a number
of recent studies.

The historical background measurements vary, particularly in the streets nearest

WB4 and WB5 (Grafton and Donnelly Streets) where variations in night time
background noise levels are up to 10dBA.

To establish a Rating Background Level (RBLs) for the project, the historical noise
data along with data for ambient LAeq has been used. Prevailing industrial LAeq
levels have also been estimated from historical data. Table 10, presents the levels
used to set intrusive and amenity criteria for the proposed development from a
number of locations (refer to Figure 21).

Table 10 – Adopted RBL and LAeq (Source: Wilkinson Murray)

No. Location LA90 LAeq

Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
(6am- (6pm- (10pm- (6am- (6pm- (10pm-
7pm) 10pm) 7am) 7pm) 10pm) 7am)
Grafton St,
1 45 43 40 56 52 52
Balmain
Donnelly St,
2 47 47 44 56 52 52
Balmain
Dockside
3 55 52 48 48 48 48
Apartments
Refinery Drive,
4 50 48 46 55 55 50
Pyrmont
5 Oxley St, Glebe 53 42 42 57 53 53
Camerons
6 45 43 40 56 52 52
Cove, Balmain

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 49

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

2
1

6
3

5 – off map

Figure 21 – Residential noise receivers

Industrial Noise Criteria

Under the INP, project specific noise criteria for the existing residential receivers
around the site are established by determining the more stringent of the following
two approaches:
ƒ Intrusive noise impacts in the short term for residences, which are established
as being 5dBA above the RBL; and
ƒ Amenity for particular land uses such as residences depends on the time of
day, area classifications and the contribution from existing industrial noise.
The area classification proposed is the ‘urban/industrial interface’ due to the
close proximity of the surrounding urban areas to the site which continues to
be used for existing and ongoing port activities.

Table 11 provides a summary of the project specific noise criteria for the existing
residential receivers surrounding the site. The INP discusses setting a “project
specific noise criteria” that is the intrusive or amenity criterion that is most limiting
on operations.

Locations 1 and 2 would be limited by the night time intrusive criteria. The other
locations would be limited by the night time amenity criteria.

Table 11 – Operational Noise Criteria (Source: Wilkinson Murray)

No. Location Intrusive Criteria Amenity Criteria

LAeq,15min dBA LAeq,period dBA
Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Grafton St,
1 50 48 45 65 55 50
Balmain
2 Donnelly St, 52 52 49 65 55 50

50 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Intrusive Criteria Amenity Criteria

LAeq,15min dBA LAeq,period dBA
Balmain
Dockside
3 60 57 53 65 55 46
Apartments
Refinery Drive,
4 55 53 51 65 47 42
Pyrmont
5 Oxley St, Glebe 58 47 47 65 51 43
Camerons
6 50 48 45 65 52 42
Cove, Balmain

Note: At Locations 1 and 2 it is assumed that this proposal would be the dominant source of
ambient noise. Therefore, the amenity criteria are set at the unadjusted acceptable
levels at those locations. At other locations, the amenity criteria have been adjusted
according to the scale published in the INP to account for the existing ambient noise
(which comes from industrial sources other than the area proposed for the CPT). The
amenity criteria are based on the Urban/Industrial Interface categorisation of the closest
residences facing the port.

6.3.2 Operational Noise Assessment for

Cruise Ship Operations
During the operation of the CPT, noise will be generated from a number of
different sources. Table 12 identifies the sound power levels assumed for the
noise modelling.

Table 12 – Sound Power Levels (Source Wilkinson Murray)

Location LAeq
Cruise Ship 107
Large Forklift (diesel, no noise control) 106
Large Forklift (electric, gas, or diesel, no noise control) 95
Gas powered forklift 93
Refrigerated Trucks 103
Car park acoustic centre* 92
Bus acoustic centre (at 30 to 40 kmph) 105
Car (at 40 kmph) 90
*The car park noise was based on the CPT peak traffic generation of 57 cars arriving and leaving
within a typical 15 minute period.

The extent of noise generated by the operation of a CPT, based on the Sound
Power Levels detailed above, will vary over a large range and are dependent on
the receiver’s location and on the activity at the port.

The assessment of the operational noise from the CPT facility considers:
ƒ intrusiveness criteria assessment;
ƒ amenity criteria assessment; and
ƒ cumulative noise with Bailey’s proposal at WB6.
Sleep disturbance impacts were also assessed, and details of this assessment are
provided in Appendix D.

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 51

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Noise Assessment Scenarios

SPC have analysed the cruise ship traffic berthing west of the harbour bridge from
Jan 2008 till June 2010 to determine normal and typical worst case operational
noise scenarios. From this analysis the following scenarios were developed for
assessment of noise impact:
ƒ Typical daytime – one ship with providoring at WB5 (Scenario 1);
ƒ Typical worst case daytime – two ships at berth with providoring occurring at
either WB5 or WB4 (Scenarios 2 and 3).
ƒ Typical worst case evening – one ship with providoring at WB5
(Scenario 4); and
ƒ Typical worst case night time – one ship at either WB5 or WB4 without
providoring (Scenario 5 and 6).
The typical case for evening and night time is no ship and no providoring. Given
the typical worst cases for evening and night (i.e. Scenarios 4, 5, & 6) have been
assessed, these typical cases are not discussed further.

Intrusiveness Criteria Assessment

The intrusiveness criteria are assessed over 15 minute periods. To assess against
these criteria, noise was predicted for typical operations during the busiest 15
minute period when ships were in port.

Previously it was discussed that background noise levels in the area are variable.
Hence while intrusiveness assessment is necessary for a complete understanding
of noise emissions, it is considered that the long-term noise impact of the site is
best predicted by assessment against the amenity criteria.

The Wilkinson Murray report also provides an assessment against the

intrusiveness criteria for each of the scenarios, however these have not been
reproduced in the EA Report. However, the assessment of Scenario 1 against the
intrusiveness criterion is provided below as it informs the analysis of reasonable
and feasible noise mitigations.

Noise was predicted from ships at berth, miscellaneous sources (car park,
refrigerated trucks and forklifts) and internal roads (including the access road
connecting to James Craig Road).

The extent of the noise from these noise sources has been assessed for still
conditions and with a 3m/s westerly wind. Predicted noise was calculated at the
six assessment locations, and the results are shown in Table 13.

Table 13 – Assessment against Intrusiveness Noise Criteria (Source Wilkinson Murray)

Receiver Location StillWith a Daytime

No. Conditions
westerly Intrusiveness
wind Criteria LAeq,15min
Scenario 1 – Typical Daytime Operations (1 ship with providoring at WB5)
1 Grafton St, Balmain 56 57 50
2 Donelly St, Balmain 52 49 52
3 Dockside Apartments 49 49 60
4 Refinery Dr, Pyrmont 41 45 55
5 Oxley St, Glebe 35 35 58

52 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Receiver Location Still With a Daytime

No. Conditions westerly Intrusiveness
wind Criteria LAeq,15min
6 Camerons Cove Apts 42 44 50

The assessment concludes that at the location closest to the site (Grafton Street),
there would be an excceedance of the intrusiveness criterion of up to 7 dBA
Scenario 1 (Typical Daytime) and up to an 8 dBA exceedance during Typical
Worst Case Daytime and Evening Scenarios (Scenarios 2-4), and 4 dBA for
Scenario 5 (Typical Worst Case Night time). At Donnelly Street there would be
exceedances of up to 3 dBA during the Typical Worst Case Daytime Scenarios 2
and 3. Predicted noise levels for all other scenarios comply with the intrusiveness
criteria at all other locations.

Amenity Criteria Assessment

Each domestic cruise ship typically has a turn around time of 10-12 hours, arriving
around 6.30am and leaving the terminal generally by 6.00pm. International cruise
ships could dock for up to 72 hours on infrequent occasions. Vessels which dock
for more than a day generally only account for around 10% of the cruise vessels
berthing on the western side of the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

To predict the overall LAeq in these periods the following assumptions were made:
ƒ Daytime (an 11 hour period): using the daily traffic profile from the traffic
report, it is predicted that the LAeq,11hour (that is the daytime noise) from internal
traffic alone would be 4dBA less than the LAeq,15min during the busiest hour of
the day. The daytime LAeq is therefore calculated by reducing the noise level
of internal roads and carpark sources by 4dBA. It was assumed that forklifts
and refrigerated trucks would operate till approximately 4.00pm, so their
LAeq,11hr contribution would be 2dBA quieter than the noisiest hour. Ships
would operate continuously throughout the period.
ƒ Evening (a 4 hour period): ship operates continuously. In the event that
Providoring needed to continue into the evening period it was assumed that
Providoring would finish by approximately 8.30pm, corresponding to a noise
level contribution 2dBA less than the noisiest hour.
ƒ Night time (a 9 hour period): ship operates continuously through the night.

The results of this amenity assessment are provided in full in Appendix D, which
also includes the noise contour maps. Grafton Street (Location 1) was identified
as the critical receptor location in the Intrusiveness Assessment and so the
Amenity Assessment results for Grafton Street are summarised In Table 14 below.
The assessment concluded that there are no predicted exceedances of the
amenity criteria for all six (6) scenarios modelled.

Table 14 – Assessment against Amenity Noise Criteria (Source Wilkinson Murray)

No. Scenario Still of Predicted Amenity

With Noise Criteria
Wind Levels
(day
time Day
only) LAeq,11hr
1 Day, LAeq,11hr
Still 53 LAeq,11hr
65
Typical Day Time
Day, LAeq,11hr
wind 52 LAeq,11hr
65
2 Day, LAeq,11hr
Typical Worst Case Day Time (Two Still 54 LAeq,11hr
65

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 53

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Amenity
Criteria

ships, providoring at WB5) Day, LAeq,11hr

wind 55 LAeq,11hr
65
3 Day, LAeq,11hr
Still 52 LAeq,11hr
Typical Worst Case Daytime (Two 65
ships, providoring at WB5) Day, LAeq,11hr
wind 53 LAeq,11hr
65
4 Typical Worst Case Evening (One ship Evening LAeq,4hr
- 54 LAeq,4hr
and providoring) 55
5 Typical Worst Case Night Time (One
- 49 LAeq,9hr Night LAeq,9hr 50
ship at WB5, no providoring)
6 Typical Worst Case Night Time (One
- 45 LAeq,9hr Night LAeq,9hr 50
ship at WB4, no providoring)

Noise Mitigation Analysis

A range of noise mitigation strategies has been investigated in order to minimise
noise impact by appropriate design of the facility and its operations. The possible
noise mitigations to be implemented include:
ƒ A wall on the northern side of the Providoring storage area. This effectively
creates 3.5m high noise barrier along the majority of the area used by forklifts;
ƒ Noise control kit applied to the large forklift. This could be in the form of
treatment to a diesel forklift, or use of an electric or gas powered forklift. In
particular there is scope to reduce noise level of the large diesel forklift. A
significant reduction in noise from this piece of equipment (say 10dBA) could
reduce the overall noise at the closest receivers by up to 1dBA.
ƒ Noise barriers between the trussed columns left standing after removal of the
existing shed. There are two rows of high columns, and high level barriers
could be built along either or both rows of the columns (denoted “sea side”
and “land side” rows in this report). The sea side barrier would commence
approximately 3m above the level of the hardstand, and be approximately 6m
high to a total height of 9m. The “land side” barrier was raised to
approximately 15m with its lower edge elevated to approximately 6m.
ƒ A noise barrier at the Grafton Street level to shield Grafton Street residences.
Various heights were assessed for a barrier. Barriers from 3m to 5m high
were assessed and were found to provide some benefit in reducing noise from
providoring and passenger vehicles. To significantly reduce noise using a
barrier at this location would require a barrier high enough to reduce the ship
noise: such a barrier might need to be 15m high. Given the impracticality of a
15m barrier, and the minimal difference in performance between a 3m barrier
and a 5m barrier, a 3m high noise barrier was assessed as part of the broader
noise mitigation strategy.

Analysis of the noise benefits from the above options at Grafton Street concluded
the following:
ƒ The 3.5m wall on the northern side of the providoring storage area reduces
noise levels at the most-affected residence by 1 dBA.
ƒ Reducing the noise of the large forklift is predicted to reduce overall noise
level by 1dBA;

54 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

ƒ The sea side barrier on the high bay columns reduces overall noise levels by
less than 0.5dBA (though the difference is less than 0.5dBA, rounding it
shows as 1dBA in the table due to rounding effects);
ƒ The land side barrier on the high bay columns provides 2 dBA mitigation to
Location 1; and
ƒ The 3 m high Grafton Street clifftop barrier provides at most 1dBA reduction
in the overall noise level.
The preferred suite of noise mitigation measures includes:
ƒ A wall on the northern side of the Providoring storage area, forming a 3.5m
high noise barrier;
ƒ Maximum sound power level of large forklifts to be 95dBA; and
ƒ Only one large forklift in operation at any time.

While the acoustic ‘land-side’ and ‘sea-side’ acoustic barriers would provide some
noise mitigation they would undermine the improvements made to the visual
amenity at the site with removal of the high bay shed and would diminish the
overall quality of the architectural design for the CPT.

Revised Intrusiveness Criteria Assessment

The Intrusiveness Assessment was recalculated with the inclusion of the selected
noise mitigation measures, which are listed above. The results are shown in Table
15, identifying that there is a residual exceedance of 5dBA predicted at Grafton
Street during periods with wind for the Typical Daytime Scenario and up to 6 dBA
exceedance for the Typical Worst Case Daytime Scenario. There would also be
exceedances at Grafton Street of between 4 and 6 dBA during Scenarios 4 and 5
(being Typical Worst Case Evening and Night time Scenarios).

For the Typical Worst Case Daytime Scenarios there is predicted to be a small
1 dBA exceedance at Donnelly Street. Predicted noise levels for all scenarios
comply with the intrusiveness criteria at all other locations.

No exceedances of the Amenity Criteria were predicted in the unmitigated

scenarios, however the predictions have been updated for the preferred mitigation
scenario and are presented in Appendix D.

