SCEGGS Darlinghurst Concept and Stage 1

No, the 1920 building should never be demolished, can't they build over
their tennis court?

Objection to SCEGGS development proposal
1. Wilkinson House is local heritage listed. It is architecturally
significant to an historic area and there are no further local
examples of this building type. Object also, on the grounds of the
replacement building being four storeys high. Over-development, on a
smal land area.
2. I strongly oppose the 7 storey multi-purpose building proposed to
front Bourke Street. This will be completely out of scale with the
local streetscape which also is an area of historic importance.
3. What is not addressed is whether this proposed building programme
is to cater for EXISTING student numbers or for an INCREASE in student
numbers over the next ten years. There has to be a limit, on a small
land area, on what is appropriate student numbers given the CURRENT
traffic chaos as students are delivered into the school, from other
areas, and collected. The school has LIMITED access for local students
who cannot afford the fees. What does this development contribute to
the local community. What is the BENEFIT for the local community.

It seems that the development will achieve an equivalency of 4 star Green
Star. However the points claimed for such equivalency do not
correspond to the design thinking outlined in the report (i.e. mixed
mode A/C, rainwater reuse etc.).
How is the project will assure the implementation of the Green Star
credits to achieve the potential 4 star target?
The architectural response does not provide any alignment with the ESD
response. I would like to see some more robust approach on the
architectural response on ESD initiatives like daylight, passive
design and avoidance of A/C and LCA of materials used. How the
demolition of an existing building does not contribute to the negative
environmental impact by creating wastage of materials and installation
of new building materials which contribute to climate change.
Wilkinson House shall be refurbished and the project shall be a beacon
of sustainability for the neighborhood.
Also how does the proposed facility provides alternative methods of
transport to avoid the plethora of private transport and the gridlock
on Forbes street and access to the Horizon apartments during drop off
hours.

Whilst appreciating the lengths gone to in this DA to mitigate most
heritage of the impact, I really must object to the demolition of
Wilkinson House, a building I look at every day from my apartment.It
may not be the prettiest duckling, but it is one of the very few left
that still connects the area with its heritage of relatively humble
flat dwellings and leads directly to its cousin on the corner of
Forbes and William Streets.
I'm also reliably informed, that the interiors are of particular
significance - another reason to leave it as is.
I would regard the loss of this building as a very major one for the
area.

I am the co-owner of 239 Forbes Street , and 241 Forbes Street.

The proposals will seriously impact the amenity of our property by
negatively affecting the northerly views to the city. The properties
are listed heritage items, asn are all the houses in the Street and in
Thomson Street.
The development is too high and too massive. It is not respectful of
the heritage items on the SCEGGS site. In fact, the demolition of the
heritage building will remove a significant proportion of the heritage
buildings remaining.

I'm a resident directly across the road from SCEGGS and in full sight
with the proposed works.

I have three major concerns:

1. Increased traffic congestion:
SCEGGS is presumably aiming to raise student numbers, which will
ultimately increase traffic around Forbes St and Bourke St during pick
up and drop off times. These streets do not cope with the current
level of congestion as-is, so increasing the volume of cars during
these peak times will spread the congestion wider and potentially into
the major roads around us (William St / Oxford St). The whole district
may suffer. Has there been any research into likely impact on traffic
in the district?

2. Negative impact on my work / home / quality of life / health:
The works represent a major disruption in terms of dirt and noise for
an extended period of time. The quality of life in my home is going to
be impacted as I'll be breathing in dust and dust will also get into
my belongings, potentially destroying electronics. Noise-wise, I often
work from home and am regularly on the phone, so the noise itself will
make working from home potentially impossible. Both my home life, work
life and general health - due to dust and noise - will be impacted
during the period of time that building works are happening, and that
period of time could roll into multiple years.

3. Negative financial impact:
With the above two issues in mind, the value of my property is
therefore likely to be negatively impacted as demand for property in
my block will almost certainly wane, not just during the several years
of building works, when our lives will be disrupted on a daily basis,
but also beyond completion when the traffic on our local streets are
more likely to be grid locked every school day during peak hour.

