SCEGGS Darlinghurst Concept and Stage 1

Dear Ms Prity Cleary,

I write to you objecting to the proposed application SSD 17_8993 for
the Concept DA and detailed DA for the first stage of the SCEGGS 2040
Masterplan being the demolition of Wilkinson House.

The grounds for my objection are as follows:

1. Lack of clarity in relation to the existing and proposed student
and staff populations at SCEGGS;

2. Insufficient information relating to the proposed 90 child
childcare centre and its associated impacts on the site and adjoining
community;

3. Demolition of a heritage listed building being Wilkinson House
without sufficient design exploration to adaptively re-use the
heritage building;

4. Inadequate traffic impact assessment of the current conditions
around SCEGGS, which failures to acknowledge the current peak traffic
issues along with the closure and privatisation of St Peters Street by
SCEGGS;

5. Proposed exemption from section 94 contributions sought by the
SCEGGS c.$50M+ first stage, which would benefit the adjoining
residents and community;

6. Masterplan exceeds approved building height limit of 15m; and

7. Lack of any additional public benefits to the broader community
derived from the SCEGGS Darlinghurst 2040 masterplan. Eg. use of
future swimming pool by community.

I look forward to the Department of Planning undertaking a thorough
review of this application.

I am an owner-occupier of an apartment in the Horizon building,
overlooking SCEGGS.
My first objection to the proposed development is to do with traffic:
there are no plans in the application for dealing with increases in
traffic, the current measures being considered satisfactory. Well I
can tell you they are not satisfactory. There are traffic jams along
Forbes Street at school pick-up and set down times, with vehicles
double-parked then using our driveway to do 3 point turns to exit the
street (which is a dead end). Buses, which are sometimes also
double-parked, idle for an hour or more.
The application states that student numbers will not increase, but if
so, why is the development so large - over 3000 sq m?
The application also states consideration is being given to a
childcare centre - for 90 children. Surely this will increase traffic
significantly?
I find the whole issue of child and student numbers and traffic is
confusing because of inconsistent claims in the application.

My second objection is to the proposed demolition of Wilkinson House
which was the first commission of the architect Emil Sodersten who
went on to design the War memorial in Canberra. The house has Heritage
value.
I would not object if SCEGGS left the facade and redeveloped the rest
of the building.

I object to the new expansion of sceggs. Currently the new proposed
building on st peter's street on the listed building will block my
natural light of my window in st peter;'s lane. will also invade my
privacy.
Its also hard enough to get a off street park without even more cars
coming down forbes street. My car has been constantly damaged by
parents performing u turns.
The noise and disturbance would disrupt all locals for years whilst
this project was ongoing and no doubt at weekends.
I suggest the school buys land elsewhere and has two locations current
location is at saturation with traffic.

Good afternoon,

I live across the road from the proposed works. I would like to see
that the following issues addressed:

1. Demolition of Wilkinson House -this is a loss of a local heritage
item and therefore has an impact on the Heritage Conservation Area and
streetscape;
2. Failure of Master Plan to address current significant traffic
management issues; Inadequacy of the Traffic Report included in the
submission;
3. Query in relation to the stated Capital Investment Value, which is
just under the level at which a Design Competition is required;
4. Ambiguity in the application regarding the Early Education and Care
Facility for 90 children and the impacts arising;
5. Impact of staging and construction.

To whom it may concern,

I would like to lodge an objection to the DA with concerns about:
* The Demolition of Wilkinson House - impacts to heritage building;
* Traffic Management - exacerbation of existing traffic congestion and
incorrect interpretation of current state;
* Review of CIV Value to Determine whether Design Competition Required
- figure quoted seems too close to the cut off to proceed without a
review;
* Impact of Construction & Staging - considerable impacts to
surrounding amenity; and
* Ambiguity within the Concept Application - DA detail is scant and
contradictory, appears too general to approve, statement to not
increase school population inconsistent with early learning centre
plans.

Kind regards,
Scott Paine.

Object to the proposed plan for a variety of reasons

I object to the submission because the impact on traffic in Forbes Street
is not properly considered, and the negative impact on my property
from construction noise and impacted sightlines, cranes, etc will be
very significant.

The existing heritage building (Wilkinson House) is relatively low
rise and of historical signficance. Demolishing it will have a
negative impact on my property both during the demolition and
construction, and then ongoing due to the replacement with some ugly
blocky monstrosity that is not even subject to a design competition to
ensure it fits within the area.