Table 15 – Assessment against Intrusiveness Noise Criteria (Source Wilkinson Murray)

No. Location LAeq,15min

LAeq,15min Intrusiveness
Still With a westerly Criteria
Conditions
wind (Daytime LAeq,15min
only)
Scenario 1 – Typical Daytime Operations (1 ship with providoring at WB5)
1 Grafton St, Balmain 54 55 50
2 Donelly St, Balmain 51 48 52
3 Dockside Apartments 49 49 60
4 Refinery Dr, Pyrmont 41 45 55
5 Oxley St, Glebe 34 33 58
6 Camerons Cove Apts 42 44 50
Scenario 2 – Typical Worst Case Daytime Operations
(2 ship with providoring at WB5)
1 Grafton St, Balmain 55 56 50
2 Donelly St, Balmain 53 50 52
3 Dockside Apartments 50 49 60

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 55

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

No. Location LAeq,15min LAeq,15min Intrusiveness

Still With a westerly Criteria
Conditions wind (Daytime LAeq,15min
only)
4 Refinery Dr, Pyrmont 43 47 55
5 Oxley St, Glebe 37 37 58
6 Camerons Cove Apts 42 44 50
Scenario 3 – Typical Worst Case Daytime Operations
(2 ship with providoring at WB4)
1 Grafton St, Balmain 53 54 50
2 Donelly St, Balmain 53 51 52
3 Dockside Apartments 50 49 60
4 Refinery Dr, Pyrmont 43 47 55
5 Oxley St, Glebe 36 36 58
6 Camerons Cove Apts 42 44 50
Scenario 4 – Typical Worst Case Evening Operations
(1 ship with providoring at WB5)
1 Grafton St, Balmain 54 - 48
2 Donelly St, Balmain 51 - 52
3 Dockside Apartments 49 - 57
4 Refinery Dr, Pyrmont 41 - 53
5 Oxley St, Glebe 35 - 47
6 Camerons Cove Apts 42 - 48
Scenario 5 – Typical Worst Case Nightime Operations
(1 ship at WB5, with no providoring)
1 Grafton St, Balmain 49 - 45
2 Donelly St, Balmain 44 - 49
3 Dockside Apartments 37 - 53
4 Refinery Dr, Pyrmont 41 - 51
5 Oxley St, Glebe 32 - 47
6 Camerons Cove Apts 42 - 45
Scenario 6 – Typical Worst Case Nightime Operations
(1 ship at WB4, with no providoring)
1 Grafton St, Balmain 45 - 45
2 Donelly St, Balmain 48 - 49
3 Dockside Apartments 41 - 53
4 Refinery Dr, Pyrmont 37 - 51
5 Oxley St, Glebe 34 - 47
6 Camerons Cove Apts 25 - 45

Cumulative noise with Bailey’s proposal at WB6

The impact of cumulative from the WB5 CPT and the Baileys Marine Refuelling
Facility, at White Bay Wharf No. 6, was assessed with consideration of the Noise
Impact Assessment prepared for the Bailey’s proposal and the limits in the
Conditions of Approval.

The importance of this proposal is that it could impact on the cumulative industrial
noise level at these residences, as assessed under the amenity criterion in the

56 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Industrial Noise Policy. The inclusion of noise from operations by Bailey’s Marine
Fuels Australia at WB6 would affect the amenity criteria that would be applied to
the White Bay CPT.

During the daytime and evening there would be no affect to the amenity criteria.
If Bailey’s operated at its limit then it would cause the amenity criteria at Location
1 to be reduced by 1 dBA to 49 dBA and at Location 6 to be increased by 1 dBA
to 43 dBA. This would not have any affect on the assessment of the White Bay
CPT in regards to complying with the amenity criteria under the Industrial Noise
Policy.

6.3.3 Traffic Noise Assessment for Cruise Ship

Operations
Separate to the noise impact of on-site operations, the Noise Impact Assessment
considers the impact of traffic noise, based on the changes to the traffic flow in
the streets connecting the site and the local area.

Based on the traffic generation data prepared by Halcrow (Refer to Section 6.4
and Appendix F) traffic noise has been calculated. The predicted traffic noise level
increase is based on the additional traffic flow on the affected roads, being:
ƒ City West Link Rd, West Of The Crescent
ƒ The Crescent, South of City West Link Rd
ƒ At Anzac Bridge
ƒ Victoria Rd, South of Robert St

Because of the very large amount of traffic currently on these roads, the predicted
noise increase from the additional traffic would not be measureable or perceptible
(the theretical increase is less than 0.1 dBA).

Assessment of Providore Traffic on Robert Street

Staff and providores’ heavy vehicles would enter the site using the Robert Street
entrance. The maximum heavy vehicle flows were calculated to be:
ƒ 27 vehicles in the hour from 6.30am to 7.30am; and
ƒ 42 vehicles in the hour from 8.45 to 9.45.
Traffic noise was calculated using the CadnaA noise modelling software based on
the model of operational noise. A façade correction of +2.5dBA was added to
the calculated level as required by the ECRTN.

The predicted contributed levels from the CPT are at least 12dBA below the
relevant criterion, therefore the predicted traffic noise from the CPT would not
increase the existing noise. If the existing noise were above the criterion, the
contribution of the CPT would increase the noise by less than the 2dBA allowed
by the ECRTN (in fact the increase would be 0dBA). Hence no traffic noise impact
is predicted.

6.3.4 Construction Noise and Vibration

The Noise Impact Assessment considered the potential impact of noise during
construction. The Assessment considered construction noise criteria, noise
sources and calculated noise levels and provided a breakdown of the
plant/equipment which is likely to generate noise as part of the construction
activities. The main construction activities associated with the CPT are outlined in
Section 5.6.

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 57

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

The assessment concludes that the construction noise will comply with the noise
criteria at most times, except during certain stages of the construction works such
as rock breaking and piling activities (which will be minimal), for receptor locations
1,2 and 6.
The Noise Impact Assessment recommends a Construction Noise Management
Plan be developed to minimise noise construction impacts. Measures which will
be adopted to mitigate against the impact of construction activities on site include:
ƒ selection of quiet plant and processes;
ƒ retrofitting reversing alarms that are quieter and display less annoying
characteristics, such alarms could include “smart alarms” and
“quacker alarms”;
ƒ ensuring plant is well maintained and operated;
ƒ use of temporary barriers;
ƒ positioning of plant / processes; and
ƒ limiting the “cluster” of plant / processes.
The DECCW publication Assessing Vibration: a technical guideline (February 2006)
considers impacts from vibration in terms of effects on building occupants (human
comfort) and the effects on the building structure (building damage).
The Noise Impact Assessment in Appendix D estimates, from specified
construction activities, vibration levels at a range of distances from the various
construction activities, based on indicative levels of attenuation. It compares the
predicted levels of vibration against the DECCW guidelines, indentifying that there
could be brief exceedances of the residential goals for human comfort if rock
breaking had to be done at the nearest point to the houses on Grafton Street.

6.3.5 Noise Conclusions for Terminal Construction

and Operation
ƒ For typical operation noise was predicted to exceed the intrusiveness criterion
at Grafton Street residences by up to 7dBA without mitigation measures being
adopted. A range of noise mitigation options was explored and a preferred
option adopted, which results in a residual predicted exceedance of 5dBA at
Grafton Street residences during times of westerly wind, and 4dB during still
conditions for the typical daytime operation scenario (Scenario 1).
ƒ During Typical Worst Case Scenarios there would be exceedances at Grafton
Street of up to 6 dBA (Daytime during adverse wind conditions, the predicated
exceedance is 5 dBA without the adverse wind conditions), 6 dBA (Evening)
and 4 dBA (Night time).
ƒ There were no predicted exceedances of the amenity criteria at any residence
for typical operations. This would not be affected by potential future
operations at WB6 associated with Bailey’s.
ƒ Reasonable and feasible noise mitigations would be implemented, including
production of a Noise Management Plan.
ƒ Passenger vehicle and bus access to the site is through non-residential areas
and major arterial roads. Traffic noise due to the proposed cruise operations
would not exceed the DECCW criteria. Providore and staff access to the
port is through the existing Robert Street entrance. No traffic noise impact
is predicted.
ƒ Construction noise would not exceed the DECCW guidelines at most times at
all locations except during piling or rock breaking where exceedances of up to
10dBA may be experienced at locations 1, 2 and 6. This is typical of large

58 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

development sites and would be managed through the implementation of a

Construction Noise Management Plan.

6.3.6 Function Noise Impact

A noise impact assessment has been undertaken by Renzo Tonin & Associates for
functions undertaken in the CPT at WB5 and is provided at Appendix E.

The noise assessment provides an assessment against the relevant noise criteria
set by the NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing (OLGR) and the NSW
Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW.

When the CPT is operating as a function venue, it is anticipated that noise will
essentially emanate from the following sources:
ƒ music noise emission from within the terminal building;
ƒ patron noise from internal and external areas;
ƒ noise from vehicle movement and carpark activities on site;
ƒ noise from mechanical plant;
ƒ noise from outdoor activities; and
ƒ traffic noise.

In particular the OLGR criteria has been applied for event noise associated with
internal building activities and amplified music. Outdoor activities, including traffic
accessing the site via the internal road, have been assessed with consideration to
DECCW’s Industrial Noise Policy.

Assessment of Noise from inside the Venue

It is generally accepted that any venue with music should be assessed using a
‘background + 5dB’ octave band criteria for operations up to midnight, and both
Leichardt Council (for Balmain residences) and Sydney City Council (for Pyrmont
residences) both support this approach. The council criteria is also essentially the
same as that used by the Office of Liquor, Gaming & Racing (OLGR) for licensed
premises, and also essentially the same as the condition applied to the CPT at
Darling Harbour No. 8.

The noise impact assessment prepared by Renzo Tonin & Associates compares
the predicted noise generated by different noise sources generated by a function
and compares these noise levels against the criteria established by OLGR.

Renzo Tonin modeled various building envelope constructions for different types of
music source, and through an iterative process, identified the required building
envelope construction for the CPT.

The noise impact assessment concludes that double glazed finishes are required to
control music noise breakout from the facility during typical loud events, with the
aim of complying with the standard noise criteria set by OLGR. Double glazing of
the western and northern façade has been incorporated into the CPT building
design as .

Appendix E shows the results of function noise modelling at Grafton Street

demonstrating compliance with the OLGR criteria. Any minor exceedances at low
frequencies for particularly heavy bass music would be dealt with by adjusting the
graphic equaliser on the sound system.

To mitigate any adverse noise impacts, the assessment includes a number of

recommendations which will be implemented, including:

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 59

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

ƒ Outdoor music should be limited to background music, or music which does

not exceed approximately 67dBA at 10 m from the speakers.
ƒ Doors in all facades of the Arrival Hall and Baggage Hall should remain closed
during amplified music events.

During the first outdoor event with significant noise generation, noise testing
should be conducted to confirm noise levels at residences. Noisy activities can be
located strategically to minimise impacts.

The Renzo Tonin & Associates report also recommends that further analysis of
acoustic quality, reverberation control, speech intelligibility, mechanical services
noise, hydraulic services noise, and the like should be conducted during the
detailed design of the development.

Assessment of External Activities

A cumulative noise assessment to the INP criteria potentially requires
consideration of total noise from car park activities, amusements rides and
possibly amplified music outdoors. It is highlighted that in many cases the outdoor
noise sources at a function event are not likely to overlap. In particular the
maximum noise from vehicles leaving the function is unlikely to coincide with the
noise from function activities such as outdoor music or amusements rides.

Noise levels from car park activities and vehicles travelling on the private port
access road are predicted to comply easily with the day, evening and to just
comply with the night time criteria. This is based on an estimated maximum
traffic flow of 400 vehicle movements per hour based on an event for 500
attendees, assuming all attendees arrive by private vehicle. Where a function
larger than 500 people is proposed, or where a significant number of buses may
be used, the operational times of the function and the staging of vehicle arrivals
would determine whether traffic noise would exceed the criteria. Further
consideration of traffic noise management will be carried out as part of the Traffic
Management Plan for functions of greater than 500 people.

Renoz Tonin has assessed a range of amusement rides and outdoor music
scenarios. This assessment shows that some amusement rides and low level
background music could be acceptable as long as they are strategically located.
Because noise from car park activities is expected to easily comply with the INP
criteria during the day and evening periods up to 10pm, it would be possible to
add noise from several amusement rides to car park noise and still comply with the
INP criteria up to 10pm.

Based on the previous usage of the Wharf 8 Darling Harbour site, amusement
rides are proposed to operate up until 11pm on occasions, up to 5 times per year.
The background noise levels at Grafton and Donnelly Streets between 10pm and
midnight are only 1dB(A) lower than the evening background noise levels and
therefore in terms of the INP assessment, noise impacts would not increase
significantly between 10 pm and 11pm. However, to avoid sleep disturbance
issues where amusement rides will operate after 10pm, they will only be located
between the terminal building and the water.

Due to the strategic location of mechanical plant at ground level on the south side
of the storage and amenities area, and since it is well removed from the car park,
plant noise is not expected to significantly add to the total site noise at residences.
In any case, if noise reduction was required to prevent cumulative impacts, this
reduction could be readily achieved using standard noise control treatments and
commonly available building materials.

60 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

6.4 Traffic and Access

The access, transport and parking aspects of the proposed development (both at
WB4 and WB5) are detailed at Section 5.2.7 and further documented as part of
the Transport Impact Assessment, prepared by Halcrow included at Appendix F.

The Transport Impact Assessment considers traffic generation, potential traffic

impact and provides recommendations which have been adopted as part of the
proposed design to mitigate against traffic impacts generated by cruise ship visits
and functions.

The PCT Steering Committee Part A Report (November 2009) recommended the
permanent CPT proposed for the western side of the Sydney Harbour Bridge be
located at WB5 based on, among other reasons, that access to the new facility
could be provided via James Craig Road. This Report also identified the potential
for some traffic access to the WB5 CPT to be provided via Robert Street subject
to a traffic impact assessment being undertaken.

Hence, this EAR assesses the impact of constructing a new access road via James
Craig Road to provide passenger access (i.e. private vehicles, taxis and buses /
coaches) to the new CPT with service vehicles (i.e. providoring trucks, staff
vehicles, etc) accessing the new facility via Robert Street. In order to provide this
new access road Sydney Ports are proposing to move the existing fence line to the
west to align with the Sydney Ports property boundary. This is required to provide
sufficient space within the port area for passenger vehicle access via James Craig
Road. The relocation of the fence will result in the narrowing of Robert St, south-
west of Buchanan Street, as well as the loss of some on street parking to the south
of Buchanan Street being removed. A new security gate and check point will be
provided at the Robert Street entry to the Port.

6.4.1 Traffic Generation from Cruise Passenger

Terminal Operation
The quantum of traffic generated by the proposed development has been based on
the actual traffic movements recorded during a ‘domestic’ cruise ship visit (The
Pacific Dawn) to the CPT at DH8 which is a similar size operation to that proposed
at White Bay. An increment of 20% to the traffic movement rates has been
added for the White Bay assessment to account for the reduced opportunity to
access the site by public transport. The traffic rates recorded during the cruise
ship visit to the CPT at DH8 are detailed in Table 16 below.

Table 16 – Two Way Traffic Movements (6:30am to 4:30pm) associated with a cruise ship visit at
Darling Harbour

Transport Mode Approximate Number of Movements

(Rates from DH8)
Car/taxi 1,863
Rigid Trucks, buses and coaches 255
Articulated Truck 36
Total 2,154

During a typical cruise ship arrival and departure, the two way traffic movements
are from 6:30am to 4:30pm. Within this period, the traffic generation rates
fluctuate. Whilst a cruise ship is generally berthed by 7.00am, traffic movements
in the morning (resulting from the inbound ship) can be characterised as follows:

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 61

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

ƒ “Early morning” truck traffic around 7am;

ƒ Significant car traffic movements do not occur until after 9.00 am; and
ƒ Peak traffic activity typically occurs between 9.45am and 10.45am.
Peak (arrival) traffic generation therefore generally occurs after the main morning
commuter peak. The facility at DH8, when operational, was surveyed to generate
a peak of 176 vehicles per hour (vph) during the morning commuter peak period.