I therefore object to the suggested works as the only apparent benefit
will be to the SCEGGS bank balance, at the expense of local residents
who will bare the cost in property value and lifestyle.

Object to this development ,our street is already too busy ,making our
daily life miserable .SCEGGS Having more capacity for extra students
will impact our life in a residential area .Already I have difficulty
with trying to come and go from our unit block with cars parked in our
drive way at drop off and pick up times,access to Forbes Street due to
the number of cars .Noise from students during school time recess and
sports events.
Our daily lives will be impacted during the building stage will be
intolerable,trucks ,noise .

I object to the SCEGGS Darlinghurst concept on the basis of its
destruction of significant heritage buildings.

The plan involves the demolition of a number of heritage items,
without any regard for their importance to the wider community. Some
of those buildings are over 100 years old. The buildings in question
are all in good order, and contribute to the heritage character of the
area. To allow the demolition of these buildings to proceed would be
inconsistent with the clear principles established by the Land and
Environment Court.

Wilkinson House is set for immediate demolition as the first step in
SCEGGS over-development. The 1920s Wilkinson Building which is located
at the corner of Forbes street and St Peters Street was designed by
the renowned architect Emil Sodersten and makes a highly significant
visual contribution to defining the heritage streetscape of this
section of Forbes Street. No changes to the facades of this building
should be permitted in order to retain the existing heritage character
of this section of Forbes Street. Insufficient attempts have been made
to adapt the building for re-use, to explain why the biodiversity is
unsafe or unsound and why they cannot be adaptively reused. The
starting point of this application is that the heritage buildings
should be demolished, but that proposition is not justified.

The existing 1830's John Verge designed 'Barham' which is located
within the school site only has limited public views available from
the Forbes Street. The proposed Masterplan desires to further reduce
these public views by constructing an inappropriate modern building on
the Forbes Street side of the Barham building, which will then
effectively block all meaningful public views of the historic building
from the Forbes Street and overwhelm the historically important house.

The significant and unjustified heritage impacts of this proposal mean
that the project is inconsistent with the objectives of the heritage
provisions in clause 5.10 of the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012.
Far from ensuring the conservation of our heritage, this proposal will
completely demolish the entire, beautifully preserved fabric of
significant items within the school and will also have a significant
and unacceptable impact on nearby items outside the school, as well as
on the surrounding heritage conservation zone.

I object to this proposed development on a number of grounds:

Traffic Management
Forbes Street can't cope with any more school traffic.

Heritage
The plan involves the demolition of a number of heritage items,
without any regard for their importance to the wider community. Some
of those buildings are over 100 years old. The buildings in question
are all in good order, and contribute to the heritage character of the
area. Given the comments above about the need for the project, and
that the specific future school uses of the proposed new building
envelopes remains unclear, there has been no robust assessment of
whether the proposed demolition, and the significant loss of our
heritage, is justified. To allow this demolition to proceed would be
inconsistent with the clear principles established by the Land and
Environment Court.

Wilkinson House is set for immediate demolition as the first step in
SCEGGS over-development. The 1920s Wilkinson Building which is located
at the corner of Forbes street and St Peters Street was designed by
the renowned architect Emil Sodersten and makes a highly significant
visual contribution to defining the heritage streetscape of this
section of Forbes Street. No changes to the facades of this building
should be permitted in order to retain the existing heritage character
of this section of Forbes Street. Insufficient attempts have been made
to adapt the building for re-use, to explained why the biodiversity
are unsafe or unsound and why they cannot be adaptively reused. The
starting point of this application is that the heritage buildings
should be demolished, but that proposition is not justified.

The existing 1830's John Verge designed 'Barham' which is located
within the school site only has limited public views available from
the Forbes Street. The proposed Masterplan desires to further reduce
these public views by constructing an inappropriate modern building on
the Forbes Street side of the Barham building, which will then
effectively block all meaningful public views of the historic building
from the Forbes Street and overwhelm the historically important house.


