NSW Planning Assessment Commission Determination Report ...ipcn.nsw.gov.au/resources/.../2016/03/sydney-super-yacht-marina-mo… · Sydney Super Yacht Marina (SSYM) Pty Ltd (the Proponent)

15 June 2016

NSW Planning Assessment Commission Determination Report Section 75W Modification application for Sydney Super Yacht Marina, Rozelle Bay (MOD 1)

1. INTRODUCTION

Sydney Super Yacht Marina (SSYM) Pty Ltd (the Proponent) has submitted an application to modify its existing approval under Section 75W of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). The proposed modifications seek to reconfigure the design of the approved development including the site layout, and to also incorporate the existing water-based component of the SSYM currently operating under a separate Part 4 consent including the reconfiguration of the pontoon layout.

The site is located in Rozelle Bay, Sydney, approximately 3km west of Sydney’s CBD and includes both a land-based and water-based (marina) component.

2. PROPOSALBackground On 29 August 2008, the Planning Assessment Manager of the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority approved DA08-05-08 for the upgrade of the SSYM as follows: • The reconfiguration of the pontoon layout and rearrangement of berths;• Demolition of a fuel facility and conversion to a waste management area;• Refinement of the car parking area (88 parking spaces); and• Improvements to public access and landscaping.

Project approval MP09_0165 was issued on 26 November 2012 by the Commission for the redevelopment of the land-based component of the SSYM. The approval included: • Demolition of existing buildings;• Construction of a commercial maritime building known as the ‘Eastern Building’ with a parapet

height of RL 11.9 metres and a gross floor area (GFA) of 3,300m2;• Construction of a commercial maritime building known as the ‘Western Building’ with a parapet

height of RL 12.9 metres and a GFA of 2,900m2;• Construction of a four-level car parking building with a maximum parapet height of RL 11.4m

including a lift overrun at a maximum height of RL 19.6m;• Erection of a pennant crane measuring 5.1m above ground level; and• Provision of 66 at-grade car parking spaces and associated landscaping.

Subsequent to the 2012 project approval, there has been one other approved modification (MOD 2 approved on 7 May 2015) to change the design and layout of the Western Building only.

COMMISSION SECRETARIAT Level 13, 301 George Street SYDNEY, NSW 2000 GPO BOX 3415, SYDNEY, NSW 2001 TELEPHONE (02) 9383 2100 FAX (02) 9299 9835 [email protected]

Current Modification This current modification application seeks to modify MP09_0165 as summarised by the Department of Planning and Environment (the Department) and includes:

Aspect Description Eastern Building • The removal of part of the north-western corner;

• The provision of an additional roof level for commercial maritime uses (540m2) and an associated landscaped terrace (545m2) and a subsequent increase in the overall height by 3.35m from RL 11.9m to RL 15.25m;

• The internal design amendments, including relocation of the stairs, lifts and toilets; and

• Screening of the rooftop plant.

Multi-level car park • The addition of a new level to the carpark (4 levels to 5 levels) and a subsequent increase in the overall height by 2.2m from RL 11.4m to RL 13.6m;

• The addition of 220m2 of commercial maritime floor space in the ground floor level of the building;

• An increase in the total number of parking spaces by 88 spaces (228 spaces in total) with flexible use of 11 spaces on levels 1 to 3 (33 in total); and

• An increase in the footprint of the carpark and design refinement of the car park including: o The relocation of the identification tower and reduction in the

lift overrun to RL 17.9m; o Removal of the car lifts and inclusion of access ramps and

changes to the circulation arrangements; and o Changes to the car parking arrangements.

Water-based component

• Adding the water-based (marina) facilities into the Part 3A approval; and

• Reconfiguration of the marina, including an increase in the total number of berth from 24 to 43 (plus 36 tender berths) and changes to the berthing arrangement.

Other modifications • An increase in the total approved gross floor area from 6,200m2 to

6,885m2; • Reduction in the number of at-grade car parking spaces from 66 to

60, with flexible use of 20 of the spaces for tender boats associated with the marina and/or storage of other watercraft;

• Minor changes to the internal layout of the western building; • Changes to the construction staging to include a new stage 7

associated with the reconfiguration of the marina (water-based component); and

• A total of 1,269m2 for outdoor seating associated with the ancillary uses and the yacht club on the various decks, balconies and the wharf level of the development.

Sydney Super Yacht Marina, Rozelle (MOD 1) 2

3. DELEGATION TO THE COMMISSION The application was referred to the Commission for determination under the terms of the Ministerial delegation dated 14 September 2011 as more than 25 public submissions in the nature of objections were received. The application was received by the Commission on 9 March 2016. The Commission panel appointed to determine the application was comprised of Mr Garry West (chair), Dr Marcus Lincoln-Smith and Ms Ilona Millar. 4. DEPARTMENT’S ASSESSMENT REPORT The Department assessed the modification application, including the following issues: • Building height; • Gross floor area and land use; • Noise impacts; • Parking and traffic impacts; • Marine activities; • Marine ecological impacts; and • Bays Precinct Urban Transformation Program. Overall, the Department was satisfied that suitable monitoring, management and mitigation measures can be implemented to ensure an acceptable level of environmental performance and amenity to neighbouring properties during construction and the future operation of the marina. The Department’s Assessment Report recommended approval subject to conditions. 5. MEETINGS, SITE VISIT & CORRESPONDENCE Site visit and briefing from the Proponent On 6 April 2016, the Commission inspected the site and the surrounding area. The site visit was accompanied by the Proponent who clarified details about the current modification compared to existing works already undertaken at the site. The Proponent confirmed they were proposing to undertake water sampling to establish a pre-construction baseline of data and the results would be provided to the Commission. The Proponent also provided further details on the current noise management and site operations to deal with noise impacts and overall disturbance. A summary of the meeting is included in Appendix 3. Briefing by the Department of Planning & Environment On 6 April 2016, the Commission was briefed by representatives of the Department. They outlined the history of the site and the approval under which the marina is currently operating (Appendix 4). The Department also noted the changes proposed, outlined the concerns raised in submissions, in particular about noise and the dynamics of marina use and advised that the modification is within the scope of section 75W of the EP&A Act. Meeting with Leichhardt Council and City of Sydney Council On 7 April 2016, the Commission met with both affected Councils to discuss their views and any outstanding issues in relation to the modification assessment. (Appendices 5 and 6). Both Councils raised concern about the scope of section 75W and the future connectivity of the Bays Precinct. Public Meeting On 8 April 2016, the Commission held a public meeting at Glebe Town Hall during which 7 speakers presented to the Commission.


Issues raised at the public meeting and the key points from the written comments are summarised in Appendix 1. A full list of speakers at the public meeting is included in Appendix 2. The key issues raised included: • Noise impacts; • The reasonableness of the proposed modification; • Marine activities; • Community Liaison Committee; and • Compliance. The Commission made an unaccompanied site visit to Bicentennial Park after the public meeting, which is located directly opposite the marina. Meeting with the Department and Proponent On 26 May 2016, the Commission met with the Department to discuss the relevance of additional conditions to address impacts on the water quality (Appendix 7). On 30 May 2016, the Commission met with both the Department and Proponent to discuss mitigation measures for impacts on the water quality within the marina as compared to the Rozelle and Blackwater Bays. (Appendix 8).


6. COMMISSION’S CONSIDERATION The following key issues were identified by the Commission for further consideration:

6.1 The scope of Section 75W The Commission notes the concerns raised about the validity of the modification application under section 75W of the EP&A Act. In particular, the Proponent’s request to include the water-based activities in the Part 3A approval. The Department’s Assessment Report has advised that the subject application is within the scope of section 75W on the basis that the scope of a section 75W is not bound by the legislative limits that would otherwise apply to Part 4 applications under section 96 of the EP&A Act and that that there are clear links between the water-based and land-based elements of the SSYM. The Commission agrees that the land-based and water-based components of the development are clearly linked and is satisfied that the modification can be approved under section 75W of the EP&A Act. 6.2 Noise Concerns were raised in comments provided to the Commission and at the public meeting regarding noise from the operation of the marina and land-based facilities on nearby residences. The Commission acknowledges that the marina is located opposite residential complexes located on Glebe Point Road. This has been a pivotal factor in the reasoning for closure of outdoor areas after 10:00pm in addition to no amplified music being played in these outdoor areas. The Commission has considered the cumulative impacts from the marina upon surrounding residences and note that in response to the Commission’s concerns, the Proponent submitted amendments to include a reduced outdoor area from 545 m2 to 350 m2 on level 2 of the eastern building. The Commission welcomes this amendment and notes that, along with conditions limiting use of outdoor seating (Condition F1) and noise from the use of the marina (Condition F3), this will ensure compliance with its intended use. The Commission notes that these residences are impacted by surrounding activities including high volumes of traffic associated with the Anzac Bridge and boat traffic within the Bay. The Commission has considered whether the construction of the Sydney Boathouse facility to the north of the site would exacerbate noise impacts and sought additional information from the Proponent's noise consultant. The Commission acknowledges that the materials and finishes used on the exterior of Sydney Boathouse would have negligible impacts on noise generated from the marina given it is located further north as indicated by the Proponent. Notwithstanding the above, the restriction of the land-based outdoor trading hours with the imposition of various previously imposed noise conditions are measures designed to address the issues of cumulative impacts. Further, the Commission notes that further assessment of the layout of the outdoor seating areas would be required in subsequent applications. The Commission notes that the modification does not propose amendments to the existing noise criteria and changes proposed through this modification will be required to meet those noise limits. 6.3 Water-based activities The 2008 application for the marina included the reconfiguration of pontoons to provide for a maximum of 24 vessels of various sizes from 10m up to 70m in length; a reduction from 56. This modification application includes reconfiguration of the marina to include an increase in the total number of berths from 24 to 43, in addition to 36 tender berths and changes to the berthing arrangement.