A cruise ship generally departs by 6.00pm. Traffic movements in the afternoon

(resulting from the outbound ship) generally occur in the early afternoon and are
generally complete (or minimal) from 3.00pm. Peak (departure) traffic generation
therefore typically occurs prior to the main afternoon commuter peak, and
therefore there is minimal traffic generated during the evening commuter period.

Taking into account the additional allowance of 20 per cent applied to the above
peak hour terminal traffic on a typical ship day, the proposed CPT would generate
some 205 vph during the morning peak period and about 36 vph in the evening
commuter peak period.

Cruise ship visits are envisaged to amount to approximately 170 visits per year,
with more frequent cruise ship visits occurring around the summer months. This
corresponds to the period of the year where overall traffic volumes are generally
lower due to school, university and work holidays.

On days when the CPT is not required for cruise ships, it is intended to be made
available for a range of other activities and functions. The traffic associated with
“events usage” is dependent on the activities and functions that are undertaken.
This is discussed further in Section 6.4.4 below.

6.4.2 Assessment of Traffic Impact

The traffic from the proposed cruise terminal is expected to distribute to the
external road network via James Craig Road as follows:
ƒ to/from City, eastern and southern suburbs via Anzac Bridge and Western
Distributor – 40 per cent;
ƒ to/from northern suburbs via Victoria Road/The Crescent – 25 per cent;
ƒ to/from western and southern suburbs via The Crescent and City West Link
Road – 35 per cent.

The future traffic impacts have primarily been assessed in terms of the likely
future traffic flow and the impact of the level of service (LoS) of local
intersections.

The peak hourly flow on James Craig Road are expected to increase by 176 vph,
during the morning peak and 29 vehicles during the evening peak because of the
proposed CPT. The balance of the vehicles associated with the WB5 CPT,
approximately 29 during the morning peak and 7 during the evening peak, would
be providoring vehicles which would continue to use Robert Street.

The intersections most likely to be affected by traffic from the proposed

development are:
ƒ The Crescent- City West Link Road
ƒ The Crescent-James Craig Rd
ƒ The Crescent-Victoria Rd
ƒ Victoria Rd-Robert St
ƒ Mullens St-Robert St

62 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Operational analysis of these intersections was undertaken using SIDRA

intersection analysis program to examine the effects of the development traffic on
the surrounding road network. In the SIDRA intersection analysis a level of service
(LoS) A indicates good operation while LoS F indicates unsatisfactorily operation.
LoS D is the lowest desirable level of service.

The intersection analysis results for the current operation of the intersections
indicate that the nearby assessed intersections currently operate satisfactorily at
LoS D or better during the peak periods except for the Victoria Road-Robert Street
intersection which operates at LOS F during the morning peak. These results are
shown in Table 17 and are generally consistent with observations made on site for
both peak periods.

The intersections were then analysed with traffic from the subject proposed
development added to surveyed intersection flows. All the assessed intersections
would continue to operate with the same level of service, which is also shown in
Table 17.
Table 17 – Intersection Analysis Results

Existing Condition Analysis Morning Peak Period Evening Peak Period

Results Average Level of Average Level of
Delay Service Delay Service
The Crescent- City West Link 50 D 31 C
Road
The Crescent-James Craig Rd 38 C 32 C
The Crescent-Victoria Rd 49 D 41 C
Victoria Rd-Robert St 79 F 64 E
Mullens St-Robert St 35 C 48 D
Future Intersection Analysis Morning Peak Period Evening Peak Period
Results Average Level of Average Level of
Delay Service Delay Service
The Crescent- City West Link 52 D 31 C
Road
The Crescent-James Craig Rd 38 C 36 C
The Crescent-Victoria Rd 56 D 42 C
Victoria Rd-Robert St 83 F 65 E
Mullens St-Robert St 37 C 48 D

6.4.3 Cumulative Traffic Impact

To determine the cumulative traffic impact, the Traffic Impact Assessment
considers a traffic scenario for both the morning and afternoon peak, which
includes the cumulative traffic from other nearby developments including.
ƒ Bailey’s Marine Refuelling and Supply Facility
ƒ Glebe Island Empty Container Storage Facility
ƒ Rozelle Bay Master Plan

There may be instances when cruise ships are berthed at both WB4 and WB5
however their arrival and departure times will not coincide because of logistics
around berthing two ships in adjacent berths in a relatively confined area of the
harbour. Given this, having two cruise ships berthed at White Bay is unlikely to
create a cumulative traffic issue and has not been considered further.

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 63

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

The cumulative development traffic is expected to be about 440 vph and 270 vph
during the morning and evening peak periods respectively. Of this traffic around
375 vph and 225 vph (in the morning and evening peak periods respectively)
would be restricted to James Craig Road. The balance of 65 vph and 45 vph
(in the morning and evening peak periods respectively) would comprise providoring
vehicles and the traffic from the Baileys Marine depot, and these would use
Robert Street.

These results are presented in Table 18 below, and are summarised as follows:
ƒ Under the cumulative future traffic conditions, the James Craig Road
intersection would continue to operate satisfactorily at LoS D during the
morning peak, but it would operate at LoS F during the evening peak period.
ƒ The Victoria Road-Robert Street intersection would operate at similar
intersection levels to those that currently occur.
ƒ The two The Crescent intersections would operate at LoS E (with average
intersection delays close to LoS D) during the morning peak period and LoS
C/D during the evening peak period. The RTA defines LoS E operation as
being at capacity for signalised intersections without requiring intersection
capacity upgrade until the performance worsened to LoS F.
ƒ The Mullens Street-Robert Street intersection would continue to operate
satisfactorily with LoS D or better.

The frequency of this level of performance occurring would be relatively low as it

would involve the overlays of weekday ship visits (42 per cent of the year) with
non school holiday traffic conditions (75 per cent of the year) with periods when
the Glebe Island wharf was used for overflow container storage (expected to be
very occasional).

The analysis of The Crescent-James Craig Road intersection was repeated to

determine what improvements would be needed to achieve satisfactory
performance. From this, it was determined that an additional right turn lane out of
James Craig Road would be required.

The upgrade to James Craig Road would require turn lines on the intersection
pavement, overhead lane direction plus signage and advanced lane direction
signage in James Craig Road. It would also require The Crescent, directly
opposite to James Craig Road, to be widened into the disused goods railway yard
by about 2m with an additional pavement area of about 50m2. The stop line
facing eastbound traffic on The Crescent would also need to be relocated by
about 2.0m to the west. This would result in the intersection performance
improving back to LoS D or better. The proposed improvement work at the
Victoria Road-Robert Street intersection would result in the intersection
maintaining similar level of service to existing conditions.

The results for the analysis incorporating the above proposed improvements are
presented in Table 18 below.

64 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Table 18 – Intersection Analysis Results from Cumulative traffic Assessment

Future Intersection Analysis Morning Peak Period Evening Peak Period

Results Average Level of Average Level of
Delay Service Delay Service
The Crescent-City West Link Rd 61 E 34 C
The Crescent-James Craig Rd 39 C 70 F
The Crescent-Victoria Rd 60 E 48 D
Victoria Rd-Robert St 118 F 45 D
Mullens St-Robert St 40 C 49 D
The Crescent-James Craig Rd 38 C 40 C
(with intersection improvements
implemented)

The above improved level of service assumes retention of the existing signal
timing for the James Craig Road intersection. However, the operation of James
Craig Road approach would be improved further (in the evening peak period) if it
was to receive slightly more green time. This is a matter for the RTA in managing
overall traffic flows.

6.4.4 Function Traffic

On non-ship days i.e. when a cruise ship was not scheduled to berth at the CPT,
the facility would be available for use for function, exhibition, conference, product
launch and community and / or corporate events. This proposed function/event
use at the new White Bay CPT would be similar to those held at the DH8 terminal
when it was still operational.

The Consent Conditions for the function use at the DH8 required quarterly
Compliance Summary Reports to be submitted to the Department of Planning
summarising the events held for the quarter. The summary reports were required
to provide information relating to the number of patrons permitted, results of noise
level measurements and the traffic impacts to the surrounding area. Appendix F
includes a summary of events held at the DH8 Passenger Terminal facility for the
12 month period ending March 2009. There were 29 events held during this
period. The majority of these related to conference or dinner/cocktail party type
events. Of the 29 events, a total 14 events started or finished during the
commuter peak periods. Of these 14 peak period events, nine events had
attendances of 400 persons or less.

As on ship days, James Craig Road would be used to provide access when the
White Bay CPT was used for an event (excluding bump-in and bump-out related
traffic). On some occasions, event traffic may enter and/or exit the White Bay
CPT via Robert Street. This will be determined on a case by case basis and is only
likely to occur when an event finishes outside the commuter peak period or when
it is a very small event (e.g. a film shoot). This will be addressed in the Traffic
Management Plan to be prepared for functions held at the site.

For traffic analytical purposes, a daytime event (e.g. conference) with 500
attendees starting and finishing during the commuter peak periods was assumed
to undertake capacity analysis of the surrounding intersections. Modal splits were
estimated to predict traffic flow of approximately 180 car movements per hour
plus 215 drop-off movements (private vehicles and taxis). This is equates to
approximately 290 vph arrivals and 110 vph departures in the morning period. In
the evening the arrivals and departures were predicted to be reversed.

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 65

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

The proposed 200 space car park would be sufficient to accommodate parking
demand arising from a 500 person event.

Intersection analysis was repeated for the three intersections along The Crescent,
taking into account the cumulative traffic impacts from other developments, with
the results shown in Table 19.

Table 19 – Intersection Analysis Results from Cumulative Traffic Assessment for Functions

Future Intersection Analysis Morning Peak Period Evening Peak Period

Results Average Level of Average Level of
Delay Service Delay Service
The Crescent-City West Link 62 E 36 C
Rd
The Crescent-James Craig Rd 38 C 69 E
The Crescent-Victoria Rd 65 E 56 D

The results indicate that the City West Link Road and Victoria Road intersections
with The Crescent would operate with LoS E in the morning peak period and LoS
D or better in the evening peak period. The James Craig Road intersection would
operate with LoS D or better in the morning peak and LoS E during the evening
peak period.

An overarching traffic management plan framework will be included in the

Operational Management Plan for functions / events held at WB5 which will
address the matters listed below. The traffic management framework will outline
potential traffic management scenarios for events with more than 500 attendees
at any one point in time which would also be based on the type of event being
held. For example the traffic management framework could include not permitting
a large community event to start or finish during the morning or evening peak
traffic periods or ensuring large corporate events utilise buses / coaches as the
primary means of transport to the facility.

As stated above the site will have limited onsite parking and this would need to be
considered for all events with more than 500 attendees. Should functions /
events with more than 500 attendees be proposed to start of finish during the
morning or evening peak traffic periods (i.e. 8am – 9am or 5pm – 6pm; Monday
to Friday) a further traffic impact assessment will be undertaken and
recommendations incorporated into the Operational Environmental Management
Plan.

For events with more than 500 attendees at any one point in time, a separate
transport management plan will be prepared given there are limitations on parking
on the site which would necessitate the need for special transport arrangements
to be made. The transport management plan will have regard to:
ƒ start and finish time;
ƒ day of the week;
ƒ expected arrival and departure pattern of patrons/visitors;
ƒ the need for shuttle services to/from public transport nodes or remote parking
areas; and
ƒ limit parking on site to pre-booked patrons only.

Sydney Ports has committed to ensuring no more than 20 events in any calendar
year would have more than 1500 attendees on site at any one point in time. It is
also estimated that the facility could be used for up to 50 functions / events a

66 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

year subject to the facility not being required for port operational purposes (e.g.
cruise ship processing).

6.4.5 Construction Traffic

Construction is expected to take place over a period of 18 months – from early
2011 to mid 2012. The construction activities are expected to generate up to
about 40 additional vehicle movements during the peak hours for the busiest
period of construction.

Construction traffic would access the site via Robert Street from Victoria Road,
and it is expected that the Baileys Marine depot would be operational by the time
construction activities start on the White Bay CPT site.

Intersection capacity analysis was repeated for the Victoria Road and Mullens
Street intersections with Robert Street operating during the construction phase,
indicating that construction traffic would only marginally affect the Robert Street-
Mullens Street intersection during the construction phase.

6.4.6 Public Transport

The location of the proposed development is well serviced by a number of bus
routes, however the nearest available public transport is a bus stop located
approximately one kilometre to the west of the site in Robert Street (west). The
stop is on the high frequency bus routes 441 and 442 which operate between the
City and the Balmain Peninsula. The nearest ferry service is approximately one
kilometre to the north-east of the site (East Balmain).

Cruise passengers are unlikely to make significant use of public transport because
of their need to carry luggage. Some employees working in the terminal would
use public transport. This number would be relatively small and would not
generate a need for enhanced public transport in the area.

At present, on some occasions cruise operators provide a shuttle bus service to

and from the Darling Harbour terminal to a central location within the CBD for use
by passengers, staff and crew. It is anticipated that similar services would be
provided by cruise operators at the White Bay CPT.

The route and potential station site for the now deferred Central to Rozelle Metro
railway line have been protected. The proposed development would not inhibit
this system in anyway.

6.4.7 Traffic Generation Conclusions

The traffic impact assessment for the proposed CPT considered the traffic and
transport implications of the proposed relocation of the Darling Harbour CPT to
White Bay Wharf No. 5. In assessing the external traffic implications of the
proposed development, it also considers the cumulative traffic impacts from other
nearby developments.

In order to accommodate this generated traffic, the Crescent-James Craig Road

intersection is proposed to be improved with an extra lane into The Crescent from
James Craig Road.

On non ship days, the terminal would be available for other uses such as film
shoots, community events, conferences or functions. The impact of these on the
local road system would depend on starting or finishing times. Transport
management plans will be prepared for any uses with simultaneous attendances of
more than 500 persons.

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 67

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

The overall traffic and transport aspects of the proposal are considered to
be satisfactory.

6.4.8 Traffic Generation Conclusions

Public access to WB5 will be provided either via Stephen Street or from White Bay
Park. Works such as installing stairs and gates from one of these sites will need
to be undertaken and will be considered further as part of the detailed design
stage.

Public access to the CPT building surrounds and the berth face would be made
available on non-ship days during daylight hours. Public access to the WB5 site
during a function which is not a public or community event would be with the
agreement of the individual hirer / lessee. Public access to the WB5 site would be
provided once the terminal was operational.

6.4.9 Shipping Movements

The WB5 CPT is to be located within an existing operational Port precinct. The
Glebe Island/White Bay Port area provides for the berthing and manoeuvring of
commercial ships including cruise ships.

In the 2007/08 year a total of 356 ship calls occurred at Glebe Island / White Bay.
Of these, 261 ship calls related to vehicle carriers, and this trade relocated to Port
Kembla in late 2008. With the relocation of vehicle carriers to Port Kembla, the
number of vessels using the berths has increased. In 2008/09 a total of 673 ship
calls occurred at Glebe Island / White Bay and in 2009/10 there were a total of
591 ship calls.