The significant and unjustified heritage impacts of this proposal mean
that the project is inconsistent with the objectives of the heritage
provisions in clause 5.10 of the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012.
Far from ensuring the conservation of our heritage, this proposal will
completely demolish the entire, beautifully preserved fabric of
significant items within the school and will also have a significant
and unacceptable impact on nearby items outside the school, as well as
on the surrounding heritage conservation zone.

Bulk
The proposed 7 storey multifunction building is too high and not set
back from the existing two storey 19th century terraces that are
adjacent to the building on both Thomson and Bourke Streets. The bulk
and scale of the building is inappropriate for context of the
surrounding heritage conservation zone. The non-compliance with the
LEP is not justified in the circumstances.

Lack of consultation
The school has never held one meeting where all stakeholders have been
present to hear concerns of others. The school has carefully designed
the process to avoid opposition to its plans. Where they have
documented consultations, they have actively misrepresented the
discussions, for example, East Sydney Neighbourhood Association (ESNA)
were NEVER "indifferent' to the proposed demolition of the historic
Wilkinson House. The consultation process is illegitimate and does not
comply with reasonable expectations of public participation.

I strongly disagree with the demolition of heritage properties and loss
of amenity to the neighbourhood. This school is a part of the
community and therefore should be as concerned as residents in
preserving key heritage buildings, and setting this example for future
generation of students. It is not. Worse, the school appears to be
avoiding a consultation with affected residents and stakeholders.

The proposed "early learning/child day care" for the site with 90
proposed "student" places appears to be in breach of the existing cap
of 942 students by the school.

Has there been an impact assessment study for the extra school traffic
and parking congestion on the local streets surrounding the site?
Congestion is already a problem in the area, simply increasing more
places, not to mention greater/increased admin/staff facilities, has
impacts that do not appear to be addressed in the master plan.

Some of those buildings are over 100 years old. Why isn't there a
proposal for repurposing these buildings and contributing to the
heritage of the area?

Given the absence of consulting, an impact assessment, and completely
missing considerations relating to heritage and preservation, I am
opposed to the current plan.

As a neighbour and former SCEGGS parent, I feel I am justified in say the
school is a great educator and TERRIBLE developer.
The school's development plan requires the demolition of a number of
heritage items notably Wilkinson House on Forbes Street, and many
buildings on the school campus. Wilkinson House is an important part
of the Forbes Street-scape designed by Emil Sodersten, originally
named Gwydir Flats, and an important part of the social history of the
inner city. It seems wrong that this building cannot be re-used and
incorporated sensitively into any new development.
I am particularly concerned by the gross overdevelopment of the
proposed new Multipurpose Building at the southern end of the
development backing on to Thomson Street and Thomson Lane. The bulk of
this will result in significant overshadowing to our houses and loss
of the northerly winter sun and some westerly sun, and also the
proposed height at approximately 2.8 metres higher than the existing
Old Gym Building will mean that residents in Forbes Street and
Liverpool Street will lose entirely their city skyline and Harbour
Bridge views. This bulk of this building is also totally out of scale
with the surrounding heritage streetscape and no attempt to set-back
has been considered. The Masterplan also makes no indication of the
future use of this building, therefore other objections such as noise
are not applicable but may well be issues in the future.
The significant and unjustified heritage impacts of this proposal mean
that the project is inconsistent with the objectives of the heritage
provisions in clause 5.10 of the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012.
Far from ensuring the conservation of our heritage, this proposal will
completely demolish the entire, beautifully preserved fabric of
significant items within the school and will also have a significant
and unacceptable impact on nearby items outside the school, as well as
on the surrounding heritage conservation zone.

Have you people ever inspected the architecturally-ugly mess of SCEGGS's
add-ons and extensions? It's already a cancerous blot on the
heritage/residential part of Darlinghurst. Now, for no viable
justification, they wish to demolish more beautiful old buildings to
be replaced by inappropriate modern mulfi-storey ugliness; add 100
students to the already-approved cap limit; diminish the value of
adjoining residences by blocking views and sunlight; and bring more
traffic to an already congested area. All without any consultation
with locals - for obvious reasons. I object most strongly.