Concerns were raised in comments provided to the Commission and at the public meeting regarding the impact of the marina on marine movements and congestion of the local waterways. Of particular concern was the potential impact on low intensity uses such as local rowing and dragon boat clubs. The Commission is in agreement with the Department’s assessment stating the increase to the number of berths including the layout to be suitable given the physical extent of the berthing facilities are not proposed to change and would remain as defined by an existing ‘mooring limit’ leased from the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS). The Proponent has provided information relating to the total daily boat movements which included a previous survey assessment completed in 2004 and the potential anticipated daily movements from the Sydney Boathouse development. Based on the information provided, the proposal represents a potential increase in maritime congestion within the Rozelle and Blackwattle Bay area of up to 14%. All vessels operating from the marina are also provided with a copy of Sydney Harbour Superyacht Guidelines – Guidelines for Operating Superyachts in Sydney Harbour, and are made aware in particular of the requirement for vessels not to exceed a speed of 4 knots and generate no wash within the Bay, the route of rowing and dragon boats within the Bay and the necessity to maintain a lookout for them when manoeuvring. The Commission notes that correspondence from Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW) and other relevant agencies including RMS, raised no objection to the application. Accordingly, the Commission is satisfied that whilst there will be an increase in the volume of vessels and of vessel movements within the marina, the Proponents commitment to submitting an Operations Environmental Management Plan (OEMP) that will include a Vessel Traffic Management Plan (VTMP) and Marina Operational Management Plan (MOMP) is considered adequate to address safety concerns and overall operations associated with the marina. 6.4 Marine ecological impacts The Commission requested additional water quality information from the Proponent that included a report by Marina Pollution Research (MPR), initially dated 13 May 2016 and subsequently revised and dated 20 May 2016 (Appendix 9). This report includes the existing water quality assessment in addition to the potential impacts of the modification application. The Commission notes that the report concludes that any impacts associated with the construction works to be conducted will be localised and short-term. The Commission raised concern with the Proponent about the operational impacts on the water quality and the need to address such impacts. The recent water sampling undertaken during dry weather conditions indicated a measurable concentration of copper associated with the marina that was just below the ANZECC (2000) default trigger guidelines. Copper was not detected at any of the sites sampled outside the marina footprint. Accordingly, the Commission has requested further testing during the construction period and occupation to document concentrations of dissolved copper that may be derived from the anti-fouling on boats berthed within the marina. Further, the Commission also notes that the on-going operation of the marina will require a MOMP to be prepared to respond to any long-term impacts on the water quality attributable to the marina. The Commission is satisfied that further analysis has indicated that ecological impacts can be mitigated with on-going monitoring and a Trigger Action Response Plan (TARP) to be adopted at the marina by the Proponent and available to the satisfaction of the Department.


The Commission observes the determination timeframe was influenced by the need the need for additional water sampling in order to establish an appropriate baseline for water quality. 6.5 Other matters The Commission requested the Proponent provide responses to a number of other concerns raised at the public meeting and in written comments. 2008 Development Consent Concerns were raised in comments provided to the Commission regarding the activation of the 2008 consent for the water-based component of the site which included amongst other works, the reconfiguration of the pontoon layout / rearrangement of berths (24 vessels) and demolition of a fuel facility. Further concerns were also raised regarding the timing for the surrender of the active consent. The Commission has considered, and is satisfied with the information provided by the Proponent which confirms that the consent was declared active by NSW RMS as indicated in correspondence received on 29 May 2014, due to the demolition works for the fuel facility having been completed. With regard to surrender of the consent, the Commission has given consideration to the operational nature of the site and the requirement for the Proponent to have an active consent with makes lawful the operation of the marina. The Commission is satisfied that the marina is operating in association with the relevant consent and will be required to surrender this prior to the issue of an Occupational Certificate. Strategic Planning – Glebe Island Bridge and Draft Bays Precinct Transformation Plan Concerns were raised in comments provided to the Commission and at the public meeting regarding the potential impact that the expansion of the number of superyachts passing the Glebe Island Bridge will have on the Bridge. Concerns have also been raised suggesting that the proposal should be delayed until the finalisation of the Draft Bays Precinct Transformation Plan (DBPTP). The Commission has considered and is satisfied that in the absence of any objections or concerns having been raised by the Ports Authority of NSW, TfNSW or RMS that the increase in vessel movements will not have a significant impact on the Glebe Island Bridge. The Commission has given consideration to the DBPTP and acknowledges that the Plan envisages Rozelle Bay and Bays Waterways to include: “New land and maritime uses including a mix of commercial, open space and other living uses, with working harbour industries and on-water recreation facilities”. The Commission is satisfied that the proposal is consistent with this vision and will not ultimately prejudice the finalisation of the Plan or the long-term outcome for the locality, and it is not warranted to defer the determination of the proposal until such time as the Plan is completed. Community Liaison Committee and Complaints Handling Concerns were raised in comments provided to the Commissions and at the public meeting regarding the role of the Community Liaison Committee (CLC), the constitution of the membership of the CLC and the independence of the Chair of the CLC. The Commission sought clarification from the Department on this issue and is satisfied with the information provided by the Proponent and the Department. Further, the Department advised that


Condition A13 of the approval satisfies the current requirements for an appropriate composition of representatives on the CLC, given that more comprehensive CLC guidelines have yet to be adopted. Environmental Protection Licence Concerns were raised in comments provided to the Commission and at the public meeting that the proposal should be required to seek, and be issued with an Environmental Protection Licence (EPL) by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) as the proposal is one vessel short of the licensing trigger pursuant to Schedule One of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO). To ensure clarification within the proposal the Commission has recommended a condition of consent which specifies the total number of vessels permitted to berth at the Marina, but to also clearly define what constitutes a tender for the purposes of the approval;

A tender is a boat used to service or support yachts, by transporting people and/or supplies to and from shore or another yacht.

The Commission has given consideration to Schedule One and is satisfied that the development does not constitute a scheduled activity under the POEO Act. Furthermore, there is no legislative framework which enables the Commission to require the Proponent to seek such a licence. Traffic and Parking Concerns were raised in comments provided to the Commission regarding the traffic impact that the proposal will have during both construction and operational stages on the existing vicinity. The development involves an increase in the total number of car parking spaces from 206 to 228 spaces. The Commission is satisfied that through the implementation of a Traffic Management Plan and Construction Traffic Management Plan, as required by Conditions B4 and E20, the concerns raised can be satisfactorily managed. The Commission has further considered the amendments to the proposed car parking arrangements for the development and the assessment completed by the Department which recommended Condition A7 to provide for a minimum allocation of car parking spaces for the development, and site specific uses. The Commission is satisfied that the development will have sufficient car parking for the respective users of the development. Height and Gross Floor Area (GFA) Increases Concerns were raised in comments provided to the Commission and at the public meeting regarding the increase in building heights and gross floor area. The development involves an increase in building height of 3.35m for the Eastern Building from RL 11.90m to RL 15.25m, and an increase in the carpark height of 2.2m from RL 11.4m to RL 13.60m. The floor area of the development is increasing by an additional 940m2 which consists of a GFA increase of 925m2 for Commercial Maritime Use, and a GFA increase of 15m2 for provedore and ancillary uses. The Commission has given consideration to the increase in height and notes that it exceeds the building height limit of RL 11.0m under the Master Plan for the area. In giving consideration to the suitability of the height increase the Commission has drawn comparison to the adjacent “Sydney Boat House” which has an approved height range of RL 17.3m to RL 25.2m as indicated in Figure 1. The


location of the “Sydney Boat House” and the Glebe Island Silo Complex dwarf the proposal when viewed from the eastern foreshore of Rozelle Bay as shown in Figure 1. The Commission is satisfied with the Department’s assessment that the increase in building height and GFA are satisfactory. Figure 1 – Site Perspective


7. COMMISSION’S DETERMINATION The Commission has carefully considered all the information available to it including the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Report and associated documents, the Department’s responses to Commissioners questions, agency and public submissions, and issues raised at the public meeting and at the site visit. The Commission accepts the Department’s advice that the modification sought is within the scope of section 75W of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and can be determined. After careful deliberation, the Commission is satisfied that the proposed modifications would acceptably manage noise impacts for residents in the vicinity, an outcome achieved through the inclusion of Conditions F1 and F3 relating to the hours of operation for outdoor areas. The Commission also notes that amended plans received from the Proponent to address noise impacts include a reduced outdoor terrace area in addition to restrictions on amplification of music and hours of operation. The Commission acknowledges that some noise will be generated by the use of the land-based and water-based components. However, in reaching its determination the Commission is satisfied with the Proponent’s latest information and amendments relating to noise and that appropriate conditions are in place to limit and regulate noise impacts. The Commission has included conditions requiring further monitoring to be conducted during the operation of the marina. With these in place, the Commission is satisfied that marine ecological concerns relating to the anti-fouling contaminants present in the boats are able to be controlled through appropriate conditions included. These conditions comprise the requirement for on-going monitoring of the water quality through a Marine Operational Management Plan (MOMP). The Commission has considered the merits of this application and has approved the application subject to the conditions set out in the instrument of approval.

Garry West Dr Marcus Lincoln-Smith Ilona Millar Commission Member (Chair) Commission Member Commission Member


Appendix 1 List of Speakers at the Public Meeting

Date & Time: Friday, 8 April 2016 at 9:30am

Venue: Glebe Town Hall, 160 St. Johns Road, Glebe

Meeting Schedule

9:30am Opening Statement from the Chair – Garry West

Registered Speakers:

1. Gideon Rutherford

2. Mark Dent (Save Our Bays)

3. Prof Judy Cashmore AO

4. Andrew Wood

5. Dr Lesley Lynch (Glebe Society)

6. Dr Martin Lawrence

7. Dr Marion Manton END


Appendix 2 Summary of the Public Meeting

Comments provided during the public meeting and in written submissions are synthesised and summarised below: Masterplan and Bays Precinct Plan

• The original (2012) application was inappropriate for the site. • Good planning is a concern of the Bays Precinct. • The current Bays Precinct Transformation Plan provides for better outcomes for Sydney. • The modification is taking from the heritage fleet that utilise the Bay. • The modification will limit space for careful manoeuvring. • There is a narrow inlet in Rozelle Bay which is already jammed with moored vessels,

recreational users (dragon boat racers and the rowers). The reasonableness of the proposed modification

• The Department offer no reasoning for this application to be assessed as a Section 75W application.

• This proposal is attempting to by-pass the Part 4 requirement and should be assessed as a new application.

• The proposed works should be assessed under a new application, not a modification application.

• The intensification of the marina should warrant the need for a licence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997; the application proposes 79 berths, one short of requiring an Environment Protection Licence (EPL).

Noise monitoring and compliance

• Noise generated from both the water-based and land-based component has potential to affect both the nearby residents in the Glebe Point region and park users.

• The proposed application is a move in the direction of increased noise. • The increase in floor area in particular level 2 of the east building with a large balcony can be

expected to increase activity and noise. • The additional level proposed for the car park will generate more noise than the lower levels. • The acoustic report states noise would be in exceedance if wind was a certain speed; the wind

is 16 knots in summer. Accordingly, stronger wind speeds will result in more noise. • The average wind speed is 4.1 m/s which is higher than the modelled wind speed. • The hours of operation provide for a noisy development. • The bay and park users were not taken into account. • The hours for the provedore should be revised. • The modification 2 included the removal of airlocks which will allow more noise to exit the

building. • How do residents lodge complaints about noise from entertainment; the water police are only

responsible for noise on water. • During the operation of the marina, there should be a method of monitoring noise to

determine whether operations are within permitted noise bounds. • Music generated from the proposed uses will have implications for the residents in

surrounding suburbs.