This development proposes to relocate approximately 170 ship calls anticipated to

berth at Darling Harbour to White Bay. Commercial ships will continue to berth at
White Bay, which includes White Bay Wharves No. 4 and 5, and other port
activities will continue to be undertaken once the proposed CPT is operational.

Sydney Ports’ Harbour Control is responsible for managing the safe movement of
all commercial ships visiting the ports of Sydney Harbour and Botany Bay.
Harbour Control closely monitors the movement of all commercial ships within the
ports using radar, Automatic Identification System (AIS), CCTV and VHF radio in
order to avoid any adverse interaction between commercial ships, including cruise
ships and other ships (e.g. recreational boats) on the harbour.

All cruise ships visiting the CPT will also have a Sydney marine pilot onboard for both
the inward and outward movement. The Sydney marine pilot uses his / her local
knowledge and experience to advise the Master of the cruise ship on the appropriate
course, speed and tug positions throughout the movement. This is consistent with
all other movements of commercial ships of this size in Sydney Harbour.

The existing aids to navigation are adequate for the proposed cruise ships and no
additional aids are required.

6.4.10 Car Parking Impacts

The proposed access road connecting the new terminal to James Craig Road will
completely utilize Robert Street north of Buchanan Street and will use half the
width of Robert Street south of Buchanan Street for a distance of about 200
metres. This new road is to be built entirely on Sydney Ports owned property.

At present, kerbside parking along Robert Street south of Buchanan Street is

available on both sides of the street. It is estimated that approximately 100 spaces
90º to the kerb are available over the affected length and these spaces appear to
be lightly utilised. Under the proposed new arrangement the public section of

68 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Robert Street would have a carriageway width of 10.3 metres which would allow
for two way traffic and bicycle movement as well as the potential to provide
approximately 25 car spaces parked parallel to the kerb.

There is also the potential to park approximately 50 cars on Robert Street north of
Buchanan Street. These appear to be used by local residents living in adjoining
buildings who use it as overflow parking. This parking, which is on Sydney Ports
land, is only available because the property security gate is located 50 metres
north of its property boundary at Buchanan Street. These spaces will not be
available under the proposed arrangement.

6.5 Visual Impacts

The modifications to the form, height and scale of the existing structure on site
will have positive impacts on views, in particular views from the residential
properties to the north of the site which have an outlook to the south, with the
new CPT at WB5 sitting almost entirely within the outline of the low bay shed.

The impact from the proposed development will significantly improve views as
illustrated in the Built Form Statement provided at Appendix C and reproduced in
Figures 21 to 30 below. In some of the montage views, examples of ship types
that are expected to berth at the CPT under a range of berthing scenarios (i.e. 0, 1
2 cruise ships) have been included. The impact that a cruise ship has on views is
however, limited to times when the ship is berthed at White Bay.

6.5.1 Key Views

Review of the Glebe and White Bay Masterplan identifies a range of key view
corridors, vistas and panoramas to and from White Bay. These include
1. View eastwards along Roberts Street at low level looking towards to the city.
2. View from White Bay Park at high level towards Anzac Bridge and Pyrmont.
3. Views over White Bay to Pyrmont, city skyline and Anzac Bridge from
Balmain.
4. View down local Balmain streets towards the Anzac Bridge with water
glimpses.
5. Views from Anzac Bridge across Glebe Island to Balmain skyline.
6. Views from Pyrmont across the water and the Port to the Balmain skyline.
7. Views from the water to the east of White Bay to landmarks including the
Anzac Bridge, the White Bay Power Station and the Heritage Silos.

To address each of these views and vistas montages have been developed for the
following views:
ƒ Views down Adolphus Street and Grafton Street to demonstrate the impact
of the development on views from residential streets in Balmain looking
towards Pyrmont and Anzac Bridge. These address view corridors 3 and 4
above.
ƒ Views from White Bay Park towards Pyrmont and the city skyline have been
provided to address view corridors 1 and 2 above.
ƒ A view from Pyrmont Park has been provided to address view corridor 6
above.
ƒ A view from the Anzac Bridge has been provided to address view corridor 5
above.
ƒ A view from Barangaroo has been provided to illustrate the views across the
water towards White Bay as well as to demonstrate the impact to views from
the city towards White Bay, showing the context of the Anzac Bridge, the

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 69

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

White Bay Power Station and the Heritage Silos. This view has been
provided to address view corridor 7 above.

Adolphus Street, Balmain

Figures 22 to 24 show views from Adolphus Street, Balmain. The existing blank
facade of the high bay shed eliminates all views of the harbour or city skyline from
the neighbouring streets. Removing the high bay shed opens up views to the
harbour and city, improving the amenity of residences fronting Adolphus Street
and the western end of Grafton Street.

The impact of a ship berthed at WB5 will be similar to the impact of the high bay
shed in restricting views, however this impact will be limited to times when the
ship is berthed at White Bay 5.

Grafton Street, Balmain

Figures 25 to 28 show the impact to views from Grafton Street, Balmain, towards
the south and west. Distant south-westerly regional views are opened up as the
proposal reduces the bulk and scale of the high bay shed. Exposure of the trusses
creates a dramatic edge to the CPT, opening up regional views and increasing the
amount of the harbour visible from Grafton Street.

The presence of a cruise ship at WB5 would periodically block the views from
Grafton Street towards Glebe Island and the Anzac Bridge, however this impact
will be limited to times when the ship is berthed at White Bay 5. A ship at WB5
would not block the more regional views towards the southwest.

The presence of a second cruise ship at WB4 would infrequently block the views
from Grafton Street towards the White Bay Power Station and regional views to
the southwest, however this impact will be limited to the infrequent occasions
when the ship is berthed at White Bay 4.

White Bay Park

Figures 29 to 31 show the impact to views looking from White Bay Park towards
the city skyline. From White Bay Park, new views of the harbour and city skyline,
including views to landmarks such as Sydney Tower, are created for the public.
Trusses become prominent structures providing depth and interest to the view and
the landscaping provided throughout the car park breaks up the built form across
the site. The presence of a cruise ship would periodically block the views from
White Bay Park towards the city skyline, however this impact will be limited to
times when the ship is berthed at White Bay 5.

No montage has been provided, however views from White Bay Park southwards
towards Glebe Island and Anzac Bridge would be blocked by the infrequent
berthing of a cruise ship at WB4.

70 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Adolphus Street, Balmain

Figure 22 – Existing view looking south along Adolphus Street, Balmain

Figure 23 – Montage view looking south along Adolphus Street, Balmain

Figure 24 – Montage view from Adolphus Street, Balmain (with cruise ship)

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 71

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Figure 25 – Existing view looking south west along Grafton Street

Figure 26 – Montage view looking south west along Grafton Street

Figure 27 – Montage view looking south west along Grafton Street (with cruise ship)

Figure 28 – Montage view looking south west along Grafton Street (with 2 cruise ships)

72 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

White Bay Park

Figure 29 – Existing view from White Bay Park

Figure 30 – Montage view from White Bay Park

Figure 31 – Montage view from White Bay Park (with cruise ship)

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 73

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Pyrmont
Figures 32 to 35 show the impact to views looking from Pyrmont Park towards
the Balmain skyline. The removal of part of the high bay shed structure reduces
the bulk and scale of the development and allows the development to sit below
the skyline. The retention and reuse of the trusses emphasise the historical
attributes of the site, adding interest to the view.

Cruise ships would periodically hinder the view between Pyrmont and parts of the
Balmain skyline, however this impact will be limited to times when a ship is
berthed at White Bay 5 and/or White Bay 4.

Figure 32 – Existing view from Pyrmont Park

Figure 33 – Montage view from Pyrmont Park

74 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Figure 34 – Montage view from Pyrmont Park (with cruise ship)

Figure 35 – Montage view from Pyrmont Park (with 2 cruise ships)

Barangaroo
Figures 36 to 39 show the impact to views looking from Barangaroo towards the
Anzac Bridge, Balmain and beyond. The removal of part of the high bay shed
structure reduces the bulk and scale of the development and allows the
development to sit below the skyline.

The presence of one or two cruise ships would periodically hinder the view of the
westerly skyline from Barangaroo and the city, however this impact will be limited
to times when the ship is berthed at White Bay 5.

Neither the berthing of one or two cruise ships at WB5 and WB4 would affect
views from the city and Barangaroo towards the Anzac Bridge, the Glebe Island
Grain Silos or the White Bay Power Station.

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 75

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Figure 36 – Existing view from Barangaroo

Figure 37 – Montage view from Barangaroo

Figure 38 – Montage view from Barangaroo (with cruise ship)

Figure 39 – Montage view from Barangaroo (with 2 cruise ships)

76 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Anzac Bridge
Figures 40 to 42 show the impact to views looking from the western end of
Anzac Bridge towards White Bay and Balmain. Because of the height of the
bridge, the high bay shed structure currently sits below the skyline formed by the
Balmain peninsula.

The berthing of cruise ships at White Bay will affect the view corridor between
Balmain and the Anzac Bridge, but will not affect views between the Anzac Bridge
and the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the City, Barangaroo and Pyrmont.

Figure 40 – Existing view from Anzac Bridge

Figure 41 – Montage view from Anzac Bridge (with cruise ship)

Figure 42 – Montage view from Anzac Bridge (with 2 cruise ships)

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 77

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

6.5.2 Temporary Terminal at WB4

The temporary terminal at WB4 is expected to be used approximately 10 times per
year. The marquee structure is likely to be approximately 8m in height. The
temporary terminal is not expected to result in any significant visual impact
because of:
ƒ The low number of occurrences during the year.
ƒ The short duration of each occurrence.
ƒ The nature, location and height of the temporary structure mean it would not
impact any views from residences at Balmain nor would it significantly to
Balmain from Barangaroo, Pyrmont or the Anzac Bridge.

Figure 19 in Section 5.3 shows the temporary terminal located at DH5,

which is similar to the temporary terminal that will be located at WB4 on
infrequent occasions.

6.5.3 Lighting
The majority of ship visits will occur during daylight hours. However, lighting will
be required for the operation of the CPT during cruise ship visits and the operation
of the CPT building for functions / events. Light fittings for the subject
development will be designed to prevent obtrusive and upward spill light being
seen directly from the vantage points identified above (Adolphus Street, Grafton
Street and White Bay Park). This will apply to internal lighting, external lighting of
the buildings and general external lighting of public spaces, roads and car parking.

Existing light fittings and towers will remain unaltered (other than those being
removed). For all new works, no internal light fittings will be directly visible from
outside. Whilst lit surfaces will be visible through glazed portions of external
walling, the extent of this light will be such that it does not constitute an adverse
impact, particularly on nearby residences as the lighting will be below the street
level of Grafton Street.

Selected portions of the external structure may be floodlit for emphasis and to
assist way-finding for patrons. Unobtrusive feature lighting of the cliff face will be
provided to highlight this natural attribute of the site.

New lighting to general external areas, such as public spaces and car parking, will
have fittings which minimise the possible viewing of the lamps from outside the
site. The design of lighting will comply with relevant Australian Standards for the
control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting and other relevant standards.

Security, berth and navigation lighting requirements will be developed at the

detailed design stage. Existing lighting infrastructure on the site will be, where
required, retained and utilised.

Lighting from vessels berthing at White Bay is generally unobtrusive. Lighting is

used on vessels to light the onboard ship areas and not the adjacent land / water
areas. Therefore an impact on adjacent residential areas to the White Bay Port
area from vessel lighting is unlikely.

6.5.4 The New Access Road

Where the new access road runs parallel close to Robert Street landscaping and a
footpath along Robert St will be provided consistent with the Glebe Island and
White Bay Master Plan and Ports Improvement Program.

78 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

6.5.5 Conclusion
From every vantage point, the proposed terminal will improve the visual amenity
of WB5. The reduction in the built form and removal of the cladding of the high
bay shed, results in the new terminal sitting almost entirely within the outline of
the existing low bay shed and below the skyline when viewed from the water.

The proposed development improves the views across the site from the
surrounding areas. In particular, the improved view afforded to the public from
White Bay Park, will allow visitors to the park to be able to enjoy greater views
towards the water and city beyond. From this vantage point, the western elevation
of the new terminal presents a different perspective of a working harbour.

From certain vantage points, in particular public areas, the presence of a cruise
ship on occasions will add visual interest and reinforce the maritime role of
Sydney Harbour.

6.6 European Heritage

A statement of heritage impact has been prepared by City Plan Heritage and is
included at Appendix G. The statement of heritage impact:
ƒ describes the history of the site as a port facility (summarised at Section 2.4);
ƒ provides an assessment of Heritage Significance;
ƒ considers the impact of the development; and
ƒ provides recommendations.

The statement of heritage impact also considered the potential for archaeological
remains on the site. However, given the majority of the site is comprised of
reclaimed land, the assessment report concluded that the potential for
archaeological remains is generally low and therefore no further investigations will
be undertaken for the proposed development.

6.6.1 Assessment of Heritage Significance

The assessment of heritage significance details how the proposed development
may impact the site and the sites historical role as a container terminal/port and
the impact on neighbouring heritage items.

The White Bay Port area is historically significant as a site of continuous maritime
industry since the middle of the 19th century. Construction of the container
terminal to accommodate containerisation, then considered to be a revolution in
shipping industry, marked the beginning of the first regular international container
shipping service in the world.

The site is also historically significant for its contribution to the development of
worker’s housing around the White Bay foreshores of Balmain.

The heritage assessment provides the following statement of heritage significance

of the White Bay site:

“The White Bay Container Terminal, which was constructed in 1967-69 in

response to the revolutionised shipping technology and containerisation, was the
largest remaining industrial use in the Bay until it ceased operating as a container
terminal in 2004, however the area has continued to be used for port purposes.
The site has approximately 40 years of containerised shipping transit history that
changed the topography of the foreshore along the northern side of the Bay. The
Container Terminal marked the beginning of a regular containerised shipping
service between Europe and Australia and was the place of first regular

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 79

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

international containerised shipping service in the world. The site demonstrates all
phases of use and change relevant to shipping and transport since its construction
and has historical importance in the late 20th century for the shipping industry
of Sydney.”

“However, the sheds at Wharf 5, the associated administration and amenities

buildings, substations and gatehouse were constructed from 1969 through to the
1970s and 1980s as part of a program of wharf redevelopment undertaken by the
Maritime Services Board of NSW to accommodate containerised shipping in
Sydney Harbour. This phase of change and its current use is not demonstrative of
an important course or pattern in the history of the state or the local area. The
structural system employed for the sheds is simple and common for the building
type and period failing to demonstrate any particular degree of excellence in
construction technique or aesthetics.”

”The sheds, administration building, substations, amenities building, gatehouse

and associated ancillary structures including the toilets and the later office
additions do not satisfy the level of cultural value to warrant conservation in the
local or state context.”