I wish to object to the development application on the same multiple
grounds as forwarded by Owners Corporation for the Horizon Building in
there objection based on the report by the Planning Hub.
At present the traffic situation in this area is most unsatisfactory.
Access is poor, we are already subject to queues of cars blocking the
street and then attempting to do a U-turn in order to exit.
School buses on Forbes Street seem to feel that it is acceptable for
them to double park further obstructing traffic and making it both
extremely difficult and hazardous for local residents to enter the
area.
St Peter's Street, a public thoroughfare is blocked during the day and
although at its exit there is no right hand turn this too is ignored
by many drivers, mostly school parents dropping off their children.
This causes more hazard, more parents, even more danger.

Further influx of students will damage the local amenity, create even
more havoc with traffic flow increasing the risk to both locals and
students trying to negotiate the melee.

My concerns relate to the Demolition of Wilkinson House because of it's
historical,aesthetic and social value.
Traffic problems which we face already on a daily basis and which will
be ex acerbated by building work,the continued use of buses which
double park in Forbes Street and the attitude of the school parents
who flagrantly flout traffic rules hen dropping and picking up their
children
The impact of construction and the ambiguity within the concept
application.The other cause for concern is whether the provisions of
the competitive design process have been complied with pursuant to
SLEP 2012

I OBJECT TO SCEGGS development application currently before NSW Planning.
DESTRUCTION OF 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.
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.

I wish to object to the proposed development 165-215 Forbes Street,
159-163 Forbes Street, 224-226 Bourke Street, 217 Forbes Street.

In particular I refer to the Demolition of Wilkinson House which would
represent the loss of a significant local heritage item, impact on the
Heritage Conservation Area and impact on the streetscape. My apartment
looks directly onto Wilkinson House, and its heritage status was a
significant consideration in my decision to purchase the apartment. I
work from home, and in addition to the loss of aesthetic amenity, the
hideous noise and traffic chaos that would arise from an extended
period of construction would significantly impact on my personal
amenity.

I also refer to the Failure of Master Plan and address current
significant traffic management issues; and Inadequacy of the Traffic
Report included in the submission;

I query in relation to the stated Capital Investment Value, which is
just under the level at which a Design Competition is required;

Having managed various Early Education and Care Facilities in the
period 1994 - 2018 I find considerable ambiguity in the application
regarding the Early Education and Care Facility for 90 children and
the impacts arising which in my experience are always significant.

With respect to the impact of staging and construction, this would
appear to be a never ending project, certainly with respect to my
remaining lifetime.

Please record my objection to this proposed development.

LACK OF RATIONALE FOR RE-DEVELOPMENT

The proposed Masterplan does not make the case that the significant
development is necessary, with all the inherent constructions risks,
demolition of heritage properties and inconvenience to the
neighbourhood.

The proposed new "early learning/child day care" use at the site with
90 proposed "student" places is a clear breach of the existing cap of
942 students by the school. These additional early learning/day care
places at the site will actually have a greater per student impact on
the already significant school traffic and parking congestion on the
local streets surrounding the site as the parents of these children
will be even less likely to walk or use public transport and will
therefore have a higher car usage rate than for the parents of the
other school students. None of these issues are considered in the
Masterplan.

LOSS OF VIEWS
The height of the proposed new Multipurpose Building is approximately
2.8 metres higher than the existing Old Gym Building with the inherent
loss of views and light. Some residents in Forbes Street and Liverpool
Street will lose entirely their iconic Harbour Bridge views. Others
will lose their city views, including of the CentrePoint tower. None
of these impacts have been properly assessed and justified in
accordance with the `view sharing' principles outlined by Land and
Environment Court planning principles. The statutory non-compliance
with height limits immediately indicates that the significant view
loss impacts are unacceptable, if the relevant Court precedents are
correctly applied.

OVERSHADOWING
The 19th century terraces at the end of Thomson Street will lose all
northern light and some western light. They will be completely in
shadow.

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.

I wish to Object to the proposed development by SCEGGS.

I strongly support the retention of Wilkinson House and am concerned
that existing issues with traffic congestion and safety and future
Traffic Management issues have not been adequately addressed.


I am also very concerned about any proposal that seeks to increase
student numbers on the site through the inclusion of an early
childcare centre. This would have significant impact arising from
increased traffic.

I also am concerned regarding reduction in carparking spaces in Forbes
Street.

I object on the following grounds:

1. Demolition of Wilkinson House - loss of a significant local
heritage item, impact on the Heritage Conservation Area and impact on
the streetscape;
2. Failure of Master Plan and address current significant traffic
management issues;
3. Inadequacy of the Traffic Report included in the submission;
4. Query in relation to the stated Capital Investment Value, which is
just under the level at which a Design Competition is required;
5. Ambiguity in the application regarding the Early Education and Care
Facility for 90 children and the impacts arising;
6. Impact of staging and construction.

