Last-minute change to veto $500m Ritz-Carlton tower

The Ritz-Carlton tower was heading for approval before a last-minute change of direction saw it rejected, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.

• Ritz-Carlton and Star at the heart of tourism plan
• Councillors clash over $500 million hotel

The Ritz-Carlton tower was heading for approval before a last-minute change of direction saw it rejected, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.

Premier Gladys Berejiklian has stepped in and ordered the Greater Sydney Commission to review the planning controls for Pyrmont in the wake of the $500 million project’s veto.

The decisive move brought criticism from some planners and Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore, who said “you may as well tear up the rule book”.

A number of NSW government planning staff closely associated with the project’s four-year development period have spoken to The Daily Telegraph and said it was on track for approval.

The proposed Ritz-Carlton building was to be built at Pyrmont Bay. Picture: Damian Shaw

During the process, a member of the NSW Government Planning Department was assigned to work full-time with The Star.

A design excellence competition included then government architect Peter Poulet on the judging panel.

During the process, which cost $13 million, public consultation was undertaken.

But former NSW government architect Chris Johnson said: “Clover may not like it but there is no problem putting in a planning application for an exceptional project such as this.

A concept image of the Ritz-Carlton tower at The Star Sydney. Picture: Supplied

“There has been support from the NSW government all the way through the process until just after the March election when Professor Peter Webber was recruited to put in his report.”

Prof Webber is strongly anti-gaming and cites medieval cities where churches or mosques are the tallest buildings as examples of great planning­.

His report, filed in July just before the NSW planning department recommended rejecting the proposal, said the Ritz-Carlton tower was “unduly prominent” and should not be approved.

“This is a very backward-looking approach,” said Mr Johnson, who is chief executive of the Urban Taskforce.

“It also ignores the strong economic considerations.”