6.6.2 Impact Assessment

Direct Impacts
The proposed new access road will cross over the Beattie Street Stormwater
Channel No.15 (Sydney Water Section 170 listing, local significance). Throughout
its route the Channel is crossed over either by roads (such as Roberts Road) or car
park slabs of the surrounding industrial and warehouse developments, however at
the location of the proposed crossing the Channel is exposed. As such, the details
of the crossing of the Channel will be agreed with Sydney Water as part of the
detailed design for the road to ensure that the functional usage of the Channel is
not compromised and the Channel’s heritage values are not impacted

The proposed development will not impact on any jetties, seawalls, slipways or
potential marine archaeological sites and therefore no further assessment has been
undertaken.

Indirect Impacts
The heritage assessment identifies that the most important aspect of the site is
the views and vistas including panoramic view corridors across the site that are
enjoyed by the adjoining residential neighbourhood, the White Bay Power Station
and Glebe Island. The reduced height of the proposed CPT building will
reintroduce city views currently obstructed by the existing high bay area of the
cargo shed (refer to Section 6.5) and increase the extent of views to and from
significant buildings within the vicinity, such as the heritage listed terraces along
Adolphus Street, which will have a positive impact. When a cruise ship is docked
at WB4 and / or WB5, the taller ships may obscure views to and from heritage
items within the site’s vicinity however, this impact will be temporary. It should
also be noted that other commercial ships will continue to berth at White Bay,
which includes White Bay Wharves No. 4 and 5, and other port activities will also
continue to be undertaken even with the proposed CPT in operation.

The assessment concludes that the proposed redevelopment of the site will have
no adverse impact on significant cultural values associated with the place and the
surrounding area. The assessment of significance demonstrates that the existing
structures have no significant cultural values worthy of conservation. Their
demolition will not erode the potential to maintain the historical importance of the
site within the shipping industry of Sydney or Australia, as well as nearby heritage
items or the interpretation of the intangible historic associations of the site.

80 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Heritage Interpretation
The proposed WB5 CPT has been designed to interpret the previous port uses at
the site by:
ƒ incorporating and utilising the former gantry crane support structure (i.e.
trussed columns);
ƒ maintaining existing operational structures/markings along the southern edge
of the Wharf and the railway tracks from White Bay (where possible); and
ƒ incorporating container like design features within the terminal building.

Retention of these original structures and elements as well as continuing use of

the Wharf for maritime activities will assist with providing an understanding of the
site’s previous use(s). Interpretive displays could be incorporated as part of the
overall design scheme within the new terminal building to tell the development
history of the site and its importance in the shipping industry in Sydney and
Australia. Details of interpretive media will be provided as part of the preliminary
and detailed design stages as applicable.

Summary of Heritage Impact Assessment

A summary of the assessment of potential impacts on specific items is provided in
Table 20. These are further discussed in the statement of heritage impact in
Appendix G.

Table 20 – Summary of impacts on specific items

Item Heritage Item Summary Impact

No.

H1 3-33 Adolphus Street, Balmain ƒ Reduced height of the proposed CPT

will provide views to the harbour.
ƒ Retained elements will not inhibit
views to the harbour.

H2 White Bay Park ƒ Reduced height of the proposed CPT

will significantly improve views,
providing views to the harbour.

H3 The Grange, 7 Vincent Street, ƒ Views from the end of the street will
Balmain be improved.

H4 Ardenlea, 14 Vincent Street, ƒ Views from the end of the street will
Balmain be improved.

H5 The sandstone rock cliff ƒ Views to the sandstone cliff will be

enhanced by the removal of the
existing high bay cargo shed.
ƒ The cliff face will be floodlit during
evening functions as a site feature.

H6 White Bay Power Station ƒ Not close enough to the site to be

affected by the proposed CPT.
ƒ The new road will not physically
impact or restrict views to the Power
Station.

H7 Glebe Island Silos ƒ Whilst proposal will slightly dilute the

industrial character of the Port
precinct, the silos will remain and
continue as one of the few maritime
industrial uses in Sydney Harbour.

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 81

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Item Heritage Item Summary Impact

No.
ƒ The new road will not restrict views to
the silos.

H8 Sewerage Pumping Station No ƒ The new road will not restrict views to
7, Robert Street the Sewerage Pumping Station

H9 Old Glebe Island Bridge, ƒ The proposed road works at the top of
abutments and approach road Sommerville Road will be carried out
adjacent to the Bridge approach,
however there is already a road in
existence at the same location and any
further impact to the Bridge is
negligible.
H10 Beattie St Stormwater Channel ƒ While the channel is currently crossed
No.15 by several roads and concrete slabs
along its route, the new access road
will cross the stormwater channel at a
location where the channel is exposed.
ƒ The details of the crossing of the
stormwater channel will be agreed with
Sydney Water during the detailed
design of the road.
H11 Hampton Villa ƒ Proposal will slightly improve Hampton
Villa’s visual relationship with the
harbour and is therefore a positive
measure.
H12 White Bay Power Station Canal ƒ The new road will not physically
impact or restrict views to the Power
Station Canal.

6.6.3 Conclusions
The conclusions of the assessment of heritage significance are that the proposal
will have a positive impact on places of heritage significance in the vicinity of the
White Bay Port Precinct because it will:
ƒ Enhance the harbour foreshore and provide the required cruise facilities;
ƒ Allow for the appreciation of significant places and views from public places
to the harbour foreshore;
ƒ Maintain and further improve the key attributes of views from the surrounding
neighbourhood including but not limited to Balmain Peninsula, White Bay
Power Station, Glebe Island and Old Glebe Island Bridge;
ƒ Retain some historically significant features at the site that relate to the former
container terminal activities (primarily the gantry crane support columns); and
ƒ Interpret the significant historical and natural qualities of the site by continuing
the long-standing maritime use of the site.
The heritage impact assessment recommends that the site be subject of
a photographic archival recording prior to demolition or the removal of
structures occurring.

82 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

6.7 Air Quality

An assessment of the impact that the proposed development (including cruise
ships) will have on the local air quality has been considered by Sinclair Knight Merz
(SKM) and is included at Appendix H.

The air quality assessment considers:

ƒ air quality criteria;
ƒ the existing air quality environment;
ƒ provides a air quality assessment methodology; and
ƒ impact assessment

6.7.1 Existing Environment

Air quality in the vicinity of White Bay is affected by pollutants emitted regionally
and within the Sydney airshed. Background pollution levels are measured by the
DECCW, the closest monitoring station being located at Rozelle Hospital, 1.5km
west of the site.

The existing environment, compared against DECCW criterion can be summarised

as:
ƒ Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)
Maximum 1 hour NO2 concentrations were well below the DECCW criterion of
246 μg/m3, with a maximum recorded concentration of 176 μg/m3.
Annual average NO2 concentrations were well below the annual average DECCW
criterion of 62 μg/m3 with the highest annual average NO2 concentration being
32 μg/m3.
ƒ Particulate Matter
Maximum 24hr average PM10 concentrations were typically below the average 24
hour criterion of 50 ug/m3, While exceedances of the criterion were recorded
during the summer months of 2004 and 2006, bushfires in the Sydney region
during those time periods are likely to have been the cause of the exceedances.
The annual averages were all well below the DECCW criterion of 30 μg/m3.
ƒ Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
No background monitoring data relating to SO2 are available, however it is
expected that given the absence of significant nearby sources of SO2, background
concentrations will be negligible.
The air quality assessment also considers the influence of surrounding land uses,
topography, wind (speed and direction), local climate, temperature, relative
humidity, rainfall and atmospheric stability.

6.7.2 Relevant Assessment Criteria

The air quality assessment was conducted in accordance with DECCW guidelines
(DEC, 2005) to model air quality impacts due to emissions from berthed ships.
Predicted ground level pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations
were added to existing background pollution levels (where available) and compared
to the DECCW air quality criteria.

Modelling Scenarios
The modelling scenarios undertaken as part of the Air Quality assessment are
as follows:

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 83

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

ƒ A large passenger ship at berth at Wharf No. 5 for 12 hours per day (6 am –
6 pm) for up to 170 days per year, plus a medium passenger ship at Wharf
No. 5 for 72 hours on 3 occasions per year (ships not at berth at the same
time); and
ƒ A large passenger ship at berth at Wharf No. 5 for 12 hours per day (6 am –
6 pm) for up to 170 days per year, plus a medium passenger ship at berth at
Wharf No. 4 for 12 hours (6 am – 6 pm) for 10 days per year (ships at berth
concurrently).
ƒ A large passenger ship at berth at Wharf No. 5 for 12 hours per day (6 am –
6 pm) for up to approximately 170 days per year, plus a large passenger ship
at Wharf No. 5 for 72 hours on 3 occasions per year (ships not at berth at the
same time).

In practice, the scenarios were modelled as follows:

ƒ Scenario 1: A large passenger ship at Wharf No. 5 with constant emissions
from 7 am to 5 pm;
ƒ Scenario 2: A medium passenger ship at Wharf No. 5 with constant emissions
for 24 hours;
ƒ Scenario 3: A large passenger ship at Wharf No. 5 plus a medium passenger
ship at Wharf No. 4 with constant emissions from both ships between 6 am
and 6 pm.
ƒ Scenario 4: A large passenger ship at Wharf No. 5 with constant emissions
for 24 hours.

No scenario has been modelled where two ships are concurrently berthed at WB5
and WB4 outside of the hours of 6am to 6pm as this will not be a normal or likely
operating scenario. There are however circumstances when it would be possible
that two cruise ships would be concurrently berthed outside of the hours of 6am
to 6pm. These circumstances include when:
ƒ There is one international ship staying overnight and one domestic ship which
is delayed in arriving in port (and therefore delayed in departing the port)
which extends its occupation of a berth at White Bay beyond 6pm. This
situation would only occur if the domestic ship was subject to adverse
weather conditions or mechanical difficulties, leading to a second ship in port
outside of the hours 6am-6pm. However, in this situation the ship would still
only be in berth for up to 12 hours.
ƒ There is one international ship staying overnight and one domestic ship which
is required to stay overnight. This would only occur in exceptional
circumstances due to major mechanical failure, quarantine or immigration
requirements.
ƒ There are two international ships which require overnight berthing at White
Bay. This is considered highly unlikely situation as it would mean that there
was no domestic cruise ship berthed at WB5 and that the 2 international
cruise ships were capable of fitting underneath the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

There is also the possibility of a bulk liquids vessel being berthed at WB4
concurrently with a cruise passenger ship being berthed at WB5. The concurrent
berthing during the day is not considered to be significantly different from
Scenario 3. The concurrent berthing of a bulk liquids vessel and a cruise
passenger vessel at White Bay over a 24 hour period or longer is not expected to
occur due to the preference, in the event of a shipping conflict, that Sydney Ports
will give to cruise passenger vessels at WB4.

84 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

The Pacific Dawn was used as an example of a large passenger ship, and the
Nautica was used for a medium passenger ship.

Emission Rate
Ship emissions for existing and future scenarios were determined using the National
Pollutant Inventory Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Maritime Operations
Version 2.0 (2008). The emission factors (NOx, PM10 and SO2) relate to emissions
from auxiliary engines. The ships modelled in the air quality assessment, however,
run a single main engine while at berth. Emisisons were estimated by multiplying
emission factors by the engine power operating while at berth.

It is noted that emissions of SO2 are a function of the fuel sulphur content.The
weighted average fuel burn emission factor assumes a sulphur content of 2.4 %.
Fuel consumption data have also been obtained from Carnival and Oceania
Cruises. At idle, the average fuel consumption of cruise passenger ships has been
stated at approximately:
ƒ 1.8 tonnes per hour for ships equivalent to the Pacific Dawn; and
ƒ 0.9 tonnes per hour for ships equivalent to the Nautica.
On the basis of 2.4% sulphur content in the fuel, the SO2 mass emission rates
are calculated to be 24 g/s and 12 g/s for the Pacific Dawn and Nautica
respectively. These results are reasonably consistent with the results determined
using the NPI method.

6.7.3 Air Quality Impact Assessment

The air quality considered the air quality impact of construction and operations.

Construction Air Quality Impacts

Due to the relatively minor nature of the earth works, no qualitative assessment
was undertaken. A number of mitigation measures, described in Section 6.7.4, will
be implemented during the construction phase to help mitigate any adverse effects
on air quality as a result of the proposed development. Provided these mitigation
measures are implemented, any adverse effects on local air quality resulting from
the construction of the proposed passenger terminals at WB4 and WB5 are
expected to be minimal.

Operation Air Quality Impacts

The operational air quality impacts are summarised below and in Table 21 below.
It should be noted that the annual concentrations reported in Table 21 represent
the ‘all-hours’ results from the model runs undertaken by SKM. These results are
therefore considered overestimates of annual ground level concentrations as they
do not account for the fact that passenger ships will only be berthed at White Bay
for a proportion of the year.

The findings identified in Table 21 can be summarised and explained as follows:

ƒ Nitrogen Dioxide: No exceedances of the NO2 criteria were predicted at any
of the sensitive receptors investigated over a 1-hour average. The predicted
highest annual average NOx concentration at the most affected ground-level
location was 47 µg/m3 for Scenario 4. This result assumes that Scenario 4 (a
large ship at Wharf 5 for 24-hours) will occur for every day of the year, which
is not possible. A more realistic, but still very conservative, estimate of the
highest annual average NO2 impacts can be approximated by assuming that
Scenario 4 occurs for half the year (that is, to represent ship presence on 170
days out of the 365). Halving 47 µg/m3 gives 24 µg/m3 and assuming (also
very conservatively) that 100% of the NOx is NO2 gives an incremental NO2
concentration of up to 24 µg/m3. The highest background annual average NO2

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 85

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

was 32 µg/m3 and adding this background to the predicted increment of 24

µg/m3 gives 56 µg/m3, which is below the DECCW’s assessment criterion of
62 µg/m3. While this analysis is very conservative, and so significantly over-
represents the contribution of the cruise passenger ships to annual average
concentrations of NO2 it demonstrates that the criteria will be complied with.
ƒ Particulate Matter: While predicted increment PM10 concentrations resulting
from the proposed development were well below the guideline criteria,
cumulative impacts exceed the 24 hour PM10 criterion for the worst affected
grid location. At the worst affected receiver (rather than just the worst
affected location) he predicted 24 hour PM10 concentration is 16 μg/m3 which
would result in a cumulative concentration 1 μg/m3 above the criteria. For
The predicted exceedance is considered to be an unlikely eventuality because
Scenario 4 is the least likely of all modelled scenarios and maximum
increments from ship emissions from this scenario would have to coincide
with maximum background levels, which are caused by extraneous events
such as bush fires. Scenarios 1 to 3, which include ships berthing during
daytime hours and a smaller ship berthing for 24 hours the maximum ground
level concentration is half of the results for Scenario 4.
ƒ Sulfur Dioxide: No exceedances of the 712 µg/m3 (10-minute average) or
570 µg/m3 (1-hour average) or 60 µg/m3 (annual average) criteria were
predicted at any ground-level location. The most affected ground-level
location is predicted to experience a cumulative 24-hour average SO2
concentration of up to 239 µg/m3 for Scenario 4, which is above the 228
µg/m3 criterion. However, predictions at the nearest sensitive receptor
locations are all below 228 µg/m3. As for the discussion on maximum 24-
hour average PM10 predictions, the probability of an exceedance is very low
because ships will not be at berth every day, Scenario 4 is the least likely
scenario, and maximum increments from ship emissions would have to
coincide with maximum background levels.