As a resident at the northern end of Thomson Street I will lose
considerable amenity in terms of light and views across to the city.
The construction of this over-ambitious development which apparently
will not increase the number of school places, apart from new
kindergarten cohorts, will seriously impact this community. Although
many of the residents, including myself, have attended the SCEGGS
consultative meetings I believe our objections have not been taken
seriously. In particular, the preservation of existing heritage
buildings within the school grounds is of particular importance to
many of us who value the heritage streetscapes of this precinct. An
additional major concern is the construction of the multi-purpose
building which apparently does not yet have "a purpose"! A strangely
bizarre situation! It is all very well to attempt to over-develop the
sight because SCEGGS say it has the money but this will be at the
expense of a harmonious and dedicated local community.

I object to the SCEGGS Darlinghurst Proposal which I feel shows no
justification that it is necessary on the following grounds:

1. I object to the removal of the heritage building Wilkinson House.
This will have a profound impact on the streetscape of Forbes Street
and is a great loss to the area.

2. The underground excavation proposed under Wilkinson House will have
a huge impact on those who live in Forbes Street. The noise, vibration
and equipment in the street will make life unbearable.

3. The extra traffic and disruption in the street is a huge problem
for residents in this lovely part of Darlinghurst.

4. There has been no consultation with locals

5. Views will be affected and shadow caused by the height of the
building.

6. Enrolments in the childcare facility will breach the numbers cap on
the enrolment at SCEGGS

7. As well as the loss of Wilkinson House the Barnham building will be
changed forever.

8. The bulk and scale of this development is not appropriate for the
area.

This huge development will cause misery to residents and change the
area forever.

I OBJECT TO the proposal because of several reasons because children are
preschool age they will be transported to school by private transport
meaning an extra 180? Car arrivals ar school during each school day. I
believe the number of students will exceed the number of students
authorised at the site. The proposed extension will demolish or alter
heritage buildings plus block visual access to other heritage aspects
taking into account this is a beautiful part of Darlinghurst which is
a home to many people this will impact on and add more traffic to the
area

