Fort Street Public School Mod 1 - Design and layout changes

Please find attached EES response

I do not object to this proposal. Sydney's increasing population requires new or enlarged schools.
HOWEVER, this school will require enlarged grounds to complement the enlarged school.
I have long thought that unsightly Cahill Expressway cutting should be, as extensively as possible, covered in with a concrete slab. This would enlarge the schools grounds, and largely conceal the busy roadway and its extreme noise, and thus increase the amenity of the historic precinct and the school.
Frankly, it should have been done in the first place. Howard Tanner AM LFRAIA

The proposed alterations are inappropriate for the heritage area in which the building is located. They pay no attention to the qualities of the surrounding streetscape. A four-storey emergency exit and air-conditioning plant directly facing the Military Hospital and the S H Ervin Gallery is a clumsy way to deal with the need to upgrade. More thought needs to go into designing an upgrade that will fulfil the building's requirements, while paying due attention to its surroundings.

I support expanding the school. It is important for children to have the best environment to become the leaders of tomorrow. I don't know why the National Trust would encourage their members to restrict the students at this school rather than have something blocking their view. It is extremely selfish of National Trust and I hope that any supporters realise how selfish the National Trust really are and choose to support the schools development rather than object to it.

The National Trust has raised very important concerns about height for this and future projects. These relate to how the proposal fails to meet the principles that were developed in the Conservation Management Plan (CMP) by Curio Projects when they first submitted the proposal and it states,
“The conservation policies provide the essential guiding aims for the FSPS (Fort Street Public School) site, which should be adopted by SI (Schools Infrastructure) NSW and the relevant approval authorities”.
If the existing Meteorology Building height is exceeded by allowing this new proposal it will not only impact residents' views, it sets an important precedent of not complying with the principles that were developed in the Conservation Management Plan. Importantly, there is already an area set aside on the site for FUTURE DEVELOPMENT! See section 2.4 "Future potential development" of the original development proposal below:
This project must stay within the CMP.
Regards
Andy Madigan

I strongly oppose the modifications suggested by SSD-10340-Mod-1.

Notwithstanding the above position I support, equally strongly, the upgrading of the school, and the repurposing of the old meteorological building.

My opposition is to the proposed increases in height, and bulk.

Having been closely related to the 2003 listing of our precinct on the NSW Heritage Register it is my belief that the proposed modifications, considering their location within the heritage precinct, are unnecessary and inappropriate overdevelopment negatively impacting the character and amenity of the area.

The increased height towers over the National Trust Centre, impacts the scenic quality of the area, and removes sightlines, public and private, to iconic Sydney views.

Please reject SSD-10340-Mod-1. The school’s redevelopment should proceed as before, i.e. in a manner more in keeping with the heritage precinct, and preserving a singular part of Sydney

We object to the new proposal and want the originally approved planning proposal to be followed as the proposed additional level for the meteorology building will impact our views of the Sydney harbor bridge to the North/NE forever. This will effect the value of our property. We would like the height of the present school to be maintained.

See attached letter.

The constant changing of height regulations is sneaky and underhanded, i demand thta these proposed height changes be dismissed and original approved plans remain unchanged. This is not acceptable within our community and sets dangerous precedents for future developments. I am a hard NO!!!

With the recently built and planned increase in high-rise residential apartments in the city of Sydney, it is evident that there is a need to upgrade Fort Street Public School to cater for growing enrolments. However the school is in a historically important precinct adjacent to the historic Bureau of Meteorology Building, the former 1815 Military Hospital that now houses the offices of the National Trust, and the S.H. Ervin Gallery (which is within the original Fort Street School building dating from 1856). The proposed design of Fort Street Public School upgrade will increase the school population from 220 to 550, an increase of 250%, on the same footprint. Accommodating 550 active primary school children on such a small footprint is pretty much impossible. Aspects of the proposed design are sensitive to the precinct, and much of it a significant improvement on the current buildings. However the overall height of the development will fundamentally change the visual links between the historic buildings of Observatory Hill to the north and the historic buildings to the south, viewed from any direction outside the campus. I suggest that the design could be modified to reduce its height to fit more sensitively in with the historic surrounds, and the historic buildings being retained on the site.

1. Heritage Building Meteorology Building is no longer the tallest building on the Fort Street Public School Site. There will be a new building (Building J – replacing the Observatory Hill Environmental Education Centre).
Building J will now be one storey taller than the current Met Building.
2. This building blocks views to the North and NE for residents living along Kent Street – in Observatory Tower, Highgate, Georgia, Stamford Marque & Stamford on Kent and sightlines for Langham and some terraces along Kent St.
3. The Conservation Management Plan developed by Curio Projects for School Infra NSW submitted as part of the original development proposal/It stated” “The conservation policies provide the essential guiding aims for the FSPS (Fort Street Public School) site, which should be adopted by SI (Schools Infrastructure) NSW and the relevant approval authorities”. THIS IS NOT complied with. - Policy 25.3: “The height of new buildings is to be considered in relation to existing buildings on the site and views to them from the north and east. Maximum heights of new buildings should not exceed those of the existing heritage items to which they are locationally and visually related.” Policy 25.5: “The Bureau of Meteorology should remain as a dominant building on site (both in height, and architectural form)”
4. There was also a lack of community consultation with impacted residents (buildings were not contacted) and there was no discussion about height of the current Met Building being exceeded.
5. Developers should explore other options that do NOT adding another level to the site and keep Met Building as the tallest building
6. Increasing building heights sets a new precedent for heritage development sites

It seems that one of the main reasons that the original proposal was approved was that the height of the Meteorology building was not exceeded.