Table 21 – Maximum predicted ground level pollutant concentrations for Scenarios 1 to 4.

Pollutant Averaging Maximum Assumed Cumulative Criteria

Period concentration at background conc. ( g/m3)
most affected level ( g/m3)
ground-level ( g/m3)*
location ( g/m3)
1 hour 617 (Scenario - - -
NOX 3)
Annual 47 (Scenario 4) - - -
1 hour See Note 1 See Note 1 162 246
NO2
Annual 24 (Scenario 4) 32 56 62
24 hours 22 (Scenario 4) 35 57 50
PM10
Annual 3 (Scenario 4) 20 23 30
10 minute 592 (Scenario 109 712
701
3)
1 hour 414 (Scenario 76 570
490
SO2 3)
24 hour 216 (Scenario 23 228
239
4)
Annual 32 (Scenario 4) 6 38 60

Note 1: Background concentrations were determined using the Ozone Limiting Method which
uses background levels of ozone (O3) and NO2 to estimate the conversion of NOx to

86 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

NO2. The background concentrations of NO2 vary across a broad range, and were
reported within the Sinclair Knight Merz report between 15 µg/m3 and 162 µg/m3.

The focus of the air quality assessment relates to the operation of the auxiliary
engines to provide power to the ship while it is berthed. Compliance with the
DECCW air quality goals would also meet odour impacts in relation to ship
emissions, and there are no other activities which would generate odour.

Air emissions from up to 150 trucks per day are not expected to cause significant
air quality impacts in the context of daily traffic movements across Anzac Bridge
of more than 130,000 vehicles, and daily traffic movements on the City West Link
of more than 65,000 vehicles. As such emissions from vehicles for the CPT have
not been assessed further. There are no ship board generators or onboard waste
incineration while at port and so these have not been included in the air quality
assessment.

6.7.4 Air Quality Mitigation and Management

Construction Air Quality Mitigation Measures
During construction, the following dust control measures will be employed in order
to minimise soil erosion and dust generation, and protect water quality:
ƒ All materials transported to and from the construction site will be covered;
ƒ Temporary stockpiles of soil or other material will be covered or sprayed with
water or suitable chemical wetting agents on a regular basis, particularly
during dry or windy conditions;
ƒ All stockpiles will be located as far from residences and businesses as
practically possible;
ƒ Water/chemical wetting agents will be used to suppress dust on temporary
roadways and other exposed areas;
ƒ Dust-generating activities will be minimised during windy conditions,
particularly when dust is visible in the air.

Additionally, all plant and equipment will be maintained and operated to

specifications for that item to minimise emissions of other pollutants.

Operational Air Quality Mitigation Measures

The results of the dispersion modelling, based on the assumed shipping operations
and associated air pollution emission estimates, showed the Project is unlikely to
cause exceedances of the DECCW’s assessment criteria for NO2, PM10 or SO2 at
nearest sensitive receptors. It follows that the Project is unlikely to cause adverse
air quality impacts and no mitigation or management measures would be required
for ongoing cruise ship operations at White Bay. A conservative approach was
adopted for this assessment, which assumed that ships would be at the proposed
CPT every day of the year.

6.7.5 Air Quality Conclusion

There are not expected to be any adverse air quality impacts from the operation of
the proposed CPT at White Bay.

Construction of the proposed CPT is not expected to result in adverse air quality
provided the recommended mitigation measures are implemented.

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 87

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

6.8 Contamination
It is not anticipated that there will be extensive excavations proposed as part of
the construction of the CPT, since the majority of the support structures and
footings are already in place and will be reused to support the new CPT building.
However there will be some piling and excavation required to provide additional
support for certain elements of the terminal e.g. gangway and mezzanine level.

Contamination on site has been assessed by Consulting Earth Scientists (CES)

who conducted a review of all previous site investigations that have previously
been undertaken for the wharves at White Bay, including the following
investigations:
ƒ Investigations undertaken in 1997 and 1998 by Noel Arnold and Associates
for berths 3-6 at White Bay.
ƒ The Stage 2 Environmental Site Assessment carried out by Coffey
Environments for the proposed Bailey’s marine development at WB6.

The Consulting Earth Scientists report is provided in Appendix J. Consulting Earth

Scientists’ assessment of contamination identified:
ƒ The site presents minimal risk to the environment and human health. This
assessment is confined only to the portions of the site which have to date
been intrusively investigated.
ƒ The fill material appears to be comprised predominantly of sand, crushed
sandstone and sandstone boulders, which was possibly sourced from the
cutting of the sandstone wall along the north of the site. There does not
appear to be any gross contamination associated with the filling, however it
remains possible that some parts of the site have been subject to filling using
materials other than sandstone.
ƒ Due to data gaps present within the central and western portions of the site,
the potential does exist for contaminating materials to be present within the
underlying fill.

Due to these data gaps the following is proposed for the portion of the site west
of White Bay 3 (Buchanan Street) to Glebe Island Wharf No.8 (in front of the
Glebe Island Silos);
• A limited intrusive contamination assessment will be undertaken for any
excavations 1 metre below the existing ground level in this portion of the
site. This depth takes into account the depth of the hardstand on this
portion of the site. The limited intrusive contamination investigations
would be carried out prior to the commencement of the relevant
excavations.
• Given the high variability in groundwater conditions across the site, it is
proposed that should groundwater be encountered in this portion of the site
during construction and dewatering is required, a groundwater assessment
will be undertaken. The groundwater assessment would be carried out prior
to any dewatering taking place.

Taking into consideration the surface is to remain as hard standing and the lack of
extensive excavations proposed as part of the development the site is likely to be
deemed suitable for the proposed development (with respect of contamination).
Considering this CES do not feel that the Stage 2 Detailed Site Investigation would
be required.

88 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be prepared prior to

the commencement of works to deal with any unforseen contamination which
may arise from the disturbance of fill material during the construction process.

6.9 Stormwater
There are currently two stormwater pipes that cross the WB5 site, conveying
stormwater from Balmain to the harbour. These existing pipe systems running
north to south on the site will be protected during construction of the proposed
development. Soil and water management measures will be implemented to avoid
runoff into the harbour during construction works. These measures will be
provided in the Construction Environmental Management Plan, and will include:
ƒ Measures to control erosion of soil and sedimentation in accordance with the
principles and practices in Soils and Construction (Landcom, 2004).
ƒ Measures to prevent spillage of any substances, and appropriate
clean-up measures.
The majority of the site is very flat and it is perceived that most drainage occurs
via sheet flow to White Bay with areas of undrained ponding and some areas
picked up by minor drainage linking to the existing main pipe systems. In addition
to the two Council stormwater pipe systems that convey water from upstream,
there are also 3 existing 600mm stormwater pipes which convey stormwater from
the site to the harbour.

Run-off from the roof of the proposed CPT Building will be directed into rainwater
tanks and then re-used for toilet flushing and irrigation for landscaping on site.

In order to provide adequate falls for stormwater drainage it is intended to

reconstruct the pavement in the vicinity of the proposed Carpark. Stormwater
drainage will be collected in a new stormwater system and connected to the
existing stormwater pipes which cross the site. Prior to this connection, a
stormwater treatment device will be installed on the proposed stormwater system
to remove gross pollutants, sediments, oils and greases from the first flush
stormwater run-off from the carpark.

In addition, stormwater flows from minor storms up to the 3 month ARI storm
event will be collected and directed to bioremediation swales located within the
landscaped areas adjacent the proposed carpark.

Similarly, for the coach parking area, suitable gross pollutant traps will be retro-
fitted to the existing stormwater system to treat run-off from this area prior to
discharge to White Bay.

Stormwater overland flows from the Stephen Street and Grafton Street
catchments currently flow around the eastern and western ends of the existing
building on the site. For the proposed CPT and carpark it is intended largely to
maintain this arrangement, so it is expected that that the overland flow situation
will be similar to pre-development conditions.

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 89

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

6.10 Other Issues

Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts have been assessed in the relevant section of this report.
In particular:
ƒ Section 6.3 addresses the cumulative noise impact from the concurrent
operation of both the WB5 CPT and the WB4 temporary terminal.
ƒ Section 6.4 addresses the cumulative traffic impacts from the proposed CPT
with existing and future developments at White Bay and Glebe Island.
ƒ Section 6.7 addresses the cumulative air quality impact from the concurrent
berthing of a cruise ship at WB5 and WB4.

Hazardous Materials
Asbestos is known to have been used in a number of the buildings on site. As
part of on going health and safety site management undertaken by Sydney Ports,
Noel Arnold and Associates have prepared an Asbestos Management Plan.

The Management Plan, prepared for WB3-6, documents the location of asbestos
and provides management and emergency procedures which are to be followed
when dealing with the material.

In carrying out any works in locations where asbestos is known to have been used
(including works proposed under this Project Application), the appropriate
procedures, as detailed in the Asbestos Management Plan will be followed.

In particular, the Asbestos Management Plan requires that:

ƒ Asbestos materials be removed by a registered and licences asbestos removal
contractor as per the NSW Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 2001.
ƒ The removal must be controlled by a strict specification (it recommends that
the Victorian Asbestos Removal Industry Consultative Committee’s Standard
Specification for Asbestos Removal from Buildings, Structures, Ships. Plants
and Workplaces, 1992, be used as a guide).
ƒ During removal works independent occupational hygiene supervision, including
an airborne asbestos monitoring program, be undertaken.
ƒ All asbestos waste be stored, moved and removed in a receptacle designed to
prevent the release of its contents, and disposed of using asbestos labelled
bags or bins and taken to an EPA approved waste facility for landfill disposal.

A demolition and construction phase hazardous and industrial waste materials

management plan will also be prepared as part of the CEMP.

White Bay Passenger Terminal Bunkering (Refuelling)

Bunkering (refuelling) of the cruise ships is anticipated to follow the refuelling
regime at the DH5 and DH8 CPT’s, where fuel is provided to the ships while they
are at berth. This is typically undertaken from a bunker barge berthed next to the
cruise ship, although from time to time, small quantities of fuel may also be
provided by road tanker.

As part of the bunkering process, Sydney Ports staff ensure a safety checklist is
completed by the cruise ship and barge prior to the start of the transfer operation.
This is to address safety issues (for example protocols concerning pump rates,
communications, emergency shutdown, etc). Random audits are also conducted
by Sydney Ports on the transfer operation.

90 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Infrastructure and Utilities

A Services Infrastructure Report, prepared by Lincolne Scott Australia is provided
at Appendix I. The report considers electrical, mechanical, fire and hydraulic
services for the site. A summary of the provision of services on site is provided in
Table 22.

Table 22 – Summary of Infrastructure and Utilities Provision

Infrastructure/Utilities On Site Provision

Sewer Drainage ƒ Connect into the existing sewer within the site.
ƒ Two new sewerage connection points will be
installed at the wharf side, connected to the
sewer system, to allow pumping of waste from
ships.
Potable Water Supply ƒ Capacity is available to support the CPT at WB5.
ƒ Water supply to the site for both domestic use
and Fire Protection will be from the existing
connection to the Sydney Water Connection in
Vincent Street.
ƒ There will be 6 fresh water outlets spaced along
the wharf.
Electrical Services ƒ Capacity is available to support the CPT at WB5.
ƒ A new main switch room will need to be
established within the CPT at WB5 with
underground consumer mains being installed from
one of the exiting substations located adjacent to
the site.
ƒ The terminal has been designed to allow for
space for shore based power to be installed in the
future should international industry practices and
cruise ship design allow its provision.
Communication Services ƒ Requires new lead cable from a
Telecommunications carrier. The internal building
system will consist of, as a minimum, Category 6
integrated cabling infrastructure for voice and
data services and the design will also support the
wireless technologies to nominated areas.
Fire Services ƒ The CPT at WB5 will be provided with a
automatic sprinkler system, automatic smoke
detection system and building occupant warning
system.
Natural Gas ƒ There is no natural gas to the site. The CPT’s
gas requirements will be determined during the
detailed design phase.
ƒ The street gas main could be extended along
Stephen Street to the property boundary and a
new service provided to the buildings.

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 91

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Social and Economic

The DH8 CPT (now operating at DH5) and the Overseas Passenger Terminal (OPT)
at Circular Quay are the principal cruise passenger facilities in NSW. The most
recent assessment of the Economic Impact of the cruise shipping industry both in
NSW and across the Country was carried out in 2007-08, which concluded the
following 1:
ƒ direct expenditure (being passenger expenditure, crew expenditure and port-
related costs) of $149.4 million in NSW (46% of the national total);
ƒ indirect expenditure of $141.4 million (59% of the national total); and
ƒ a total output expenditure (direct + indirect expenditure) of $290.8 million in
NSW (52% of the national total).
With 101 cruise ship visits in 2007/08, this equates to some $1.48 million per
ship visit (direct expenditure).
Other economic benefits include:
ƒ direct wage income of $42.5 million;
ƒ indirect wage income of $32.6m;
ƒ a total (direct and indirect) wage income of $75.1m (51% of the national total
wage income of the cruise industry);
ƒ direct employment of 898 Full Time Equivalent (FTE's);
ƒ indirect employment of 597 FTE's;
ƒ a total employment of 1,495 FTE's (53.5% of the national total employment
FTE’s of the cruise industry); and
ƒ direct value add of $70.9 m, indirect value add of $62.7m, a total value add
of $133.6m (51% national value add of the cruise industry).
 
Further supporting the economic benefits of the cruise industry, the industry is
predicted to show continued growth, particularly in the domestic sector. In 09/10
cruise season the domestic market grew by 11% when compared to 08/09. In
late 2009, Carnival Australia deployed a further two cruise ships of approx 2,000
passenger capacity to service the Australian domestic cruise market, increasing
the total number of cruise ships of this size / capacity from four to six. It is
expected that Sydney will receive a fair proportion of this additional trade, with
more cruise ships calls and associated direct and indirect economic benefit. As the
proposed terminal at White Bay will be the main terminal for domestic cruise ships
in Sydney and NSW, its future role and importance must be recognised.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The proposed CPT at WB5 development is proposed to replace the DH8 CPT. The
DH8 CPT has recently been relocated to DH5 temporarily to facilitate the
redevelopment of Barangaroo and until such time that a permanent CPT at WB5 is
operational. Therefore the WB5 CPT will not be an additional facility in Sydney
Harbour, and it is not expected that the re-location of the facility to WB5 will
affect the growth in the cruise ship industry nor the number of ship visits that
would have otherwise occurred at DH8. Therefore it is not expected that
greenhouse gas emissions associated with cruise ship visits to the CPT will
increase as a result of the proposed CPT at White Bay from that which would
have occurred anyway, should the facility have remained at Darling Harbour.

1
Source: ‘Economic Impact of the Cruise Shipping Industry in Australia, 2007‐08’, conducted by the AEC 
Group on behalf of Cruise Down Under and the Commonwealth Department of Industry, Tourism & 
Resources. 