I object to this Masterplan proposal, and I have detailed multiple
objections below which provide the department multiple reasons to
justify the rejection of this Masterplan proposal.
(A) Height limits, the loss of views and overshadowing to neighbor's
I object to the design in terms of height, loss of view and
overshadowing for neighboring residents of the proposed new
Multipurpose Building. It is not complying with the height limit
imposed on the site.
Additionally, the height is approximately 2.8 meters higher than the
existing Old Gym Building, which is located on that part of the SCEGGS
School site. This will result in loss of views from an entire level of
the nearby Forbes Street houses to the south. Residents in Forbes
Street and Liverpool Street will completely lose their Harbour Bridge
views to the north west. The historic terraces in Thomson Street
adjacent to the site will lose all northern light and some western
light, and be severely overshadowed.
(B) Maintain buffer areas
There are noteworthy mature trees included in the existing landscape
at the northern end of Thomson street. This buffer needs to be
conserved for permanent visual screen. Any excavation or construction
works for the new Multipurpose Building should be set back at least 5
meters from the site boundary to protect the root structure of the
trees. And importantly, excavation or construction works need to be
set back at least 5 meters from the boundary to avoid any structural
or vibration damage to adjoining Thomson Street houses. I object to
any development within 5 meters of the site boundary and any
interference in the existing trees.
(C) Bulk
The proposed 7 story Multipurpose Building is too high and not
sufficiently set back from the existing row of terraces adjacent to
the building on Thomson and Bourke Streets. The bulk and scale of the
building is significantly out of proportion to the surrounding
heritage conservation zone. This non-compliance with the LEP is not
justified, and I object to this bulk.
(D) Construction and works
There is insufficient information in the assessment report for traffic
volumes and traffic type for the proposed development, or for the
workforce vehicles to use on street parking.
There is no detailed assessment of the "construction traffic impacts"
for the construction, and without this information there can be no
assessment of the likely impacts. It is clear that this development
will cause severe adverse impact to the safety and amenity of the
adjoining quiet residential neighborhoods of Forbes, Bourke and
Thomson streets, and I object to this adverse effect from construction
and works.
Any attempt by the school to use Thomson Street or Thompson Lane for
construction access by either trucks or for workforce parking, will be
an unacceptable safety and amenity impact for the residents of this
street. At the school consultation meetings regarding the proposed
Masterplan, the school has been repeatedly asked to provide assurances
that there will be no attempts to use Thomson Street for any
construction access for the proposed Masterplan buildings and the
school has repeatedly declined to give these assurances. I object to
any use of Thompson Street or Thompson Lane for works and development.
(E) Streetscape preservation and enhancement
Wilkinson House will be demolished in this Masterplan. The 1920s
Wilkinson Building which is located at the corner of Forbes street and
St Peters Street was designed by the renowned architect Emil Sodersten
and makes a highly significant visual contribution to defining the
heritage streetscape of this section of Forbes Street. I object to any
changes to the facades and substance of this building. The existing
heritage character of Forbes Street must be preserved.
The existing 1830's John Verge designed 'Barham' which is located
within the school site is obscured. I object to the Masterplan further
reducing visibility form the street with inappropriate modern
building. This will overwhelm the historically important house.
The significant and unjustified heritage impacts of this proposal mean
that the project is inconsistent with the objectives of the heritage
provisions in clause 5.10 of the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012.
Far from ensuring the conservation of our heritage, this proposal will
completely demolish the entire, beautifully preserved fabric of
significant items within the school and have a significant and
unacceptable impact on the surrounding heritage conservation zone. I
object to any demolition of existing buildings within the site.
(F) The School
I object to the proposed new "early learning/child day care" use at
the site with 90 proposed "student" places. This an audacious breach
of the existing agreement by the school not to increase "student"
numbers at the site. These additional early learning/day care places
at the site will have greater per student impact on the already
significant school traffic and parking congestion on the local streets
surrounding the site. Parents of these children will not walk or use
public transport, increasing car usage rate. Parent's vehicles will be
parked for longer, for drop off and pick up period required for these
younger age students, and I object to the impact on safety and amenity
to local residents.
(G) Consultation
The School should be undertaking more neighborhood discussions with
the local community to find ways of achieving their objectives for the
Masterplan in co-operation with, rather than in opposition to the
local community.
I object to the insufficient consultation process which is
illegitimate and does not comply with reasonable expectations of
public participation.

The loss of heritage represented by the demolition of Wilkinson House
should be cause of grave concern for the government and the school.

The building should instead adaptively reused.

I am the owner resident of 249 Forbes Street and an architect and while
supportive of good development and understand that good planning and
design can help to achieve that, I have serious objections to the
master plan proposal put forward for the development of SCEGGS
Darlinghurst. My neighbours will no doubt address their concerns, but
I will address my objections primarily to the proposed multipurpose
building.

I understand that this building is the last of the proposed buildings
under the master plan, with the least definition, but it is also the
largest and the one that will have the most significant impact. There
are some very illogical aspects about it.

POPULATION
The proposal has acknowledged that the school population won't
increase, which in itself seems disingenuous, but leaving that aside
and the possible inclusion of a 90 place early child care centre, if
there is no increase in the school population and the master plan is
`increasing efficiency' with its proposal, led by the other two major
moves (the new gateway building and Wilkinson House), why does the
multipurpose building need to be so big? It seems to not so subtly
suggest, indeed create, a path for some grander future expansion plan
that is not being made clear. Suspicious and disingenuous. There needs
to be more clarity around this, the school needs to come clean with
their intentions.
The implications of the increase in school population are obvious:
increased traffic, safety, parking, noise etc.

FLOOR SPACE
Similarly, the proposal claims not be a floor space grab but, again,
if the master plan is making the layout more efficient, why does the
same floor space make a larger building? It is either bad and
inefficient planning and design or a backdoor for greater expansion.