Glebe Island Bridge • The expansion of the number of superyachts will increase the pressure on the Glebe Island

Bridge. Oversight of community consultation

• A community liaison group was to be established as a result of the 2012 approval. The liaison group was to have an independent chair person. This has not happened.

• The Proponent is not considerate to the community. • Compliance aspects; the methods for residents to complain are not clear.

Pollution

• Environmental impacts are expected given the intensification of the Marina. • The scale, intensity and range of uses and activities will significantly exacerbate the negative

environmental impacts already flagged in the objections submitted. • The increase of super yachts from 24 to 43 will increase pollution within Rozelle Bay. • The narrow inlet provides the perfect funnel for rubbish which will only be added to by the

intensification of the marina.


Appendix 3 Site Visit and Proponent Meeting

This meeting is part of the determination process

Meeting note taken by Muriel Maher Date: Wednesday, 6 April 2016 Time: 12:30pm

Project: Sydney Super Yacht Marina

Meeting place: Rozelle Bay

Attendees: Commission Members: Garry West (Chair), Marcus Lincoln-Smith and Ilona Millar Commission Secretariat: Muriel Maher Proponent: Sydney Super Yacht Marina - Brian James – Chair of SSYM; Andrew Robinson – Director; Greg

Dunkin – Director; Geoff Baxter – Project Manager; Justin James – Chief Executive Officer and Ros Read – Town Planning Consultant, Urban Perspectives.

The purpose of the meeting: Site visit and meeting with the Proponent Overview

The Commission conducted a site visit with the Proponent. The Commission noted that the western building is under construction and also, the existing line of moorings.

• The Proponent provided an overview of the proposal: The marina is privately owned; The marina’s use is seasonal; The western building is currently under construction; The site provides public access to the foreshore; Generally, the yachts moor for approximately 1 year leaving for 2 months occasionally; Crews can stay on board; and The definition of a tender is specific to the boat being used.

Noise

• The ANZAC bridge has approximately 7,000 cars per hour; • The outdoor deck area of the eastern building will be managed through a noise management plan.

Protocol

• There is an existing protocol in place for entering and exiting the marina.

Outcomes/Agreed Actions: The Proponents informed the Commission that water quality testing was about to be undertaken.

Site visit concluded at 1:40pm Meeting closed at 2:25pm


Appendix 4 Department Briefing


Meeting note taken by Muriel Maher Date: Wednesday, 6 April 2016 Time: 3:30pm


Meeting place: Planning Assessment Commission Offices

Attendees: Commission Members: Garry West (Chair), Marcus Lincoln-Smith and Ilona Millar Commission Secretariat: Muriel Maher (Senior Planning Officer) and Megan Webb (Team Leader) Department of Planning and Environment: Ben Lusher (Director Metro Assessments) and Sara Roach

(Contract Planner – Key Site Assessments)

Consolidation of Applications

The Commission sought clarification regarding the proposed consolidation of the applications.

• The consolidation of the existing Part 4 approval with the Part 3A application will include conditions requiring the Part 4 approval to be rescinded 7 days after the issue of the final occupation certificate for the water based component; and

• Conditions existing for the Part 4 approval will be brought across for the consolidation.

Section 75W

• The scope of section 75W is not bound by the same legislative limitations as section 96 and there is no clear test - matter for evaluative judgement; and

• There is a clear link between both the Part 4 approval and existing modification.

Noise

• Have recommended a condition that requires separate consents for the layout of the outdoor seating/dining areas and that all outdoor seating areas are restricted to 10pm;

• Consternation of community due to the scale of Sydney boathouse; and • There is no specific condition to regulate the use of the outdoor seating however the hours of operation

are conditioned and the uses will be subject to future development application assessment.

Meeting closed at 4:20pm


Appendix 5 Leichhardt Council Meeting


Meeting note taken by Muriel Maher Date: Thursday, 7 April 2016 Time: 2:00pm



Attendees: Commission Members: Garry West (Chair), Marcus Lincoln-Smith and Ilona Millar Commission Secretariat: Muriel Maher (Senior Planning Officer) Leichhardt City Council: Clare Harley – Director of Environment and Community Management

The purpose of the meeting to determine any outstanding concerns of Council

Consolidation of applications

• Council raised concerns about the consolidation of the Part 4 consent and Part 3A and the scope of the section 75 modification.

Bays Precinct

• Urban Growth is in consultation with WestConnex regarding the Bays Precinct to ensure there is a future connectivity;

• The water is a public asset and should remain so; the Marina will restrict access; • The future of Glebe Island Bridge which is owned by Transport for NSW (TfNSW), includes a link from

Pyrmont to the Bays Precinct; • Glebe Island Bridge hinders the size of boats entering Rozelle Bay and is of cultural significance; and • The intensification of the marina is promoting an entertainment precinct.

Outcomes/Agreed Actions: Council provided further information regarding the submission about Glebe Island Bridge, received from Transport for NSW on 11 April 2016.



Appendix 6 City of Sydney Council Meeting


Meeting note taken by Muriel Maher Date: Thursday, 7 April 2016 Time: 3:30pm



Attendees: Commission Members: Garry West (Chair), Marcus Lincoln-Smith and Ilona Millar Commission Secretariat: Muriel Maher (Senior Planning Officer) City of Sydney Council: Chris Corradi – Area Planning Manager and Russell Hand – Senior Planner

The purpose of the meeting to determine any outstanding concerns of Council

Consolidation of applications

• The consolidation of the Part 4 consent with the Part 3A approval is not considered appropriate by the City of Sydney;

• The use of section 75W to bring in a previous approval under Part 4 avoids the key threshold test under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979;

• The City of Sydney considered that there is no evidence that the 2008 consent has been commenced; and

• The proposal includes the surrender of the existing Part 4 consent; the timing of this surrender should be revised.

Changes to approvals

• The proposed changes comprise a substantial and radical transformation of the terms of the existing approvals;

• The scope of the super yacht would be altered given the proposal includes accommodating much smaller vessels than super yachts; 24 metres is the minimum qualifier;

• There is too much flexibility in the approval; • The proposal includes vessels as small as 15 metres; and • The proposed modification should not be determined under either section 75W or section 96 of the

Act; the modification would constitute a new application. Glebe Island Bridge

• The size of the craft will impede upon the Glebe Island Bridge being used as a walk and cycle way in the future; and

• Nexus with on water activity and on land can impact on the connectivity of Glebe Island Bridge. • The Glebe Island Bridge dictates an 18m maximum beam width of vessels; • Glebe Island Bridge is an item of significant heritage value, and • Concern is raised about the marina having the ability to cater for craft that have difficulty passing the

Bridge.



Appendix 7 Department of Planning and Environment Meeting


Meeting note taken by Muriel Maher Date: Thursday, 26 May 2016 Time: 3:00pm



Attendees: Commission Members: Garry West (Chair) and Marcus Lincoln-Smith Commission Secretariat: Megan Webb (Team Leader), David Koppers (Senior Planning Officer) and Muriel

Maher (Senior Planning Officer) Department of Planning and Environment: Ben Lusher (Director Metro Assessments) and Cameron Sargeant

(Team Leader – Key Site Assessments)

The purpose of the meeting to discuss mitigation measures for the water quality

The Commission requested a meeting with the Department to discuss the need for additional conditions to address impacts upon the water quality.

• The Commission noted that the additional information provided by the Proponent did not provide sufficient certainty that future occupancy levels would not cause an exceedance of appropriate copper levels (as derived from copper leachate from anti-fouling paints on hull surfaces) for the site.

• In particular, the Commission raised concern about the lack of previous testing to understand existing concentrations of copper in the Bay and in particular the marina.

• The Department advised that the requirement for a Marina Management Operational Plan through Condition E18 would address the aquatic ecology.

• The Commission voiced concern about the lack of clarity surrounding the existing water conditions and advised that further conditions are required to obtain this relevant data in addition to on-going monitoring of the water quality.

• A monitoring program is likely, required along with adequate measures to address any identified impacts on the water quality.

Outcomes: The Commission agreed that a meeting with the Proponent and the Department should be arranged to resolve the uncertainty.



Appendix 8 Proponent and the Department of Planning and Environment


Meeting note taken by Muriel Maher Date: Monday, 30 May 2016 Time: 9:00am



Attendees: Commission Members: Garry West (Chair) and Marcus Lincoln-Smith and Ilona Miller (by teleconference) Commission Secretariat: Megan Webb (Team Leader) and Muriel Maher (Senior Planning Officer) Proponent: Sydney Super Yacht Marina - Andrew Robinson – Director; Paul Anink (Marine Pollution

Research) and Ros Read – Town Planning Consultant (Urban Perspectives). Department of Planning and Environment: Ben Lusher (Director Metro Assessments) and Cameron Sargeant

(Team Leader)

The purpose of the meeting to discuss mitigation measures for impacts on water quality.

Issue

• The modification to the existing marine layout will have impacts upon the water quality.

Inclusion of conditions

• A monitoring program would provide adequate measures to address the impacts upon the water quality and also, establish what is existing in the vicinity of the marina waters.

• In particular, the Commission raised concern about the lack of previous testing to understand existing concentrations of copper in the Bay and marina.

• The Proponent stated that RMS has requested one berth for public access which will be included as one of the 43 berths proposed and also that, apart from not more than 5 tenders owned and operated exclusively by the marina, the tenders on boats within the marina very rarely have anti-fouling.

• The Proponent also advised that the 70 metre lease line is rarely utilised. • The Department advised that the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) administers policy for

water and raised no objection to this application.

Meeting closed at 11:15am


Appendix 9 Key Documents


ROOF

PLANT

PLANTPLANT

TENANCY

DECK

RL 10.850

RL 11.350

MFAC

LIFT

VEHICLE RAMP1:5

VEHICLE RAMP1:5 1:101:10

LEVEL 3 DECK48 SPACES

TUR

NIN

G B

AY

RL 11.350

PLANT PLANT2319

520

40

79180 11335

8000

1660

060

0 .

whar

f edg

e

1000

0

4160 68650

13240

28060.

15290.

8750

.

18490.

LIFT

1903

0.