92 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Overall there may be minor changes to the greenhouse gas footprint of the CPT as
a result of the relocation of the facility, particularly associated with vehicle
movements journeying to and from the facility. As discussed in Section 6.4,
public transport is less accessible at the proposed White Bay location and
therefore it is anticipated that there would be an increase in private car usage to
the facility. Notwithstanding this, a number of elements of the proposed White
Bay CPT will assist in managing the greenhouse gas footprint of the facility when
compared with the previous operational DH8 facility. These include the provision
of approximately 200 long term car parking spaces on the site which will reduce
the number of overall vehicle trips to the CPT associated with picking up and
dropping off passengers, as well as the incorporation of the ESD initiatives in the
terminal design, as outlined in Section 6.12.

Sea Level Rise

The current height of the edge of the wharf apron at White Bay is approximately
+3m AHD. This means that it is approximately 3 metres above the mean sea
level. The NSW Government’s Sea Level Rise Policy Statement 2009 identifies
that sea levels are expected to rise by 40cm by 2050 and 90 cm by 2100 over
1990 sea levels. This increase is well below the current height of the wharf apron
and so no mitigation is required to account for sea level rise.

6.11 Construction Management

A Construction Management Plan will be prepared prior to the commencement of
works to manage the impacts of construction activities.

The construction management plan will provide details on:

ƒ site establishment, including securing construction zone, provision of site
accommodation and personnel access;
ƒ traffic and pedestrian management;
ƒ hours of construction work;
ƒ management of construction noise and vibration;
ƒ waste management;
ƒ soil and contamination management;
ƒ water quality management;
ƒ dust control measures;
ƒ hazardous materials (e.g. asbestos) management;
ƒ consultation with the community and agencies; and
ƒ site manager contact details.
Separate Construction Management Plans for different components of the works
(e.g. new access road, Cruise Passenger Terminal, early site works etc) will be
prepared to allow construction works to be staged.
In particular early works may include securing the site and removal of hazardous
materials, followed by general cladding and steel work removal and recycling.

6.12 Environmental Sustainability

No rating system is available that applies to this type of development. The general
initiatives of Green Star and Sydney Port Corporation’s Green Port Guidelines have
been used as design tools, to identify measures which can be used to contribute
to the CPT’s overall environmental performance.

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 93

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

The proposed development has been designed to incorporate Ecologically

Sustainable Design (ESD) initiatives where practicable. The initiatives improve the
CPT’s performance with respect to energy, management practices, indoor
environmental quality, transport, water use, material selection, site ecology and
waste emissions.

Sustainable design principles that are integral to the concept include:

ƒ Innovative Roof Design: the roof could be constructed as a long span
structure providing high thermal and acoustic insulation.
ƒ The amount of service equipment is minimised by utilising existing
infrastructure wherever possible.
ƒ Maximises the use of natural ventilation and daylight.

The consumption of energy will be minimised through sensible sizing of service

elements and the incorporation of building monitor sensors that can review and
adjust internal conditions.

During the detailed design of the project, an assessment of the inclusion of further
sustainability initiatives such as further energy efficiencies and water reduction will
be undertaken and incorporated into the facility. The design will achieve the
equivalent of a minimum green star rating of 4.5 star.

6.12.1 Ecologically Sustainable Development

The principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) are defined below, ,
together with consideration of how the proposed development relates to each of
the principles:
(a) the precautionary principle—namely, that if there are threats of serious or
irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should
not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent
environmental degradation.

The proposal is located within an existing port area, providing for the continuing
use of the port for maritime purposes. The site and its surroundings have been
heavily modified from their natural state to accommodate existing ports and
surrounding urban and industrial uses. The proposal will not result in serious or
irreversible damage to the environment.

(b) inter-generational equity—namely, that the present generation should

ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment are
maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations,

The proposal is for the continuing maritime uses of the port and will not affect the
future health, diversity or productivity of the environment. Reuse of an existing
port site will avoid the need to impact an undeveloped harbour foreshore site for
the proposal.

(c) conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity—namely, that

conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a
fundamental consideration,

The proposal will not affect biological diversity and ecological integrity of the site
and its surrounds. Reuse of an existing port site will avoid the need to impact an
undeveloped harbour foreshore site for the proposal.

(d) improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms—namely, that

environmental factors should be included in the valuation of assets and
services

94 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Environmental factors have been considered in the strategic planning for the
proposed development. Reuse of an existing port site will avoid the need to
impact an undeveloped harbour foreshore site for the proposal and will allow the
Barangaroo site, which is located closer to employment and public transport, to be
used for higher density residential and commercial purposes.

6.13 Environmental Risk Assessment

Approach
The Environmental Risk Assessment at Table 24 for the site at White Bay has
been adapted from Australian Standard AS4369:1999 Risk Management and
environmental risk tools developed by other organisations (summarised at
Table 23). The Environmental Risk Assessment establishes a residual risk by
reviewing the ‘significance of environmental impacts’ and the ‘ability to manage
those impacts’.
The significance of environmental impacts is assigned a value between 1 and 5
based on:
ƒ The receiving environment;
ƒ The level of understanding of the type and extent of impacts; and
ƒ The likely community response to the environmental consequence of the
project;
The manageability of environmental impact is assigned a value between 1 and 5
based on:
ƒ the complexity of mitigation measures;
ƒ the known level of performance of the safeguards proposed; and
ƒ the opportunity for adaptive management.
The sum of the values assigned provides an indicative ranking of potential
residual impacts after the mitigation measures are implemented.

Table 23 – Environmental Risk Matrix

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 95

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Table 24 – Environmental Risk Matrix

Item Phase Potential Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Risk Assessment

Impact
Significance Manageability Residual
of Impact of Impact Impact
Noise C+O ƒ Increase in noise levels ƒ Adoption of a noise management plan to minimise noise from the 3 2 5
during construction construction of the facility. (low/medium)
activities ƒ Adoption of a noise management plan to minimise noise from the operation
ƒ Increase in noise levels of the facility.
during cruise visit ƒ Installation of noise attenuation measures as part of selecting the materials
ƒ Increase in noise levels used for the CPT to minimise noise from activities inside the CPT building.
during function/event Measures include provision of double doors, acoustic treatment of walls and
ceiling.
Traffic C+O ƒ Increased traffic on local ƒ The potential impact of a CPT at White Bay is considered acceptable as the 2 2 4
roads Level of Service for intersections in the immediate vicinity does not (low/medium)
deteriorate once intersection improvements are implemented.
ƒ During a function event a traffic management plan will be put in place.

Visual O ƒ Visual impact from local ƒ From the vantage points which overlook the site, the proposed terminal will 4 1 5
residences, public open improve the visual amenity of WB5. The reduction in the built form and (low/medium)
spaces and waterways removal of the cladding of the high bay area of the cargo shed, results in the
new terminal sitting almost entirely within the outline of the low bay shed
and below the skyline when viewed from the water.
Heritage C+O ƒ Impact on heritage items ƒ The details of the design for the crossing of the Beattie Street Stormwater 1 2 3
crossed by the new access Channel by the new access road will be agreed with Sydney Water. (Low)
road ƒ Retention of features of the former container terminal.
ƒ Impact on heritage items in ƒ The proposed development represents a continuation of the long-standing
the vicinity. maritime use of the site.
ƒ Heritage significance of
the site
Air Quality C+O ƒ Decrease in air quality ƒ The proposed development is not expected to significantly change pollution 1 4 5
levels in the area. (Low/medium)
Biodiversity C+O ƒ No significant impact ƒ Given the developed nature of the site and current and historical uses, there 1 1 2 (Low)
identified are not likely to be any significant impacts on any threatened species,
populations or ecological communities or their habitats.

96 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Contamination C ƒ Exposure of contamination ƒ Contamination levels have been assessed as being likely to be below those 1 2 3 (Low)
or hazardous materials considered to be a risk for commercial and industrial purposes.
during construction ƒ Procedures for management of any contaminated or hazardous materials will
be addressed as part of the construction management plan if contamination
is identified during construction.
Water Quality C+O ƒ Deterioration in water ƒ During construction, erosion and sediment controls will be undertaken in 1 2 3 (Low)
quality in White Bay accordance with the construction management plan.
ƒ Stormwater from the car, bus and taxi parking areas will be collected and
treated prior to discharge into the Harbour.
ƒ Cruise ship operations while at port will be subject to standard SPC
requirements.
ƒ Discharge of any ballast water will be as per standard AQIS requirements.
Waste C+O ƒ Generation of waste ƒ Waste management would be addressed as part of the Construction and 1 1 3 (Low)
Operational Environmental Management Plans. This would include initiatives
such as:
ƒ Investigate the use of recycled materials in construction materials;
ƒ Maximisation of the recycling of wastes where possible; and
ƒ All waste for disposal would be removed by a licensed waste contractor
and disposed of at a licensed landfill facility.
Greenhouse C+O ƒ Potential increase in ƒ Provision of approximately 200 long term car spaces to reduce vehicle tip 1 1 2 (Low)
emissions numbers
ƒ Incorporation of ESD principles in the design of the CPT.
Key: C – Construction, O: Operation

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 97

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

7.0 Draft Statement of Commitments

In accordance with Part 3A of the EP&A Act the following are the commitments
made by Sydney Ports Corporation to manage and minimise potential impacts
arising from the Cruise Passenger Terminal development at White Bay.

Development will be carried out generally as described in the White Bay Cruise
Passenger Terminal, Environmental Assessment Report, prepared by JBA Urban
Planning and dated September 2010.

7.1 Construction Environmental

Management Plan
Sydney Ports Corporation commits to preparing and implementing a Construction
Environmental Management Plan addressing proposed management and mitigation
measures to be employed for the Cruise Passenger Terminal at White Bay and
associated works. The environmental management commitments proposed during
the construction phase are detailed below in Table 25.

Table 25 – Environmental Management Commitments – Design and Construction

Objective Action
Environmental Management
Manage hours of ƒ Standard hours of construction are 7.00am –
construction work to 6.00pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on
minimise impacts on the Saturdays, with no work on Sundays or public
community holidays. Works which are not audible at the
nearest residence could be undertaken at any
other time, e.g. to minimise impacts on existing
traffic. For any construction works outside of
standard hours which are audible at residences,
approval would be sought from the Director
General.
ƒ The Construction Environmental Management
Plan (CEMP) will outline protocols for notifying
local residents prior to any works audible at
residences occurring out of standard
construction hours should such works be
required.
Minimise impacts of CPT A CEMP will be prepared and implemented to
construction on amenity guide construction activities as outlined below in
in surrounding areas the following areas:
ƒ Traffic & Pedestrian Management
ƒ Dust
ƒ Air Quality
ƒ Soils & Contamination
ƒ Water Quality
ƒ Noise & Vibration
ƒ Heritage
ƒ Landscape & Visual
ƒ Hazardous Materials
ƒ Waste Management
ƒ Energy and Water
ƒ Consultation

98 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Objective Action
All plans and strategies would be developed as
part of the CEMP, in consultation with the relevant
agencies.

Where construction activities are to be staged,

then the CEMP will be also be staged so that it
addresses the environmental management issues
relevant for the specific construction activities to
be undertaken as part of a specified stage of
works. Different stages of construction works
may include:
ƒ securing the site and removal of hazardous
materials;
ƒ general cladding and steel work removal and
recycling;
ƒ demolition activities associated with the CPT
development;
ƒ construction of the new access road connecting
to James Craig Road; and
ƒ construction of the CPT at WB5.
Traffic & Pedestrian Management
Minimise impact of CPT A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP)
construction traffic on will be prepared and implemented as part of the
surrounding road network CEMP to:
ƒ Restrict heavy construction traffic to designated
arterial routes.
ƒ Be consistent with SPC’s Traffic Management
Plan Guideline (2007).
ƒ Ensure access to Baileys’ Marine Fuels Australia
site is maintained.
Management of public ƒ Restrict pedestrian access to designated
pedestrian access and pathways and ensure construction work sites
movement on the site are properly secure to prevent unauthorised
access.
Air Quality
Minimise dust generation Develop and implement dust management
during construction measures as part of the CEMP. The CEMP will
include the following mitigation measures and
controls:
ƒ All materials transported to and from the
construction site will be covered.
ƒ Minimise the area of disturbed / exposed soils at
any one time and avoid dust-generating
activities during windy conditions.
ƒ Trucks to use the sealed roads when
transporting materials on and off site.
ƒ Undertake regular watering of disturbed exposed
soils, including stockpiles, loads of soil being
transported and other exposed areas, to reduce
wind blown dust emissions.
ƒ Locate stockpiles as far from residences and
businesses as practically possible.

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 99

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Objective Action
Soils and Contamination
Prevent exposure to ƒ A management plan for dealing with any
contaminated soils unforseen contamination, which may arise
during construction, will be prepared as part of
the CEMP prior to the invasive works or
excavations being carried out.
ƒ A limited intrusive contamination assessment
will be undertaken for any excavations 1 metre
below existing ground level in the western
portion of the site (i.e. between Buchanan Street
and Glebe Island Wharf No. 8). The intrusive
contamination assessment will take place prior
to the commencement of the relevant
excavations.
ƒ If groundwater is encountered during
construction in the western portion of the site
and dewatering is required, a groundwater
assessment will be undertaken. The
groundwater assessment would be carried out
prior to any dewatering taking place.
Water Quality
Prevent any water ƒ Soil and water management measures will be
pollution of White Bay detailed in the CEMP and implemented to reduce
the potential water quality impacts from site
works during construction.
ƒ Measures to control erosion of soil and
sedimentation will be implemented prior to
construction works. These measures will be
prepared in accordance with the principles and
practices in Soils and Construction (Landcom,
2004) and will be maintained and monitored
during the construction phase.
ƒ Measures to prevent spillage of any substances,
and appropriate clean-up measures will also be
outlined in the CEMP.

Noise and Vibration

Minimise construction A Construction Noise and Vibration Management

noise impact on Plan (CNVMP) will be prepared and implemented
surrounding residences prior to the commencement of works to achieve
compliance with noise levels predicted in the EA.
This Plan will include:
ƒ Selection of quiet plant and processes.
ƒ Use of quieter reversing alarms on mobile plant
and equipment.
ƒ Ensuring plant is well maintained and operated.
ƒ Use of temporary barriers.
ƒ Positioning of plant / processes.
ƒ Limiting the “cluster” of plant / processes.
ƒ Planning of noisy activities.
ƒ Communication between the community and the
construction management contractor is to be
established at the start of the construction
works and maintained during the works. This
will include a 24 hour complaints handling
system and protocols for advice to the

100 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

community prior to undertaking any out-of-hours

work likely to be audible at residences.
ƒ Investigative monitoring of noise in response to
specific complaints.
Heritage
Management of items / ƒ The details of the new road crossing of the
structures Beattie Street Stormwater Channel No.15 will
be agreed with Sydney Water as part of the
detailed design for the road to ensure that the
functional usage of the Channel is not
compromised and the Channel’s heritage values
are not impacted.
ƒ The new road will be constructed to avoid
impact on the White Bay Power Station Canal.
ƒ The design will incorporate elements of rail
tracks, gantry crane rails and gantry crane
support structures from the former container
terminal operation.

