Fort Street Public School Mod 1 - Design and layout changes

I object to changes to the original plans for the Fort Street school which are intended to raise the height of the proposed taller building over the level previously planned. I object on the grounds that it does not comply with the Conservation Management Plan, there has been no real consultation with local residents, which is especially important as it sets a new precedent for height changes for heritage developments. In additional it will have an adverse visual impact on the views north from Observatory Tower and it is not clear why this change for the original development plan is now needed

Please see attached

I object to the Fort Street School modifications because they have seemingly arbitrarily disregarded their own carefully crafted principles, particularly relating to no building being higher than the Met building.

I object to the proposed modification of the height of Building J, which sees it protruding higher than the Meteorology Building. The initial plan was approved with no objection as the height of the building did not exceed that of the Meteorology Building. Initial public submissions supported the planned height being below the Meteorology Building.
The Meteorology Building, as a significant heritage building, should remain the conspicuous building in the vicinity and the changes do not comply with the policies in the original Conservation Management Plan (CMP).
- Policy 25.3: …….. 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)”. The proposed J Building height, shape, form and bulk will cause a loss of harmony with the surrounding heritage area impacting a significant site of heritage value.
Further, the lack of community consultation involving impacted residents was minimal and disappointing to say the least. The government’s own consultants, Curio Projects, stated that the additional storey to “Building J presents a minor to moderate negative visual impact to the site”, which would have it perceived as such, they wanted to attract minimal attention to the amendment.

If this modification is allowed to proceed, it sets a new precedent for the development of other heritage sites to increase in building height. NSW Government must adhere to the principles and policies in the original development application.

The main cause of my objection is that the applicant has already lodged a development application, and now has arbitrarily lodged a modification to that application (which now proposes a 4 story building) without any real consultation with the local residents about the overall impact of this application. In doing so, the applicant has completely disregarded all of the heritage and conservation aspects of this significant historic area. My understanding is that the building height of any building in this area was to be limited to the height of the existing heritage Meteorology Building (Met Building). The new building (Building J), which is proposed to be one storey taller than the existing Met Building, totally ignores and breaches that height policy and the Conservation Management Plan for this area. The maximum height should not exceed the existing height of the Met Building, period. Any new building should also be built in the same (or sympathetic) architectural form as the existing buildings. The applicants new buildings do not meet that test. The application would set a bad precedent for heights and form in this heritage area. This application will also impact on views for some residents in the area and give rise to potential privacy concerns. I am not aware of any community consultation (eg a meeting with residents of Observatory Tower) to discuss the impacts of the height of the Met Building being exceeded.
The heritage aspects of this area (Observatory Hill) (including its buildings, trees and plants) should not be disregarded for any reason. This area is of national significance and should not be treated wrongly by anyone. If this application does not meet existing development laws and controls (in all respects) it must be refused. The height and principles by which the original application were approved should be retained and not overturned. The applicant should look at other alternatives that do not add another level to the site.

I forgot to mention the proposed variation to the original development plan and height of the proposed new building seems to have ignored the original Heritage Impact Statement for tis development

original proposal looks much better in turns of keeping heritage properties and new proposal has no real benefit for our kids.

I strongly object to the modification proposal of this project.

new proposal is not comply with the Conservation Management Plan and has a significant visual impact.

My objections are in the attached file.

I object to the proposed amendments to the project. I do not believe the heritage value of Observatory Hill was respected by the original plan which in my view was overbuilt in the first place. It would be further devalued by the increased floors proposed by this amendment. The entire amended plan will result in an overdevelopment of the site. One must ask the purpose.

As far as I am aware there was no educational imperative at play nor any increase to the planned enrolment. With plans for basements scrapped it appears that the ugliness of the extra height is the cost the community is being asked to accept just to provide a cost saving to the builder! It is cheaper to house the motor for a lift on an extra floor than to excavate for the basement as originally planned.