C

B

A

A

B

C

ENCLOSED STORAGE AREA/CAR PARKING


5500

5500

Scale @ A1

Drawn by

Date Printed:Project No:

Drawing No:

Drawing Title:

Issue:25m1 5 100Nominated Architect:

Telephone +61 2 9957 [email protected]

Scott Carver Pty LtdLevel 8, 71 Macquarie StreetSydney NSW 2000 Australia

ARCHITECT 1 : 250

2/05

/201

6 11

:50:

45 A

M

D

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

20090002

FOR APPROVAL

27.04.2016Author DA06.1Approver

SYDNEY SUPERYACHTMARINA PTY. LTD.

PLANTENCLOSURE

TENANCY

DECK

RL 11.350

M

FACC

LIFT

VEHICLE RAMP

1:5

VEHICLE RAMP

1:5 1:101:10

RL 11.350

8750

.


PLANTENCLOSURE

1

DA40

ROOF

ROOF

RL 11.35 RL 11.35

ROOF

ROOF

ROOF

ROOF ROOF

ROOF5500

5500

Scale @ A1

Drawn by

Date Printed:Project No:

Drawing No:

Drawing Title:

Issue:12.5m1 2.5 50Nominated Architect:

Telephone +61 2 9957 [email protected]

Scott Carver Pty LtdLevel 8, 71 Macquarie StreetSydney NSW 2000 Australia

ARCHITECT 1 : 125

2/05

/201

6 11

:51:

02 A

M

C

EAST BUILDING - SECOND FLOOR20090002

FOR APPROVAL

27.04.2016Author DA36Approver

SYDNEY SUPERYACHTMARINA PTY. LTD.

1 : 125

Second Floor Plan - East Building1

MARINE POLLUTION RESEARCH PTY LTD Marine, Estuarine and Freshwater Ecology, Sediment and Water Quality Dynamics

A.B.N. 64 003 796 576 25 RICHARD ROAD SCOTLAND ISLAND NSW 2105

PO BOX 279 CHURCH POINT NSW 2105

TELEPHONE (02) 9997 6541 E-MAIL [email protected]

Ms R Reed Urban Perspectives GPO Box 4507 SYDNEY NSW 2001 20 May 2016 2016

Dear Ros, RESPONSE TO PAC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1 INTRODUCTION The PAC provided a request for additional information to Urban Perspectives on 12th April and these included a number of questions regarding aquatic ecology impacts, generally relating to water and sediment quality. Marine Pollution Research Pty Ltd (MPR) has been requested to provide responses for the aquatic ecology related questions. The full set of questions is attached as Annexure A with questions numbered for reference in the following report. Questions relating to aquatic ecology are shown in italics and requests for further details regarding aquatic ecology are included in Questions 6 (part) and most of Question 7. MPR provided a report in reply on 13 May 2016 and the PAC provided two additional supplementary questions on 18 May 2016. These questions were addressed via an exchange of e-mails on 18 May and subsequently the PAC requested that these answers be incorporated into the previous MPR report. The two additional questions are provided in Annexure A, and the responses to these additional questions are incorporated into Section 2.9. 2 RESPONSES TO PAC QUESTIONS (AQUATIC ECOLOGY) 2.1 Question 6 Sampling site locations. Question 6 requires inter alia the location of the sediment samples to be shown on a composite drawing. Annexure B provides a topographic plan from the NSW Government on-line Six Map site) showing the locations of water quality sampling sites in Rozelle, Blackwattle and Johnstons Bays (Plan B1) sampled on 27 April 2016, and Plan B2 is an aerial photograph of the marina showing the location of the original sediment sampling sites sampled in November 2013 plus the

- 2 -

Response to PAC Questions – Aq Ecology Final Marine Pollution Research Pty Ltd

locations for the additional studies immediately around the marina undertaken for this response report (Marina shoreline edge profiles under the marina wharves (in response to PAC Questions 7e and 7f) plus the two water quality sites located near the marina). See Section 2.2 below and Annexure C for details and results of the water quality study and see Section 2.7 and Annexure D for details plus results of the shoreline edge profile study. 2.2 Question 7a What Results are Currently Available? Four sediment samples were collected from the marina footprint in November 2013 and the details of this sampling plus sample results are provided in Appendix J to the Environmental Assessment Report (EAR). Dry weather baseline water quality sampling was undertaken on 27 April 2016 following a recommendation by MPR to the proponent in response to the draft CEMP that water quality sampling be undertaken to provide baseline dry weather and wet weather data on metered TSS and dissolved copper concentrations in and around the marina prior to construction works commencing (letter to Urban Perspectives 30 March 2016). See also Section 2.3 response to PAC Question 7b below. The original recommended study design was based around four sites in Rozelle and Blackwattle Bay with water sampling to be undertaken at three depths (shallow-below surface, mid depth generally between -2 and -4m, and bottom samples from waters just above the seabed). On the basis of the subsequent PAC request for additional background data (PAC Question 7f(iii)), two additional sampling sites - in Johnstons Bay and the channel linking Johnstons Bay and Rozelle Bay - were added to the original design. The dry weather sampling undertaken on 27 April 2016 included metered depth profile water quality (Temperature, Salinity, Dissolved Oxygen, pH and Turbidity) plus water samples collected from three depths and analysed for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Dissolved Copper water quality data. The water sampled were analyses by ALS Environmental Laboratories in Sydney (ALS), and the full laboratory report is available if required. The results of the water quality study are provided in Annexure C and are summarised as follows. Where applicable, comparisons of results are also made against the default trigger values for estuarine waters provided in ANZECC (2000):

• There was a moderate storm in the locality on 3rd to 4th April (96mm) followed by 14 days with zero or very low rainfall (12.4mm total). There were two days of 15mm each (19 to 20 April), and two days with low rainfalls (10.4 mm total) on 23 to 24 April.

• The metered water quality profiles indicate that waters in the three bays exhibited estuarine salinity (35 to 38 ppt), with slight brackishness towards the stormwater drains in Rozelle Bay (means 36.2 ppt). All sites showed slight increases in salinity with depth but there were no indications of any layering.

- 3 -


• Water temperatures ranged from 21.5 to 22.4°C with very slight decreases with depth at most sites. Rozelle Bay site waters were slightly warmer than Blackwattle and Johnstons Bay waters.

• Dissolved oxygen (DO) values varied from 68 to 113 % saturation with high surface water values at all sites decreasing with depth. ANZECC (2000) suggests a range of 80 to 110% saturation for estuarine waters. Bottom waters at all four inner bay sites had values below 80% saturation and site RBmid had surface values marginally above 110 % saturation.

• Whilst there was little variation in water pH (7.87 to 8.07 pH units) the waters in Johnstons Bay were slightly more alkaline than the inner bays, with the inshore Rozelle Bay waters at RBin having the lowest mean pH (7.93 pH units). All values were in the recommended ANZECC (2000) range of 7 to 8 pH Units.

• Whilst water turbidity values varied between 0.1 and 10.5 NTU, site mean turbidity varied from 1.3 NTU at the marina site RBmar to 6 NTU at the Johnstons Bay site JBout. Shallow waters (to 2m depth) were generally more turbid than bottom waters. Site JBout waters were the most turbid and the marina site waters at RBmar were the least turbid. With the single exception of a value of 10.5 NTU at JBout (2m depth), turbidity values were within the recommended ANZECC (2000) range for estuarine waters (0.5 to 10 NTU).

• The laboratory TSS analysis results for water samples taken from shallow mid and bottom depths showed that TSS values were uniformly low (<1mg/L at 12 of the 18 samples), with slightly elevated concentrations ((2-3mg/L) for all Johnstons Bay JBout samples and for bottom waters at sites RBin and RBmid. Site BBin had a reading of 1mg/L for the surface water sample.

• The laboratory dissolved copper results indicated that 17 of the 18 samples had dissolved copper concentrations >1µg/L, with a single elevated value of 2µg/L in the marina RBmar surface sample. All these concentrations are below the ANZECC (2000) recommended trigger value of 3µg/L for the protection of 90% of marine biota in estuarine waters (Gadd and Cameron 2012 p22 recommend the 90% trigger value as appropriate for marinas), with the RBmar value elevated with regard to the ANZECC (2000) trigger value of 1.3µg/L for protection of 95% of marine biota. Notwithstanding, the RBmar value was within the Port Jackson main estuary channel low-flow concentration range of 1.68 ± 0.37 µg/L (Hatje et al 2001).

The combined metered and analysed water quality data indicate that under dry and low stormwater conditions the water quality of Rozelle and Blackwattle Bays is reasonably good for the protection of aquatic biota in terms of physical parameters, dissolved copper and TSS. The elevated surface and depressed bottom water DO concentrations outside the ANZECC (2000) trigger guideline range are most probably indicative of elevated nutrient concentrations, in the waters of these bays, as noted by Birch et al (1999) in relation to the sources of nutrients in the

- 4 -


sediments of Blackwattle and Rozelle Bays, and more generally, the results are in line with the Sydney Harbour pollution review prepared by Montoya (2015). 2.3 Question 7b Was Water Quality Sampling Undertaken? There are no specific water quality results available for the Environmental Assessment report and none are provided in the Aquatic Ecology report. At the time of the aquatic ecology report preparation, it was considered from base calculations of vessel wetted surface areas (using a simple but conservative length*vessel draft*vessel beam calculation) that whilst the actual number of vessels was being altered, the actual area of vessel wetted surface within the marina footprint would not be altered in any substantial way and therefore there would not be any substantial variation in the overall copper load to the waters of the Rozelle Bay compared to the then present approved loads. Accordingly, the impact assessment was skewed to the possibility of sediment disturbance via increased construction and vessel movements, rather than changes in water quality due to the number of vessels. Thus assessment included analysis of sediment samples rather than water quality. The decision not to undertake water quality sampling was also made on the knowledge that there were substantial stormwater loads of heavy metals including copper discharged to Sydney Harbour (see Rochford 2008, Birch and McCready 2009), including specifically to Rozelle and Blackwattle Bays (e.g., Beck and Birch 2011), via the three main strormwater discharge points (two in Rozelle Bay – Whites and Johnstons Creeks) and via the Blackwattle Bay Wattle Street stormwater drain (see locations in Plan B1 in Annexure B). The basis for this decision has since been vindicated by more recent water quality, sediment quality and biota bioaccumulation studies undertaken in Port Jackson that include specific sampling sites in Rozelle and Blackwattle Bays plus their catchments discharges (see for example Beck and Birch 2011, 2014, Birch et al 2013, 2014). Further, the Birch et al (2013) review of sediment contamination data clearly indicated that concentrations of copper and zinc in Rozelle and Blackwattle Bays sediments decreased away from the major stormwater drains (see Figure 1 below) implicating stormwater flows as the predominant source of sediment metals. Accordingly, it was considered that water quality sampling, if required, would be more appropriately considered as part of the production of the project CEMP. To this end, once the draft conditions of approval (CoA) were released, MPR provided the proponent with a water-quality sampling proposal on 30 March 2016 to obtain base-line water quality that was subsequently developed to include metered depth-profile water quality parameters and water sample collection for TSS and dissolved copper analysis over both a dry and wet sampling period (as detailed in Section 2.2 above). The data are to be incorporated into the CEMP for construction and possible operational monitoring purposes.