The construction contractor will be informed of

the structures to be retained as part of the
development and future interpretation.
Protection of Indigenous ƒ In the unlikely event that artefacts of indigenous
Heritage relics if heritage significance are uncovered during the
uncovered course of construction, works in the immediate
area will cease, DECCW will be notified and
expert advice will be sought from an
appropriately qualified professional.
Hazardous Materials
Prevent exposure to ƒ In carrying out any works in locations where
hazardous materials asbestos is present, the appropriate procedures,
as detailed in the existing Asbestos
Management Plan for the site will be followed.
ƒ A demolition and construction phase hazardous
and industrial waste materials management plan
will be prepared as part of the CEMP.
Waste Management
Minimise waste Waste management will be addressed as part of
generated and maximise the preparation and implementation of the CEMP.
re-use and recycling. This will include:
Waste disposal to be ƒ Measures to minimise waste including the reuse
undertaken when re-use of materials and reuse of parts of the building
and recycle is not structure where possible.
possible ƒ Investigate the use of recycled products in
construction materials.
ƒ Waste for disposal would be removed by a
licensed waste contractor and disposed of at a
licensed landfill facility.
Energy & Water
Manage energy usage Energy and water minimisation strategies will be
and water consumption developed as part of CEMP. Suitable measures
will be identified and implemented prior to the
construction phase.
ƒ Energy management measures could include.
ƒ Management and maintenance of equipment.
ƒ Programming of works e.g. to minimise
transport and hence fuel usage.

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 101

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Water management measures could include:

ƒ Reduce consumption.
ƒ Reuse of water where practicable.
Consultation
Consultation with A Consultation Plan will be prepared and
community and relevant implemented. This will include:
agencies. ƒ Use of the existing Glebe Island and White Bay
Community Liaison Group to discuss
construction related issues.
ƒ Establishment and maintenance of phone
line/fax/website to provide opportunity for
community input.
ƒ A complaints handling procedure to address and
respond to issues raised by the community.
ƒ Use of Sydney Ports’ website for the provision
of public information.
Consultation with Service ƒ Liaison will be undertaken with the relevant
Providers utility and service providers regarding timing of
connections to the services and utilities on
the site.

ƒ Liaison will be undertaken with the relevant

utility and service providers regarding the
location of the services and utilities on the site
prior to construction.

7.2 Operational Environmental

Management Plan
Sydney Ports Corporation will prepare and implement an Operational
Environmental Management Plan (OEMP) addressing the on-going management
and mitigation measures to be employed during the operation of the White Bay
CPT. OEMP’s will be prepared to address the management and mitigation
measures to be employed during the operation of the CPT at WB5 as a function
facility and for the erection, operation and removal of the temporary CPT. The
environmental management commitments proposed during the operational phase
are detailed below in Table 26.

Separate OEMP’s may be prepared for the CPT at WB5, the temporary CPT’s at
WB4 and the function and event operations.
Table 26 – Environmental Management Measures - Operational

Objective Action
Environmental Management
Minimise impact of the Separate Operational Environmental
Cruise Passenger Terminal Management Plans (OEMP) will be prepared and
operations on surrounding implemented for WB4 and WB5 to guide
area operational activities. They will include:
ƒ Environmental Management
ƒ Traffic, Transport & Pedestrian Movement
ƒ Air Quality
ƒ Water Quality
ƒ Noise & Vibration
ƒ Heritage
ƒ Landscape & Visual

102 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Objective Action
ƒ Waste Management
ƒ Energy & Water Consumption, and Greenhouse
ƒ Emergency Response
ƒ Security and access control
ƒ Community Consultation

Minimise impact of the An Operational Environmental Management Plan

function and event (OEMP) will be prepared and implemented to
operations at WB5 on the guide operational activities associated with
surrounding area functions. It will include, but not be limited to:
ƒ Traffic and Pedestrian Movement (including a
Traffic Management Framework)
ƒ Water Quality
ƒ Noise & Vibration
ƒ Heritage
ƒ Waste Management
ƒ Energy & Water Consumption, and
Greenhouse
ƒ Emergency Response
ƒ Security and access control
ƒ Community Consultation
General Hours of operation of the Cruise Passenger
Terminal and related activities are 24 hours per
day, 7 days per week.

Hours of operation for the function facility are

as follows:
ƒ Use of internal and external areas from 7am –
11:30pm (with all patrons to have vacated the
site by 12 midnight);
ƒ Set-up and cleaning of internal areas of the
facility could occur at any time.
ƒ Set-up and cleaning of external areas will be
undertaken between 7am – 12 midnight.
ƒ Amusement rides operating from 7am-10pm.
Amusement rides could operate between
10pm and 11pm but only if positioned
between the building and wharf edge (i.e. on
the southern side of the building). .
The ability to undertake functions outside these
hours would require approval by the Director-
General of the Department of Planning.
Traffic and Pedestrian
Movement
Minimise the impact of CPT Works required to improve intersections would
operational traffic on the be finalised before the operation of the WB5
surrounding road network CPT is brought into operation. These works
include an additional right turn lane out of James
Craig Road would be required.

An operational Traffic Management Plan (TMP)

for cruise ship visits will be implemented to:
ƒ Ensure the efficient and orderly management
of traffic and pedestrian activities at the

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 103

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Objective Action
proposed CPT; and
ƒ Manage long term parking arrangements
which will need to be implemented prior to the
operation of the long term car park.
ƒ The TMP will be prepared in accordance with
SPC’s TMP Guideline (2007).

A traffic impact assessment will be undertaken

Minimise the impact of
of potential event scenarios for functions with
function and event
more than 500 attendees at any one point in
operational traffic on the
time, which are proposed to start or finish during
surrounding road network
the morning or evening peak traffic periods (i.e.
8am-9am or 5pm-6pm, Monday to Friday).

A maximum of 20 functions/events in any

calendar year with more than 1500 attendees on
site at any one point in time.

An operational TMP for functions and events

with over 500 attendees at any one point in time
will be implemented as part of the OEMP to:
ƒ Ensure the efficient and orderly management
of traffic and pedestrian activities at WB5;
ƒ Manage the parking arrangements which will
need to be implemented prior to the operation
of the CPT as a function facility; and
ƒ Corporate functions would be encouraged to
transport patrons via buses / coaches.
Water Quality
Ensure shipping operations ƒ Cruise ship operations such as bunkering
are undertaken in while at port will be subject to existing SPC
accordance with standard requirements and protocols, including a safety
requirements to minimise the checklist and auditing.
potential impact on the ƒ Discharge of any ballast water from ships will
environment be as per standard AQIS requirements.
Prior to the connection point of the on-site
stormwater system into the existing
stormwater pipes which crosses the site, a
stormwater treatment device will be installed
on the proposed stormwater system to
remove gross pollutants, sediments, oils and
greases from the first flush stormwater run-off
from the carpark.
Noise and Vibration
Minimise operational noise A Noise Management Plan (NMP) for operations
impact on surrounding will be prepared and implemented as part of the
residences. OEMP and would detail methods available to
mitigate noise during the use of the CPT and
function facility. In particular the Plan will
include:
ƒ Maintenance of all equipment to ensure
correct working order;
ƒ Selection of quiet equipment and plant where
practicable;

104 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Objective Action
ƒ Use of quieter or alternative reversing alarms
on mobile plant and equipment permanently
on the site;
ƒ Appropriate training of all staff in relation to
noise issues;
ƒ Maintenance of internal roads;
ƒ Community consultation program, including
24 hour hotline number for complaints;
ƒ Procedures for responding to complaints; and
ƒ Nominated responsibilities for noise control
during operation, and response to complaints.

Other measures regarding management of noise

from functions will include:
ƒ Incorporation of double doors (air lock) to limit
noise breakout;
ƒ Doors in all facades of the Arrival Hall, and all
doors in the north facade of the Baggage Hall
and storage and amenities area will remain
closed during amplified music events; and
ƒ During the first outdoor event with significant
noise generation, noise monitoring will be
conducted to confirm noise levels at
residences. Noisy activities can be located
strategically to minimise impacts.
ƒ Noise impacts from night time traffic
movements for events greater than 500
people will be addressed as part of the
Operational Environmental Management Plan.
Heritage
Recording of structures and The White Bay Wharf No. 5 site will be subject
buildings to be removed of a photographic archival recording prior to the
commencement of the demolition works. This is
to include structures / buildings such as the
canteen and covered car park.
Maintenance and Selected items/structures will be retained on site
interpretation of site features for interpretation and will be maintained. Details
of interpretive media will be provided as part of
the preliminary and detailed design stages as
applicable.
Landscape and Visual
Minimise impacts on Landscaping will be implemented and
residential amenity maintained, in accordance with the Landscape
Management Plan to be prepared at the detailed
design stage. This Plan will include:
ƒ planting within car park areas and elsewhere
on site;
ƒ landscaping and fencing along Robert Street
where the fence is to be relocated;
ƒ processes for the management of the on-site
weeds; and
ƒ monitoring of vegetation to ensure it becomes
established and to identify any further
management requirements.

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 105

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Objective Action

Where the new access road runs parallel close to

Robert Street landscaping and a footpath along
Robert St will be provided consistent with the
Glebe Island and White Bay Master Plan and
Ports Improvement Program.

New external light fittings will be positioned to

minimise the chances of spill onto surrounding
residences.

Lighting on site will be designed to meet

AS4282 - 1997 Control of Obtrusive Effects of
Outdoor Lighting and other relevant standards.
Waste Management
Reduce the generation of Management of waste will be outlined in the
waste OEMP to ensure that initiatives for the
sustainable management of waste are given due
consideration.
Such measures will include reduction of
materials being brought onto the site, reuse of
wastes where practicable and recycling.
Energy & Water Consumption, and Greenhouse
Reduce energy and water Opportunities to minimise energy consumption
consumption and on site will be identified and implemented.
greenhouse gas generation Energy and water management measures will be
assessed during detailed design. These measures
will be developed as a result of undertaking a
sustainability assessment in accordance with
Sydney Ports Corporation’s Green Port
Guidelines during the detailed design phase of
the project.

Rainwater collected from the roof of the CPT

will be stored in rainwater tanks and then re-
used for toilet flushing and irrigation for
landscaping on site.

The design will achieve the equivalent of a

minimum green star rating of 4.5 stars.
Emergency Response
Ensure emergency response An Emergency Response and Incident
procedures are adequate Management Plan (ERIMP) will be prepared to
ensure incidents are handled promptly and
safely. The ERIMP will outline the appropriate
emergency response equipment that will be
provided, the mandatory training requirements,
the emergency response procedure and the
responsibilities of site operators.
Security and access control
Ensure the site is safely ƒ A security plan will be developed for the CPT
secured and prevents and security infrastructure will be installed
unauthorised access (such as security fencing, bollards, etc) to
ensure compliance with the relevant

106 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

Objective Action
provisions of the Maritime Transport and
Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 and
Customs Act 1901.
ƒ A security management plan will be prepared
and implemented prior to functions being held
at WB5, which will include general security
procedures, management of unacceptable
patron behaviour, responsible service of
alcohol, security guard personnel requirements
and evacuation procedures in the event of an
emergency (such as a fire).
Consultation
Effective consultation with The OEMP will outline measures for effective
the community consultation with the local community and
will include:
ƒ Use of the existing Glebe Island and White
Bay Community Liaison Group to discuss CPT
related issues;
ƒ Ongoing maintenance of phone line to provide
opportunity for community input;
ƒ A complaints handling procedure to address
and respond to issues raised by the
community.
ƒ Use of Sydney Ports’ website for the provision
of public information.

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 107

 Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

8.0 Project Justification

The proposed development has planning merit in the following respects:
ƒ It facilitates ongoing servicing of the cruise ship industry in Sydney Harbour by
providing a second passenger terminal to replace the east Darling Harbour
Passenger Terminal and an additional berth for those infrequent occasions
each year when required.
ƒ The continued availability of facilities to accommodate cruise passenger ships
retains a total output expenditure (direct + indirect expenditure) of $291
million in NSW and includes a total employment of approximately 1,500 full
time equivalent jobs.
ƒ The site is suitable for the proposed development, as the site is an established
port facility and zoned Port and Employment and the existing berths at White
Bay are accessible by cruise ships as they provide suitable water depth and
space to safely manoeuvre and position cruise ships.
ƒ The reuse of the gantry crane super-structure of the existing port building on
site and the opening up of view corridors from surrounding areas including
neighbouring residential streets (such as Grafton Street and Adolphus Place)
provides an iconic departure point for cruise passenger ships.
ƒ The proposed terminal will improve the visual amenity of White Bay Wharf
No. 5. The reduction in the built form and removal of the cladding of the high
bay area of the cargo shed will result in the new terminal sitting almost
entirely within the outline of the low bay shed and below the skyline when
viewed from the water.
ƒ The proposed CPT includes design and operational management features to
minimise the impacts of noise on surrounding residential areas, including the
construction of a new access road connecting through James Craig Road.
Residual noise impacts will be addressed through a Noise Management Plan.
ƒ Construction noise will generally comply with the noise criteria at most times,
except during certain stages of the construction works such as rock breaking
and piling activities (which will be minimal). This is typical of large
development sites and appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented
via a Construction Noise Management Plan.
ƒ Operational noise associated with functions (internally and externally) are
considered to comply with the relevant standard noise criteria.
ƒ To ensure a continuing acceptable level of service at the intersection between
James Craig Road and The Crescent/City West Link Road upgrades have been
proposed. With these intersection improvements incorporated, the potential
traffic impact of the CPT operation is considered acceptable.
ƒ Traffic management planning arrangements will be undertaken to ensure that
the development is operated in an efficient and sustainable manner. In
particular traffic planning management will be established for functions over
500 people.
ƒ The proposal has minimal impact on the heritage significance of the site or on
adjacent heritage sites. The new terminal building design has interpreted the
former use of the site by incorporating or retaining elements of the former
White Bay Container Terminal.
ƒ The proposal meets air quality criteria.
ƒ Provides for public access to WB5.
ƒ Infrastructure and utilities are sufficient to service the proposed development
or have the capacity to be upgraded as appropriate.

108 JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058

Cruise Passenger Terminal „ Project Application | September 2010

9.0 Conclusion
The proposed CPT facilitates the ongoing servicing of the cruise ship industry in
Sydney by maintaining facilities to accommodate three passenger cruise ships in
port at any one time.

The proposed CPT is consistent with the statutory instruments, continuing the
maritime and port operations on the site and related activities, as well as providing
jobs and direct investment in NSW.

The preceding environmental assessment addresses the Director-General’s

Requirements. Sydney Ports Corporation requests therefore that the Minister
approve the Project Application for the construction and operation of a CPT at
WB5; the construction and operation of a temporary CPT at WB4 when required;
the use of WB5 for managed functions / events; and other associated works
required to facilitate these developments.

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd „ 10058 109