This significant building also seems to be the one where the school
(or their consultants) have thought, "where can we get the most area
on this constrained site?" and are trying to push it as far they can,
understandable, but an overreach and it is clear to me that this is a
`lets try this', in that ambit-claim-negotiation-style kind of way:
ask for an outrageous amount and then settle for the increase that was
wanted in the first place.

DESIGN
As an architect, I know that good design can make a difference and
that there is a solution that will meet all SCEGGS demands and the
concerns of the neighbours and so my objection here is that the
proposed design, albeit very vague at this stage, doesn't do this.

Some of the other key issues are overshadowing and views.

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) makes it very clear that
overshadowing is an issue (and a `high' risk in the risk assessment
analysis). It also acknowledges that the houses in Thomson Street and
Forbes Street may have their Harbour Bridge views blocked (also with a
`high' risk assessment).

The report shows that the proposed multipurpose building is over the
height limit but takes the attitude that it is similar to the existing
science building (at least where the section is shown). There seems to
be no recognition that the reason the height planes exist is for local
amenity: to restrict overshadowing and view blockage and to increase
solar access. The existing building is also much smaller in bulk and
is angled (possibly to allow views when it was built?). So not an
appropriate precedent.

Again, we need to have further information. One cross section isn't
good enough. I'm sure the architects will have created a 3D CAD model
and the 3D height envelope could easily be shown along with the
existing buildings in order to more easily understand the impact this
building will have.

There are also many tools available today that could more accurately
plot the sun paths and could ensure that the existing overshadowing
could be ameliorated. Similarly, a proper view analysis could be
carried out and the building could be hewn to a shape that would keep
the views.

There is scant regard for these issues in the submission - they are
deemed `acceptable' in the EIS report. They are not acceptable,
especially as I am certain that they could be overcome with good and
clever design using the tools above and efficient planning to create a
building that will all stakeholders objectives.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
The community consultation was, in my view, tokenistic and
rudimentary. Despite several representations by various members of the
local community, there has been little engagement from the school or
their consultants. Rather than respecting and building trust with the
local community, the various sessions seem to have taken the divide
and conquer approach, separating the various local groups into
different sessions, rather than seeing this as a more united local
community. Again, this suggests a disingenuous approach with a hidden
agenda. No wonder the locals are upset.

This SSD review process, to be genuine, must take the concerns of
those most seriously affected by the proposal as the most significant
in order to build robust communities, or it is just another Government
initiative that pays lip service to what it is trying to achieve and
will just serve to undermine community building and fracture support.

As mentioned, I am not anti-development, I rely upon it for my
livelihood. But it can be good or bad. There is a great opportunity
here to do things properly and meet the objectives of the school and
the community, but I strongly believe this proposal falls well short.

I thank you for your consideration of these concerns.

Kind Regards

Guy Luscombe

To whom it may concern

I object to the SCEGGS' redevelopment are as follows

SCEGGS proposes early learning and child day care for 90 children is
in excess of the 942 cap for the school. The traffic created morning
and afternoon with children being driven to and picked up from school
is already a serious problem, and additional places for a larger
enrollment will exacerbate this problem.

SCEGGS proposes to demolish heritage listed buildings which have
served generations of students replacing it with yet another bland
giant glass box which our neighbourhood, a heritage conservation area,
does not need.

SCEGGS' proposal will cause loss of views to many in the area, and
overshadowing thus destroying amenity for neighbours

Kind regards

I am objecting to the SCEGGS redevelopment plans for the following
reasons

I am against their wish to demolish a heritage building designed by an
architect in high esteem

SCEGGS already creates huge traffic problems with parents picking up
and dropping off their children. The proposed development will only
make this worse

I already feel like SCEGGS have created a "SCEGGS ZONE" inside
Darlinghurst and almost feel intimidated when walking along Forbes St,
St Peters, and Bourke St around SCEGGS. I'm not sure this is a good
thing for the community and the proposed development will just make
this worse