- 5 -


Figure 1 Portion of Figure 4 from Birch et al (2013) showing surface sediment concentrations of Zinc (left) and Copper (right) in Rozelle and Blackwattle Bays decreasing away from stormwater drains (higher concentrations are darker). 2.4 Question 7c Confirm the Sampling and Monitoring Regime Currently Underway Following client approval, the dry weather water quality sampling was scheduled for Friday 15th April but was postponed whilst the present PAC requests for additional information regarding biocide boosters (as per PAC question 7f(iii)) were considered. Dry weather water quality sampling was undertaken on 27 April 2016 and the details of the study and the dry weather sampling results are provided in Annexure C and Section 2.2 above. A repeat water quality study of the same sites but under wet weather conditions will be undertaken once there is a substantial storm event to mobilise urban runoff stomwater into Rozelle and Blackwattle Bays. These results along with the dry weather results detailed above will be incorporated into the CEMP as base-line data. 2.5 Question 7d Impacts of increased use of Mediterranean mooring lines There is not expected to be an intensification or any modification of the use of the existing permanent Mediterranean mooring line system currently in place, as this mooring system will continue to be utilised by larger vessels that are not moored side to against a floating pontoon (see for instance the mooring layout provided in the DA site plan DA04 Rev I). Medium sized vessels may be moored using the Mediterranean mooring line system if required, again depending on day-to-day marina vessel management requirements. Whilst most other vessels (to 20m length) would generally be moored side-on alongside floating pontoons or within defined floating pens, the decision regarding utilisation of side berth, pen berth or Mediterranean mooring would be made to meet the intent of the proposal which is to allow for flexibility of marina utilisation to achieve an efficient use of the marina space and resources.

- 6 -


2.6 Question 7e Can vessels be controlled to avoid sediment disturbance? The proposed marina floating pontoon layout has been designed to avoid sediment disturbance by matching vessel berth lengths to available depths:

• As detailed in the EAR and as indicated in the hydrographic plan provided in Appendix J, the seabed within the marina footprint is generally between -6m and -7m below chart datum (0m ISLW) with a small section of seabed between -4.6 and -6m offshore from the middle south-east oriented wharf section. Given the conservative draught estimate of 3.5m for vessels of 50m length as applied for the 2008 Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE), there is more than 2.5m depth between propulsion gear and the seabed over all tides.

• Seabed depths alongside the floating pontoon walkway system alongside the marina wharf are all greater than -6.3m depth with two exceptions, a section of in-shore depth around -5.5m alongside the middle south-east slanting walkway section plus a short section of inshore depths greater than -5m depth at the eastern end of the marina.

• These depth irregularities have been taken into account for the design of the proposed marina floating pontoon layout by ensuring that berthing for larger vessels is located away from these shallower areas, with a marina arm located over the middle shallow area for berthing vessels side on in adjacent deeper waters, and the eastern marina shallow areas provided with pontoon pen arrangements for pen and side-on berthing for vessels with ≤ 2m draught in the inner berth.

• It should also be noted that modern vessels utilise a combination of main propulsion plus side thrusters (propulsion directed from a series of smaller fixed or movable auxiliary propulsion systems that direct thrust normal to the bows and/or stern quarters of the ship for manoeuvring into and out of berths, marinas and harbours), with the result that far less wash is required from the main propulsion gear during these manoeuvres. That is, the use of side thrusters obviates the need to direct greater main propulsion wash at the ship’s rudder(s) to facilitate turning, as the thrusters push/spin the ship around.

2.7 Question 7f Can vessel manoeuvring be controlled to avoid disturbance of contaminated sediments when vessels move in and out of shoreline berths. As described in Appendix J for the EAR, when the propulsion gear on vessels is in reverse, the propulsion wash is directed towards the vessel and the surface of the water, and is dissipated against and around the vessel, with little or no resultant wash directed towards the seabed. Consequently superyachts reversing into shore-normal berths (where there is always at least 2.5m depth between propulsion gear and the seabed – see Section 2.6 above)) would not cause wash that would be able to disturb the seabed sediments below.

- 7 -


When vessels are applying forward propulsion in these berths, the propulsion wash will always be directed back at a sloping rip-rap rock revetment and vertical seawall under the wharves and not at the contaminated sediment seabed:

• As described in Appendix J and further detailed in Annexure D below, there are vertical seawalls (either block sandstone or concrete) under the marina wharves with sloping rock rubble (rip rap) revetments against these seawalls that extend from the intertidal down to the dredged seabed at around 5.5m to 6m below chart datum (0m ISLW), and between 10 and 12m offshore from the vertical seawalls.

• Floating pontoon walkways in front of the wharves are 3.5m wide and are located 0.9m offshore from the wharf edges.

• The distance from the outer pontoon edges and vessels moored using the Mediterranean mooring system are generally located between 0.5 m and 1m offshore from the pontoons.

• As the majority of these vessels have some form of swim or boat launching deck at the stern there is generally an additional deck-width up to 2m wide to the line of the ships’ propulsion gear.

Based on these measured distance and ignoring the additional set-back on vessels with swim- or boat-launching platforms, the propulsion gear of superyachts is always located more than 17m away from the vertical seawalls. Consequently, the combination of distance back from the vessel propulsion gear to the rock revetment plus the energy dissipation properties of the rock rubble slope ensures that the energy of the waters jetted back from vessel propulsion would be dissipated and there would not be any back or down-ward wash that could disturb the seabed sediments. See also the last dot point in Section 2.6 above regarding the minimising of main propulsion wash by use of side thrusters. 2.8 Question 7f(i) Estimated Copper Leaching Rate for the Marina In terms of provided typical copper leaching rates for the marina, there are few (if any) data available for NSW marinas and most studies that do consider copper leachate have relied on overseas data, principally American data from west coast marinas and harbours. D’Anna (2010) provided a comprehensive review of these data, from which a passive (average) copper leach rate of 6.5µg/cm2/day was derived. Gadd and Cameron (2012) reviewed NZ marina copper leaching rates as applied for various harbour and marina modelling and risk assessments - including those applied earlier by Gadd et al (2011) in their preliminary risk assessments for NZ harbours and marinas. They found leaching rates ranged from 8.2 µg/cm2/day through to 22 µg/cm2/day and concluded that the lower rate (which was the rate adopted by Gadd et al 2011) was conservative and likely representative of passive leaching rates for marinas or harbours with a variety of recreational

- 8 -


vessel types (see also Valkirs et al 2003). They also concluded that the higher rates were not supported by subsequent field and modelling results. The NZ EPA in its reassessments of antifouling paint active ingredient assessment program (see EPANZ 2012, 2013) applied a higher “initial” (rather than passive) copper leaching rate of 18 µg/cm2/day for their risk assessments, which was the mean and median value of leaching rates calculated for the 41 different antifouling paints on the market in New Zealand (EPA NZ 2012 Table 8). This is the leaching rate that could be expected from vessel antifouling coatings immediately after painting and prior to the development of biofilms. In more recent assessments for individual marinas in New Zealand the passive leaching rate of 8.2 µg/cm2/day has been applied for undertaking MAMPEC (van Hattum et al 2002) emissions modelling (see for example Gadd 2013). It is suggested that for the purposes of question 7f(i) the NZ passive leaching rate of 8.2 µg/cm2/day is appropriate. 2.9 Question 7f(ii) The number & sizes of vessels to be accommodated in the marina & Additional Questions 1 and 2. As noted in the PAC question 7f(ii), the number and size of vessels within the marina at any one time will vary, particularly given the nature of this particular marina which has to cater for larger sized ocean going yachts that travel internationally or at least inter-state in Australia. This feature has been made explicit in the proposal where the prime intention of the application is to provide flexibility for the mooring of up to 43 vessels of varying length (but ≥15m) to accommodate the varying market and changing demand and seasonal variations. In order to provide the PAC with some indication as to how the occupancy of this marina varies, Urban Perspectives have compiled a Nearmap aerial photomontage showing this variability (Annexure E). As the Sydney Superyacht Marina occupancy rate is much more variable when compared to traditional recreational boat marinas it becomes more difficult to calculate or model emissions. An alternate approach, adopted for this report, is to compare a number of possible occupancy scenarios, as this provides a practical measure for assessing impact from the present flexible proposal verses the current approval. Accordingly, and for the purpose of comparing marina vessel wetted surface areas, the following possible scenarios have been considered:

• The original (pre-2008) approval that indicated 56 vessels ranging from 10m to 70m length.

• The 2008 approval showing the present floating pontoon layout with the maximum vessels that could be accommodated (i.e., 29 vessels ranging from 10m to 70m length).

- 9 -


• The 2008 approval showing the present floating pontoon layout with the maximum permissible number of vessels currently approved (i.e. 24 vessels) ranging from 20m to 70m length.

• A ‘typical’ seasonal occupancy using the current floating pontoon layout and based on the nearmap aerial photo series, using the aerial photograph shown in Annexure Figure B2 (29 vessels including 8m tenders and vessels to 50m length).

• The proposed floating pontoon layout with the maximum number of 43 vessels as per Plan DA04 Rev I in the present DA with vessels ranging in length from 15m to 45m lengths. This layout was requested by the Department of Planning for the purposes of understanding how the proposed flexible arrangement would be able to accommodate the proposed maximum number of vessels of 15m or more length plus tenders.

• The proposed floating pontoon layout with an alternate example of an occupation configuration with more larger-sized vessels (see Figure E1 in Annexure E).

In terms of calculating wetted surface areas, Gadd et al (2011) provided a review of the various area factors used for calculating wetted surface areas for vessels in harbours and marinas. They provided values for recreational motor vessels ranging in size from 10 to 50 m length and relied on an earlier OECD mean area factor for vessel in the 50m to 70 m range. The Gadd et al (2011) area factors have been adopted for the present calculations for vessel sizes to 50m with vessel sizes for vessels >50m extrapolated from the Gadd et al (2011) data. Annexure Table E1 shows the wetted surface area calculations for the model occupancy rates listed above:

• The original marina in place prior to the present (2008) approval if completely utilised in the manner indicated would have had a wetted hull surface area of around 19,560 m2.

• The marina as approved in 2008 with the modelled maximum possibly occupancy mix of vessels would have had a wetted hull surface area of around 10,100 m2.