The principles of the Heritage Impact Statement and the Conservation Management Plan have largely be en ignored with this amendment. For Curio to describe the additional height on the building immediately in front of the SH Ervin Gallery and the National Trust building as “a minor visual heritage impact” is beyond the pale! The same could be said for most of their assessments of visual impacts as “minor” or “negligible” when clearly they are not.

One day the gash that the Cahill Expressway carves out of Observatory Hill will be roofed over and grassed and the contiguity of the park will be restored. This eyesore, if built, will be a monument to bad design and poor planning. No one with any regard to a heritage precinct would propose such a building.

For the record there was no community consultation on this amendment. A meeting was held to discuss a cycleway proposed because of this project but no mention was made of this amendment to the approved DA. No individual letters were sent to residents.

Over the 22 years I have lived in this building which overlooks Observatory Hill and the Rocks, I have witnessed so many projects with footprints too large for the area. Much of the smaller scale buildings in the area have been sacrificed in the process. With the exception of a few streets, the Rocks is losing its charm. The school with its low rise dark buildings has blended into Observatory Hill well. This proposal would overdevelop this historic, beautiful park. It must not be approved.

The original DA for redevelopment of Fort Street School 'pushed the envelope' but was essentially reasonable. So why, after the production of a costly, in-depth report (which was accepted) is a modification needed at all? Let alone a modification of THIS size! The result of this "modification" is simply overdevelopment of a HERITAGE LISTED SITE where no structure was to be higher than the MET building. Moreover, Observatory Park and surrounds is an important green space in the historic Rocks area. Overcrowding the space with imposing buildings will result in a grossly negative visual and natural impact on the area.

The revised plan contradicts both the spirit and the guidelines of the heritage planning process.
Submitting late changes to already approved plans with little consultation is not a constructive way to develop our city.

I broadly support the redevelopment of the Fort Street school and the re-purposing of the old meteorological building for educational purposes – although the intended number of pupils at the redeveloped school does seem unnecessarily high for a fairly inaccessible location. I think the implications for vehicle traffic – parents dropping off and picking up children or school buses should be reconsidered in the light of the narrow one-way roads.

I strongly oppose any height or bulk increases to buildings beyond the initial development plan because:-

a) The site is in a historic area and any development needs to be architecturally conscious of its neighbours – the Sydney Observatory and the National Trust building.
b) The building sits on the highest natural feature in the CBD. There should be no further assaults on the visual amenity of Observatory Hill as seen either from the harbour or the local neighbourhood. The extra height would also detract from the majestic dominance of the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

The EPA has no further comment on this proposal.

See attached.

Our Strata receieved no information on this project directly.
You have not considered impact on our residents with loss of views and nowhere did your photographs show impact on residential building lokking over the site.
You are not complying with conservation management plan

The height of the building should be in line with the original proposal - it will set a poor precedent and impact the view from our building towards the bridge.

I am objecting to the raising of the height of the Fort Street Public School. 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. This means that developers and builders in future can submit one thing and then later on submit something else which is something we're seeing happening with the Barangaroo Precinct where the height of buildings are creeping further and further up.

But most importantly, with this development 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:
https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/mp/01/getContent?AttachRef=SSD-10340%2120201009T050032.927%20GMT

It stated there is "a potential new school building immediately west of the FSPS Building that may be developed by the Applicant in the future, subject to a separate assessment process." We must ensure that the principles by which the original development were approved are upheld and not overturned by objecting to this current proposal to extend Building J above the Meteorology Building.

The project is not harmonious with the oldest neighbourhood in Sydney.Building J would be higher than the original approved plan which noted that the height of the Met. Building, which is a heritage item, should not be exceeded. this new plan ignores that.
The met. Building should stay as the dominant building for the important height and architectural form considerations.
This new plan will not be in keeping with the whole site's shape, height,size and form and would substantially impact the historical significance of the unique Rocks area and it should not be allowed to proceed as currently published.