I cannot understand why approved proposals are able to modify their plans and then have the modified plans approved.

It has happened in Barangaroo lately eg. One of the One Sydney Harbour towers is now allowed to be 8 more storeys high.

Fair enough modifications for internal spaces, but the approved footprint should not be allowed to be modified.

An initial proposal potentially could get say 200 objections, but due to objectors not being kept in the loop a lot less people could potentially object.

I strongly object to increasing the height of the Fort Street application. The area around the school is a unique area. Heritage. The whole Millers Point area is unique as are areas like North head and Cuckatoo Island. Why not keep them all this way.

Please refer to attachment

1. Heritage Building Meteorology Building is no longer the tallest building on the Fort Street Public School Site. There will be a new building (Building J – replacing the Obs Hill Environmental Education Centre). Building J will now be one storey taller than the current Met Building.
2. This blocks views to the North and NE for residents living along Kent Street
3. There was a Conservation Management Plan developed by Curio Projects for School Infra NSW submitted as part of the original development proposal – this WILL NOT BE COMPLIED WITH. It stated: “The conservation policies provide the essential guiding aims for the FSPS (Fort Street Public School) site, which should be adopted by SI (Schools Infrastructure) NSW and the relevant approval authorities”.
- Policy 25.3: “The height of new buildings is to be considered in relation to existing buildings on the site and views to them from the north and east. Maximum heights of new buildings should not exceed those of the existing heritage items to which they are locationally and visually related.”
- Policy 25.5: “The Bureau of Meteorology should remain as a dominant building on site (both in height, and architectural form)”
4. There was a lack of community consultation with impacted residents (buildings were not contacted) and there was no discussion about height of the current Met Building being exceeded.
5. Developers should explore other options that do NOT add another level to the site and keep Met Building as the tallest building.
6. Curio Projects stated that the additional storey to “Building J presents a minor to moderate negative visual impact to the site” in the "Modification Report"

Please refer to the attachment.

Please refer to the attachment.

The original design was approved, as the height of the building would not exceed the Meteorological Building and would therefore have no impact on local business and residential building views.
The revised design is now 1 storey higher and will have a permanent, negative impact on views. There was no community consultation with impacted businesses and residents relating to the additional storey.
The building must adhere to the original approved design. The design must respect the local community and their ongoing contribution to the Millers Point environment.

I object to the Fort Street Public School Development Proposal in its current state for the following reasons:
1) The Heritage Building Meteorology Building will no longer be the tallest building on the Fort Street Public School site; Building J will now be one storey taller.
2) Building J will block views to the North and North-East for residents living along Kent Street, including my own property in Stamford Marque.
3) The Conservation Management Plan submitted as part of the original development proposal stated that "The conservation policies provide the essential guiding aims for the FSPS (Fort Street Public School) site, which should be adopted by SI (Schools Infrastructure) NSW and the relevant approval authorities". This is not being complied with as the following policies are being violated:
- Policy 25.3: "The height of new buildings is to be considered in relation to existing buildings on the site and views to them from the north and east. Maximum heights of new buildings should not exceed those of the existing heritage items to which they are locationally and visually related."
- Policy 25.5: "The Bureau of Meteorology should remain as a dominant building on site (both in height, and architectural form)."
4) There was a lack of community consultation with impacted residents, and there was no discussion about height of the current Meteorology Building being exceeded.
5) The developers should explore other options that do not involve adding another level to the site and keep the Meteorology Building as the tallest building.

I object in the strongest terms to the proposed changes to Fort Street School development.
We face north over the site and this proposal will have a significant and detrimental visual impact.
Under no circumstances should there be any height changes to heritage development. There should be no overriding of heritage protections. We live in a precinct where Heritage and Conservation have been fiercely adhered to, this proposal is a travesty.
Plans have been in place for a substantial period of time, and now, at the last minute, there is a sly attempt to push the boundaries, which is unacceptable.
As far as we can see, there is no benefit to the school children, and this proposal will create a disproportionate eyesore on Observatory Hill.

I object to the change of plans that involve a taller building. It does not comply with the Conservative Management Plan; it sets a new precedent for height changes to heritage development. It is an eye sore and has significant visual impact on my view from Unit 1406 Observatory Tower, a unit my wife and I own in a SMSF as our place of retirement. We bought the unit many years ago because of the view and in the belief it would not be adversely affected by development. There is no real benefit to children at the school to outweigh the detriment to unit owners such as myself. Development constraints are in place to protect the public interest and should not be breached except in the most exceptional case. This is not an exceptional case and is likely to set a dangerous precedent