• The marina as approved in 2008 with the maximum permissible occupancy, has a wetted hull surface area of around 9,500 m2. This is the present approved occupancy.

• The typical seasonal snap-shot occupancy obtained from the near-map aerial photographs has a calculated wetted hull surface area of 4,085 m2.

• The wetted hull surface area calculated for an indicative maximum permissible occupancy layout scenario as shown in Plan DA04RevI is 5,385 m2.

• The wetted hull area calculated for an indicative occupancy with proportionally more large vessels to 70m length, as shown in Figure E1 is 8556m2. Note that if the two 15m vessels east of the 65m vessel were replaced by a single 30m vessel, the wetted surface area would increase by 26m2.

In regard to the PAC Additional Question 2 it should be noted that the latter two wetted surface configuration calculations provided above have not included the wetted surface areas of tenders, as tenders associated with large ocean-transiting vessels are almost invariably transported and

- 10 -


stored within or on the vessel during travel rather than towed. Accordingly the submergible hull areas of these vessels are alternatively wet and dry. Antifouling paints are not designed for this purpose (i.e., anti-fouling paints are designed for permanent immersion in waters), consequently if the tenders were treated using traditional copper-based paints, the paint would dry and flack off in transit/storage. As a consequence the majority of tenders at the marina site would be stored on the superyachts themselves (as it the present situation, and also as indicated by inspection of the Nearmap marina aerial photographs provided in Annexure E). There are of course around three tender vessels associated with marina management that are anti-fouled (as they are not routinely removed from the water), and there is the possibility that there would be some anti-fouled tenders associated with vessels staying at the marina for longer periods. Notwithstanding the unlikely prospect of all tenders being in the waster and anti-fouled at the same time, running the wetted surface area model to include all possible tender vessels and all treated with anti-foul paint (assuming 9 m as a conservative average tender vessel length), would increase the DA04RevI possible configuration wetted surface area by 900m2 to a marina total 6285m2 (36 tender vessels) and would increase the wetted surface area for the Figure E1 sketch map possible configuration by 550m2 to a total 9106m2 (22 tender vessels), with both totals still below the modelled surface area for the 2008 approval. From these calculations it is considered that the wetted surface hull areas that can be expected under the occupancy rates achievable for the present DA under two quite different occupancy scenarios would be lower than the wetted hull surface area that is permissible under the present 2008 approval. Accordingly the expected copper emissions rate plus loading from the present proposal would be lower than the emissions rate and loading from the currently approved marina occupancy. 2.10 Question 7f(iii) Likely Concentrations of Copper & Bioboosters including background values. Copper Section 2.2 provides the base-line (background) data collected to date for dry weather dissolved copper concentrations in the waters of Rozelle and Blackwattle Bays. Subsequent wet weather sampling is scheduled, and will be reported as part of the CEMP. As reasoned in Section 2.9 above, the overall wetted surface area of approved vessels will decrease compared to the present approved number of vessels and therefore the likely copper emissions rate plus loading from the present proposal would be lower than the emissions rate and loading from the currently approved marina occupancy.

- 11 -


Biocide Boosters As indicated above, the initial CEMP baseline water quality sampling program that was scheduled for early April was delayed whilst MPR investigated whether commercial laboratories were able to undertake antifouling paint booster biocide analysis. Four laboratories were approached and as none of the laboratories had been able to provide advice or quotations by 27th April, the decision was made to undertake the original dry weather sampling for TSS and dissolved copper. To date, two of the laboratories have indicated that they cannot undertake the analyses and two would need to work up specific analytical methods. The National Measurement Institute have subsequently provided a quotation for analysis for several biocide boosters (Diuron, Dichlofluanid & Chlorothalonil - limit of reporting (LOR) 1µg/L) using published analysis methods, but they would still need to develop an analytical method for Irgarol and consequently are unable to provide an LOR for Irgarol. Costing per sample would be in the order of $400. The discussion with the various laboratories indicates that to date there have not been requests for sampling and analysis of bio-boosters for marina applications and in my own experience this is the first time that this question has been raised for marinas in NSW. This is not to say that the question is not relevant. There is certainly a much more active consideration of bio-boosters in Europe, the UK, some US states and closer to home in New Zealand. The New Zealand EPA documentation provides a wealth of information on the subject of antifouling paint registration with their process having progressed to making recommendations for consultation (see EPANZ 2013). In Australia Diuron is registered for use in antifouling paint, and a review by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA 2011) concluded that Diuron’s then current uses posed some unacceptable risks to the environment including acute risks to birds and to algae and aquatic plants in primary (freshwater) streams, but not to the ocean. They proposed a suspension of all uses of Diuron (except for antifouling paints and algal control products). As of November 2012 registration of certain agricultural products cannot continue, and these have had their registrations cancelled. The registration of other agricultural Diuron products can continue with variations to labels to remove or amend those uses where risk from runoff cannot be managed. Antifouling paints fall in the latter category with continued registration, and variations to label instructions. In terms of water quality guidelines ANZECC (2000) does not propose a guideline value for waters due to insufficient data to derive a trigger value. As Diuron is a common algaecide used in coastal agriculture, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority water quality guidelines (GBRMPA 2010) provide a “moderately reliable” guideline trigger values for Diuron of 1.6 µg/L and 2.3µg/L for protection of 95% or 90% of species respectively.

- 12 -


Whilst Irgarol 1051 and some other booster biocides are not specifically registered for use in Australian antifouling paint formulations, they are registered overseas and a few Australian studies have found these substances in sediments (e.g., diuron, chlorothalonil, Irgarol 1051and dichlofluanid were detected in sediments in the Hawkesbury River (Matthai et al 2009), Irgoral 1050 has also been detected in Queensland seagrass (Scarlett et al 1999). It is concluded that as there are currently no guideline trigger values for antifouling paint bio-booster formulations (with the exception of the GBRA Diuron trigger value) and given that the Sydney Superyacht Marina proposal currently being considered by the PAC will not result in any substantial increase in vessel hull wetted surface areas in Rozelle Bay plus will also be less than the maximum possible wetted surface hull area currently approved, it is unreasonable and unnecessary to impose what is in effect a research project on the proponent to investigate antifouling paint bio-booster concentrations in Rozelle Bay. Yours Sincerely,

Paul Anink Aquatic Ecologist Marine Pollution Research Pty Ltd

- 13 -


REFERENCES ANZECC (2000). Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality. Volume 1 and 2. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ANZECC and ARMCANZ). APVMA, (2011) Diuron environment assessment report. Report prepared by Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. Beck, H.J., Birch, G.F., 2012. Metals, nutrients and total suspended solids discharged during different flow conditions in highly urbanised catchments. Environ. Monit. Assess. 184 (2), 637-653. Beck H J and Birch G F (2014) The nature and source of irregular discharges to stormwater entering Sydney estuary, Australia. Environmental Pollution xxx (2014) 1-5 Birch G F, Chang C-H, Lee J-H, Churchill L J (2013) The use of vintage surficial sediment data and sedimentary cores to determine past and future trends in estuarine metal contamination (Sydney estuary, Australia). Science of the Total Environment 454–455 (2013) 542–561 Birch, G.F., Eyre B and Taylor SE (1999) The Distribution of Nutrients in Bottom Sediments of Port Jackson (Sydney Harbour), Australia. Marine Pollution Bulletin Vol. 38, No. 12, pp. 1247±1251, Birch, G.F., McCready, S., (2009) Catchment condition as a major control on the quality of receiving basin sediments (Sydney Harbour, Australia). Sci. Total Environ. 407, 2820–2835. Chesworth JC, Donkin ME and Brown MT (2004). The interactive effects of the antifouling herbicides Irgarol 1051 and Diuron n the seagrass Zostera marina (L.). Aquatic Toxicology 66:293-305. Dahl B and Blanck H (1996). Toxic effects of the antifouling agent Irgarol 1051 on Perifphyton communities in coastal water microcosms. Marine Pollution Bulletin 32(4): 342-350 D’Anna H J (2010) A spatial-temporal analysism of copper and zinc from antifoulingf paint in Pier 32 Marina, National City California. MSc Thesis , San Diego State University. EPANZ (2012). Antifouling paints reassessment: Preliminary risk assessment. Environmental Protection Authority, Wellington. June 2012.

- 14 -


EPANZ (2013). Application for the Reassessment of a Group of Hazardous Substances under Section 63 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996: APP201051 – Antifouling Paints. Environmental Protection Authority, Wellington. January 2013. 157 pp. Gadd J (2013) Modelling of antifoulants in the Matiatia Marina with MAMPEC. Report prepared for National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd, on behalf of Poynter & Associates Environmental Ltd. September 2013.

Gadd, J., Depree, C., Hickey, C., (2011). Relevance to New Zealand of the OECD Emission Scenario Document for antifouling paints: Phase 2 report. Report for the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd, Hamilton, NZ. Gadd, J and Cameron, M. 2012. Antifouling biocides in marinas: Measurement of copper concentrations and comparison to model predictions for eight Auckland sites. Prepared by NIWA for Auckland Council. Auckland Council technical report TR2012/033. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (2010). Water quality guidelines for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 2010 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA). Hatje, V., Birch, G.F., Hill, D.M., 2001. Spatial and temporal variability of particulate trace metals in Port Jackson estuary, Australia. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 53, 63–77. Hedge L.H., Johnston E.L., Ayoung S.T., Birch G.F., Booth D.J., Creese R.G., Doblin M.A., Figueira W.F., Gribben P.E., Hutchings P.A., Mayer Pinto M, Marzinelli E.M., Pritchard T.R., Roughan M., Steinberg P.D., 2013, Sydney Harbour: A systematic review of the science, Sydney Institute of Marine Science, Sydney, Australia. Jones, B and Bolam, T. (2007). Copper speciation survey from UK marinas, harbours and estuaries. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54: 1127-1138. Knott N and Johnston E (2009) Is the ecology of Sydney harbour threatened by the disturbance of contaminated sediments? An experimental assessment of the effects of re-suspension of contaminated sediment on sessile animals of Sydney harbour. UNSW report. Matthai C, Guise K, Coad P, McCready S, Taylor S (2009) Environmental status of sediments in the lower Hawkesbury—Nepean River, New South Wales. Aust J Earth Sci 56:225–243 Montoya D (2015) Pollution in Sydney harbour: sewage, toxic chemicals and microplastics. Briefing Paper No 03/2015. Prepared by NSW parliamentary Reaearch Service.