I live in the Horizon Building> I wish to object to the proposed
development by SCEGGS.

I strongly support the retention of Wilkinson House and am concerned
that existing issues with traffic congestion and safety and future
Traffic Management issues have not been adequately addressed.

The Traffic report is inadequate.

The application is ambiguous in relation to the application for the
Early Childcare Centre and accompanying reports not addressing the
impacts of this inclusion.

I object to any to increase in student numbers on the site through the
inclusion of an early childcare centre. This would have significant
impact arising from increased traffic.

I also am concerned regarding reduction in carparking spaces in Forbes
Street.

Issues raised in the consultation were not taken into account in the
Masterplan, particularly in relation to how existing traffic problems,
congestion and safety can be really improved.

The concerns include:
* Demolition of Wilkinson House - loss of a significant local heritage
item, impact on the Heritage Conservation Area and impact on the
streetscape;
* Failure of Master Plan and address current significant traffic
management issues;
* Inadequacy of the Traffic Report included in the submission;
* Query in relation to the stated Capital Investment Value, which is
just under the level at which a Design Competition is required;
* Ambiguity in the application regarding the Early Education and Care
Facility for 90 children and the impacts arising;
* Impact of staging and construction.

I object on the following grounds:

1. Demolition of Wilkinson House - loss of a significant local
heritage item, impact on the Heritage Conservation Area and impact on
the streetscape;
2. Failure of Master Plan and address current significant traffic
management issues;
3. Inadequacy of the Traffic Report included in the submission;
4. Query in relation to the stated Capital Investment Value, which is
just under the level at which a Design Competition is required;
5. Ambiguity in the application regarding the Early Education and Care
Facility for 90 children and the impacts arising;
6. Impact of staging and construction.

LACK OF RATIONALE FOR RE-DEVELOPMENT
The proposed Masterplan does not make the case that the significant
development is necessary, merely desirable.

The proposed new "early learning/child day care" use at the site with
90 proposed "student" places is a clear breach of the existing cap of
942 students by the school. A 10% increase in early learning/day care
places at the site will have a significant impact on the existing
traffic and parking congestion issues experienced by residents.
Parents of these children not walk nor use public transport and will
therefore have a higher car usage rate than for the parents of the
other school students. None of these issues are considered in the
Masterplan.

DESTRUCTION OF 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. 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 building was designed by the renowned
architect Emil Sodersten and makes a highly significant visual
contribution to 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. There is no evidence of architectural attempts to adapt
the building for re-use. The starting point of this application is
that the heritage buildings should be demolished and replaced with a
boring modern building that suits SCEGGS only and no one else.

There are excellent examples of adaptive reuse across the world,
including in Sydney. Why have these not been explored? To think that
an education institution chooses the lowest option to simply destroy
and rebuild sends a terrible example to its students.

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 will 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.

LOSS OF VIEWS
The height of the proposed new Multipurpose Building is approximately
2.8 metres higher than the existing Old Gym Building with the inherent
loss of views and light. Some residents in Forbes Street and Liverpool
Street will lose entirely their iconic Harbour Bridge views. Others
will lose their city views, including of the Anzac monument in Hyde
Park and of the Centrepoint tower. None of these impacts have been
properly assessed and justified in accordance with the `view sharing'
principles outlined by Land and Environment Court planning principles.
The statutory non-compliance with height limits immediately indicates
that the significant view loss impacts are unacceptable, if the
relevant Court precedents are correctly applied.

Does an education institution want to lead its students by example and
destroy the amenity of its neighbours?

OVERSHADOWING
The 19th century terraces at the end of Thomson Street will lose all
northern light and some western light. They will be completely in
shadow.

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.

INAPPROPRIATE CONSULTATION
The school has never held one meeting where all stakeholders have been
present to hear concerns of others. Consultation should have occurred
when the DA was lodged, not months prior. 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.

* Demolition of Wilkinson House - loss of a significant local heritage
item, impact on the Heritage Conservation Area and impact on the
streetscape;
* Failure of Master Plan to address current significant traffic
management issues;
* Inadequacy of the Traffic Report included in the submission;
* Query in relation to the stated Capital Investment Value, which is
just under the level at which a Design Competition is required;
* Ambiguity in the application regarding the Early Education and Care
Facility for 90 children and the impacts arising;
* Impact of staging and construction.

we are objecting to the proposed Demolition of Wilkinson House and
related development and construction. This will be a loss of a
building of significant historical value. In addition the associated
disruption to traffic flow and potential issues this raises are not
adequately catered for.