- 15 -


Okamura H, Aoyama I, Takami T, Maruyama T, Suzuki Y, Matsumoto M, Katsuyama I, Hamada J, Beppu T, Tanaka O, Maguire RJ, Liu D, Lau YL and Pacepavicius G J (2000). Phytotoxicity of the new antifouling compound Irgarol 1051 and a major degradation product. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40(9):754-763. Owen R, Knap A, Toaspern M and Carbery K (2002). Inhibition of coral photosynthesis by the antifouling herbicide Irgarol 1051. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44:623-632. Rochford L (2008) Stormwater heavy metal loading to Port Jackson estuary, NSW, Australia. MSc Thesis, University of Sydney, 31 july 2008. Scarlett A, Donkin P, Fileman TW and Morris RJ (1999). Occurrence of the antifouling herbicide, Irgarol 1051, within Coastal-water seagrasses from Queensland. Marine Pollution Bulletin 38(8):687-91. Schiff, K., Brown, J., Diehl, D., Greenstein, D. (2007). Extent and magnitude of copper contamination in marinas of the San Diego region, California, USA. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54: 322-328. Singhasemanon, N., Pyatt, E., Bacey, J. (2009). Monitoring for indicators of antifouling paint pollution in California marinas. Department of Pesticide Regulation, California Environmental Protection Agency. Report EH08-05 Valkirs, A.O.; Seligman, P.F.; Haslbeck, E.; Caso, J.S. (2003). Measurement of copper release rates from antifouling paint under laboratory and in situ conditions: implications for loading estimation to marine water bodies. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46(6): 763–779. van Hattum, B.; Baart, A.; Boon, J. (2002). Computer model to generate predicted environmental concentrations (PECs) for antifouling products in the marine environment. IVM and WL | Delft Hydraulics, Netherlands (MAMPEC Model).

- 16 -


ANNEXURE A

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BY PAC 12 APRIL & MAY 2016

(Questions have been numbered and those relating to Aquatic Ecology

are shown in italics) Subsequent to the public meeting on Friday 8 April 2016, the Commission has requested clarification and information on the following matters: 1 Concern was raised by City of Sydney Council relating to the water based consent of Sydney Super Yacht Marina (SSYM). Please provide clarification about what consent the water based component is currently operating under and the timing for commencement of this consent; 2 Further details about the Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) conducted by Benbow Environmental, including confirmation on whether or not the potential effects of the existing and approved Sydney Boathouse facilities (including materials used on the exterior) were taken into consideration during the modelling. If not, how would this alter the modelling conducted?; 3 We note community concerns raised about noise, including from the use of outdoor areas of the proposal. We would appreciate a response about the impacts of the outdoor areas and clarification on the use for level 2 of the eastern building, both the internal (tenancy) and external (deck) components; 4 Concern was also raised about the chairperson for the Community Liaison Committee. Please provide clarification about the independence of the chairperson of the Community Liaison Committee as raised at the public meeting, and the current membership and relevant affiliations; 5 The marinas community engagement practices and the methods to notify residents about events (please provide samples were relevant); 6 Please provide a scaled plan indicating the existing and proposed layout of the marina, the pylon positions and line of Mediterranean moorings (chains and/or ropes) shown in relation to the marina footprint and the four sediment sampling sites reported in Appendix J of the Environmental Assessment, and the distance between the marina and Bicentennial Park (south of the marina);

- 17 -


7 Details of the Bay’s water and sediment quality are also required:

a. What results are currently available? b. The Commission has been unable to find the results of the water sampling referenced on

page 70 of the Environmental Assessment report or in Appendix J. Can you please confirm whether water quality was sampled and, if so please direct the Commission to the results of this monitoring in the documentation submitted in support of the application. Alternatively, if the water was not sampled can you provide some explanation for this?

c. Please provide confirmation of the sampling and the monitoring regime currently underway (or about to begin) and the timeframe for provision of these results;

d. Whether increased use of the Mediterranean mooring lines (associated with the intensification of use of the marina) would increase sediment disturbance and associated chemical composition of the water column:

e. Whether manoeuvring of vessels can be controlled to avoid disturbance of contaminated sediments; and

f. How the manoeuvring of vessels can be controlled to avoid disturbance of contaminated sediments (for example, when vessels reverse into shallower water near the shoreline during berthing and as they move forward out of their berth on departure). Whilst the arguments presented in the Assessment Report and Appendix J are plausible, they have not been demonstrated, which is considered important given the high degree of sediment contamination and the very fine nature of the sediments beneath the berths of the SSYM.

i. an estimated copper leachate rate (with rates of leaching as identified and cited from the scientific literature);

ii. the number and sizes of vessels to be accommodated on the marina (acknowledging these may vary and so might include a number of potential scenarios), including the total hull area for each vessel; and

iii. the likely concentrations of copper and any antifouling boosters (e.g. Irgarol 1051, diuron) - including background for Blackwattle/Rozelle bays + concentrations estimated from the SSYM (i.e. potential cumulative effects) - that may be used on vessels berthing at the SSYM and have potential to leach into the waters of the bays. This should consider waters within and adjacent to the marina footprint.

- 18 -


Subsequent to the consideration of the MPR report addressing the above questions, the Commission has requested further clarification on the following matters:

1. Can you confirm that the SSYM is intending to restrict boat moorings as per the information provided within Table E1 (Page 30) “Response to PAC Request for Additional Information”, prepared by Marine Pollution Research? If this is the case, any approval will include a restriction on the number and sizes of the vessels as referenced in the Table, including to restrict vessels to being no larger than 45m as indicated; 2. it is also noted that the tender vessels have not been included within Table E1. In light of this, can you please confirm that tender vessels are not treated with anti-fouling, or provide clarification on the potential contribution to hull wetted surface areas these vessels would create?

- 19 -


ANNEXURE B SEDIMENT & WATER QUALITY SAMPLING SITES & EDGE PROFILES

Plan B1 Location of Water Quality Sampling Sites (dry weather 27 April 2016) in Rozelle Bay (sites RBin, RBmid, RBmar, Blackwattle Bay (site BBin) and Johnstons Bays (sites JBin and JBout), shown in relation to the three main stormwater outlets to the inner Bays (Whites Ck, Johnstons Ck and Wattle St Stormwater Drain)

- 20 -


.

Plan B2 Aerial Photograph of Sydney Superyacht Marina (from SixMaps) showing locations of Sediment Samples (SSY01 to 04) collected in November 2013, Edge Shoreline Profile sites (Pr01 to 03) undertaken on 27 April 2016, and two of the water quality sampling sites that are within and close to the marina (RBmar and RBmid see also Figure B1).

- 21 -


Table B1 Site Coordinates SSY Marina

Project Element Site Date Easting Northing Original Sediment Sampling

SSY01 07 Nov 13 331635 6250783 SSY02 07 Nov 13 331720 6250777 SSY03 07 Nov 13 331772 6250783 SSY04 07 Nov 13 331848 6250795

CEMP Dry Weather WQ JBout 27 Apr 16 332533 6251528 JBin 27 Apr 16 332208 6251043 BBin 27 Apr 16 332592 6250407 RBin 27 Apr 16 331404 6250646 RBmid 27 Apr 16 331814 6250710 RBmar 27 Apr 16 331826 6250773

PAC Marina Shoreline Profiles Pr01 27 Apr 16 331673 6250223 Pr02 27 Apr 16 331701 6250828 Pr03 27 Apr 16 331807 6250827

- 22 -


ANNEXURE C

WATER QUALITY SAMPLING RESULTS

ROZELLE, BLACKWATTLE & JOHNSTON BAYS

DRY WEATHER SAMPLING

27 APRIL 2016

- 23 -


Figure C1 provides shows the daily rainfall (mm/day) records for April 2016 (BoM Sydney Observatory Results). Note that the rainfall is for the 24hours preceding 0900 on the reporting day. Table C1 provides the results of laboratory analysis for water samples collected from shallow sub-surface (0.2m depth), mid waters (2.5 to 3.5m depth) and near bottom waters (variable – see Table C2 for site depths). Table C2 provides the results of metered water quality depth profiles for all water quality sampling sites on 27 April 2016.

Figure C1 Daily Rainfall (mm) at BoM Sydney Observatory Gauge for April 2016

Table C1 CEMP Dry Weather WQ 27 April 2016 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)

Surface Mid Bottom JBout 2 2 3 JBin <1 <1 <1 BBin 1 <1 <1 RBin <1 <1 3

RBmid <1 <1 2 RBmar <1 <1 <1

Dissolved Copper Concentrations (µg/L)

Surface Mid Bottom JBout <1 <1 <1 JBin <1 <1 <1 BBin <1 <1 <1 RBin <1 <1 <1

RBmid <1 <1 <1 RBmar 2 <1 <1

- 24 -


Depth(m) RBin BBin RBmid RBmar JBin JBout RBin BBin RBmid RBmar JBin JBout RBin BBin RBmid RBmar JBin JBoutsurf 35.21 36.23 35.87 37.10 36.27 36.10 22.33 21.96 22.16 22.11 21.78 21.97 6.3 7.6 8.0 7.4 7.4 7.00.5 36.38 36.10 21.71 21.97 7.5 7.01 35.77 36.41 36.27 37.15 36.49 36.73 22.35 21.95 22.18 22.12 21.72 21.99 6.5 7.4 7.9 7.4 7.4 7.01.5 36.90 22.00 6.92 36.39 36.43 37.22 36.57 36.96 22.38 22.14 22.16 21.70 22.00 6.3 7.9 7.6 7.5 6.93 36.57 36.91 36.60 37.27 36.84 37.12 22.37 21.98 22.00 22.05 21.66 21.95 6.4 5.0 7.2 7.0 7.1 6.84 36.90 37.08 36.80 37.43 37.35 22.13 21.87 21.91 21.93 21.82 4.7 5.2 6.2 6.2 6.65 37.27 36.94 37.49 37.07 37.69 21.85 21.82 21.80 21.74 21.71 5.0 5.6 6.0 6.1 6.36 37.35 37.19 37.59 37.76 21.76 21.80 21.82 21.69 5.5 5.6 5.7 6.26.5 37.74 21.78 5.07 37.43 37.43 37.78 37.48 37.84 21.74 21.74 21.74 21.74 21.68 5.6 5.1 5.4 6.2 6.27.5 37.48 37.47 37.81 21.74 21.69 21.71 5.5 5.3 5.18 37.54 37.48 37.85 21.74 21.75 21.67 5.4 6.0 6.28.5 37.86 21.65 6.19 37.55 37.98 21.67 21.59 6.1 6.010 38.01 21.56 6.011 37.68 38.12 21.59 21.50 6.0 6.112 37.77 38.12 21.55 21.50 6.0 6.113 37.82 38.12 21.50 21.50 6.0 6.113.5 38.14 21.48 6.114 38.21 21.47 6.1

Depth(m) RBin BBin RBmid RBmar JBin JBout RBin BBin RBmid RBmar JBin JBout RBin BBin RBmid RBmar JBin JBoutsurf 90.2 107.9 113.3 105.5 104.8 99.3 7.93 8.07 8.06 8.03 8.02 8.03 7.0 4.1 4.1 0.2 3.7 7.80.5 106.6 99.3 8.04 8.03 2.5 7.81 92.2 105.4 112.8 106.3 105.4 99.4 7.95 8.06 8.05 8.04 8.04 8.04 4.5 3.9 4.7 0.6 2.7 10.51.5 98.8 8.05 7.42 90.5 112.1 108.4 105.7 98.6 7.94 8.05 8.05 8.03 8.04 4.3 4.9 1.0 2.0 7.43 91.8 71.2 102.5 100.8 100.7 96.7 7.95 7.89 8.02 8.02 8.01 8.04 3.7 2.9 3.7 0.2 2.0 7.44 67.9 73.5 88.1 88.2 94.4 7.87 7.91 7.96 7.97 8.03 5.1 3.1 4.7 0.1 6.65 71.3 79.4 85.4 86.4 89.3 7.90 7.93 7.97 7.97 8.00 1.8 4.7 0.6 1.4 7.06 78.4 79.1 81.5 88.7 7.94 7.93 7.94 7.99 2.0 3.5 0.2 5.96.5 72.1 7.91 4.57 79.5 72.8 76.6 88.6 88.2 7.94 7.92 7.93 7.98 7.99 1.8 6.4 1.4 1.6 5.77.5 77.9 75.5 72.7 7.94 7.93 7.92 2.7 7.2 3.78 76.6 85.7 88.1 7.93 7.97 7.99 4.3 1.4 5.18.5 87.2 7.99 4.59 86.6 85.1 7.98 7.98 1.0 4.510 85 7.99 4.311 85.4 86.7 7.98 8.00 1.0 5.512 86 86.7 7.98 8.00 1.0 4.113 85.9 86.6 7.99 8.00 2.3 3.713.5 86.7 8.01 3.914 87.3 8.01 4.1

TurbidityA(NTU)

Table&C2&&Metered&Water&Quality&Profiles&&Rozelle,&Blackwa=le&&&Johnstons&Bays&27&April&2016SalinityA(ppt)L TemperatureA(°C) DissolvedAOxygenA(mg/L)

DissolvedAOxygenA(%AsaturaPon) WaterApHA(pHAunits)

- 25 -


ANNEXURE D

MARINA SHORELINE EDGE PROFILES Plan B2 (Annexure B above) shows the location of the three edge profile sites, Table B1 (Annexure B above) provides the GPS coordinates for the edge shoreline profile sites. Table D1 below provides the shoreline profile measurement data collected on 27 April 2016. The adjusted data columns show the data reduced to chart datum (i.e., all depths are relative to the lowest astronomical tide of 0m ISLW). Data were reduced against actual recorded tide heights obtained from the MHL web site. Figures D1 to D8 show the edge profiles plus provide location and site view photographs for each site. Note that profile depths and distances are in metres and are at different scales for illustrative purposes only. For all sites there are vertical seawalls (either block sandstone or concrete) that support reclaimed lands behind and there are sloping rock rubble (rip rap) revetments against these seawall that extend from the intertidal down to the dredged seabed at around 5.5 to 6m below chart datum (0m ISLW). The wharves extend from the vertical seawall out over the rip-rap revetments and they are some 10 to 12m wide. Where there are floating pontoon walkways these are 3.5m wide and are located 0.9m offshore from the wharf edges. The distance from the outer pontoon edges and vessels moored using the Mediterranean mooring system are generally located between 0.5 m and 1m offshore from the pontoons and as the majority of these vessels have some form of swim or boat launching deck at the stern there is usually an additional deck-width up to 2m wide to the line of the ships’ propulsion gear (see for example Figure D1 where there is 5m between the outer edge of the pontoon and the ships propulsion).

- 26 -


Table D1 SSY Marina Shoreline Depth Profiles*

Marina East End 16:48 start Adjusted Data Tape

Dist (m) Depth mWL Notes Dist to

back (m) Depth (mCD)

Dist (m) off wharf edge

Wall 0.4 ht above WL 0 0.86 -11.4 2.1 0 water level WL 1.1 0.46 -10.3 4 0.13 3 0.33 -8.4 5 0.4 4 0.06 -7.4 6 0.95 5 -0.49 -6.4 7 1.45 6 -0.99 -5.4 8 2.08 7 -1.62 -4.4 9 2.76 8 -2.3 -3.4 10 3.2 9 -2.74 -2.4 11 3.69 10 -3.23 -1.4 12 4.17 11 -3.71 -0.4

12.4 4.27 edge wharf 11.4 -3.81 0 13.3 4.73 in edge pontoon 12.3 -4.27 0.9 16.8 6.12 out edge pontoon 15.8 -5.66 4.4 22 6.99 Hey Jude Props 21 -6.53 9.6

Marina Middle 16:13 start Adjusted Data Tape




Wall 0.4 ht above WL 0 0.855 -9.7 2.55 0 water level WL 1.55 0.455 -8.15 2.8 0.7 1.8 -0.245 -7.9 4 1.59 3 -1.135 -6.7 6 3.19 5 -2.735 -4.7 8 4.26 7 -3.805 -2.7 10 5.21 9 -4.755 -0.7

10.7 5.53 edge wharf 9.7 -5.075 0 12.8 6.21 outside boat 11.8 -5.755 2.1

Marina West End 16:29 start Adjusted Data Tape




Wall 0.34 concrete wall 0 0.44 -12 3 0.35 2 0.1 -10 5 0.66 4 -0.21 -8 6 1.18 5 -0.73 -7 7 2.07 6 -1.62 -6 8 3.01 7 -2.56 -5 9 3.87 8 -3.42 -4 10 4 9 -3.55 -3 11 4.5 10 -4.05 -2 12 4.9 11 -4.45 -1 13 5.12 edge wharf 12 -4.67 0

13.7 5.38 in edge pontoon 12.7 -4.93 0.7 17.1 6.54 out edge pontoon 16.1 -6.09 4.1

* Note that horizontal tape starts at 1m so all field distances are reduced by 1m

- 27 -


SSY Marina East End Shoreline Profile (behind Superyacht Hey Jude).

Figure D1 Site profile behind the superyacht Hey Jude at the eastern end of the marina. The ship stern profile, propeller locations and swim platform dimensions were measured with the permission of the vessel crew. Note depths and distances in metres and are at different scales.

Figure D2 East Marina Profile Site - View under Wharf from floating pontoon. Note vertical block sandstone seawall at the riparian edge and the tidally exposed sloping rock rubble revetment wall where the diver is setting the survey tape. The rock rubble revetment slopes to the seabed at around -6m chart datum (IDSLW).

- 28 -


SSY Marina Middle Shoreline Profile (no pontoon walkway)

Figure D3 Site Profile. Note depths and distances are in metres and are at different scales.

Figure D4 Mid Marina Edge Profile Location half way between floating pontoon wharf (left) and vessel bow (right).

- 29 -


Figure D5 Mid Marina Edge Profile site under the wharf showing the curved concrete reno mattress finish in the intertidal. There is a sloping rock rubble revetment from the base of the reno-mattress to the seabed at around -5.5m Chart Datum (ISLW). SSY Marina West End Shoreline Profile

Figure D6 West end of marina site profile. Note depths and distances are in metres and are at different scales.

- 30 -


Figure D7 Location of Marina West edge profile site (behind vessel under German Flag)

Figure D8 West Marina Edge Profile site under the wharf showing the vertical concrete seawall. There is a sloping rock rubble revetment from the base of the concrete seawall to the seabed at around -6m Chart Datum (ISLW).

- 31 -


ANNEXURE E

MARINA VESSEL OCCUPANCY

AND

WETTED SURFACE AREA CALCULATIONS

- 32 -


Table E1 Calculation of SSY Marina Hull Wetted Surface Areas for Various Vessel Configurations allowable under the Original, Present and Proposed Approvals

Vessel length

Classes (m)

Not

es

Orig

inal

App

rova

l

2008

Max

2008

App

rove

d

Typi

cal S

nap

Shot

DA

04 R

ev I

vess

els

conf

igur

atio

n

DA

04Re

vI w

ith

larg

e ve

ssel

s Area Factor after Gadd et al 2011 O

rigin

al A

ppro

val

2008

Max

2008

App

rova

l

Typi

cal S

nap

Shot

DA

04 R

ev I

vess

els

conf

igur

atio

n

DA

04Re

vI w

ith

larg

e ve

ssel

s

Number of Vessels Estimated Areas (m2) 10 29 7 26 740 0 0 179 0 0 15 7 32 15 77 0 0 0 536 2448 1148 20 8 2 3 1 1 102 0 816 204 306 102 102 25 2 149 0 0 0 298 0 0 30 1 7 7 3 5 3 179 0 1250 1250 536 893 536 35 2 4 4 4 238 0 952 952 952 0 0 40 1 1 2 2 1 340 0 340 340 680 680 340 45 5 3 1 421 2104 0 0 0 1262 421 50 3 11 6 6 1 5 600 6600 3600 3600 600 0 3000 55 1 715 715 0 0 0 0 0 60 2 780 1560 0 0 0 0 0 65 4 1 910 3640 0 0 0 0 910 70 4 4 3 3 2 1050 4200 3150 3150 0 0 2100

Total (Max) 5 56 29 23 29 43 29 19558 10108 9496 4085 5385 8556 Notes 1 Shown as 25 to 29m in 2008 DA Table

2 Shown as30 to 35m in 2008 DA Table 3 Shown as up to 6 vessels in 2008 DA Table 4 Shown as up to 3 vessels in 2008 DA Table 5 Maximum vessels allowed with regard to notes 3 and 4

- 33 -


Figure E1 Possible Configuration under the proposed marina floating pontoon layout with full occupancy using larger vessels.

From Nearmap – Superyacht Marina from 14 November 2009 to 19 January 2016 1

14/11/09

22/01/10

16/03/10


27/04/10

10/05/10

15/06/10


01/08/10

16/09/10

30/12/10


16/05/11

23/10/11

25/04/12


09/05/12

11/07/12

02/08/12


08/09/12

24/10/12

06/11/12


08/01/13

21/03/13

29/04/13


18/05/13

08/07/13

03/08/13


09/08/13

28/08/13

19/09/13


27/11/13

08/02/14

21/04/14


05/05/14

12/06/14

26/06/14


11/07/14

11/09/14

21/11/14


29/11/14

28/08/15

04/07/15


01/09/15

17/11/15

19/01/16