Fort Street Public School Mod 1 - Design and layout changes

We are writing to object to the modifications proposed by the Department to the original well researched and documented plans for this site.
The site is Heritage listed and the new proposal will create an overwhelming structure that will detract from the intrinsic nature of this historic area.
The process used for this latest modification could be seen as chicanery of the type employed in other nearby developments.
The original proposal should stand and these modifications be rejected.
Anne and David Wood

I understand that the original CMP Policy 25.3 stated that" the maximum heights of new buildings should not exceed those of the existing heritage buildings to which they are locationallly and visually related" The increased height proposed for Building J is ignoring this requirement and would not be compatible with the heritage precinct of Observatory Hill and would act as a precedent for increasing the height allowing further modifications to the existing plan and for development of other heritage sites within the City and the State of NSW. The NSW Government is not complying the the policies and principles in the original development application and this should not happen.

Have problem attaching document to lodge objection hence after speaking with Jenny Chu I have lodged document regarding objection to this proposal by email addressed to
[email protected]
[email protected]
Many thanks

I formally object to height changes to development on heritage area. I originally approved the developments but am disappointed that changes are planned which do not comply with Conservation Management Plan. I was a pupil at Fort St High School in 1950 and since then the area has been severely affected by Cahill Highway. We must avoid setting a precedent of breaking rules in this and other heritage areas.

I object to the modification to increase building height in relation to the Fort Street Public School Development.
I object to the proposed height of building J extending above the existing Meteorology Building. Maximum heights absolutely should not exceed those of the existing heritage items to which they are locationally and visually related. The Bureau of Meteorology should remain the dominant building on site, both in height and architectural form. The proposed development will materially impact sightlines in one on the most important areas of Sydney.

Dear Sir / Madam,
I object to the proposed modification of the Fort Street Public School development. The additional height along with the bulk of Building J will change the nature of the entire area of Observatory Hill permanently.

The Observatory Hill area has been used for weather recording since the time of the First Fleet, with the current observatory building being opened in 1859. It is an area of historical significance to the nation. It would be unconscionable to divert the attention of visitors and residents from the historical aspect of the area by imposing a modern eyesore as the tallest building and focal point on the hill.

I believe the proposed modification is incongruent with the Conservation Management Plan. Further to this, I note that the community feedback to the original SSDA was that building heights should not exceed the Meteorology Building parapet.

The proposed modification appears to be driven by a cost saving which in the scheme of the entire area would be minor. There are always costs in making changes to heritage sites.

Furthermore, I am disappointed that no consultation has occurred with the local community regarding the modification proposal.

I am most disappointed that the intention is to increase the height of the new centre building without first getting public reaction. This is not asking but telling. The new height breaks the rules and sets a bad precedent for the future. I strongly object to the additional height and ask you to rethink and adjust.

I object to plans for Fort Street Public School exceeding the height of the current tallest building in the area, the Meteorology Building. This will damage the aesthetic and atmosphere of the local area.

My concerns lie not only with the reversal of planned height restrictions this project will entail, but also the precedent this will set for our community area's future developments.

THIS MODIFICATION WILL IMPACT ON OUR BUILDING at 7D/161 Kent Street 2000NSW

Location: Application #: Consent Authority: Objections by:
Upper Fort Street, Millers Point – Fort Street Public School SSD-10340-Mod-1 Applicant: NSW Dept Education Minister for Planning & Public Spaces, Rob Stokes
5pm Thursday 20th May 2021
Background:
Developers propose a modification where there is a height increase of the buildings above Meteorology Building. There is no benefit to the school.
The original plan was approved because the height of the Meteorology Building was not exceeded.
“Public submissions supported the planned height being below the Met Building”. This modification means the Building J will now be higher than the original.

1. The Meteorology Building is a heritage building. It will no longer be the tallest building on the Fort Street Public School Site. Building J will now be one storey taller than the current Meteorology Building.
2. 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)”
3. There was a lack of community consultation with impacted residents.
4. 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”

5. This Building “J” height, shape, form and bulk will cause a loss of harmony with the surrounding heritage area impacting a significant site of heritage value.
If this modification is allowed to proceed, it sets a new precedent for development of other heritage sites to increase building heights.
NSW Government must adhere to the principles and policies in the original
development application.
Why is it being done?

To cut costs and avoid the development costs of changes to the Heritage Meteorology Building

Please see attached Executive Summary and Detailed Objection

I object to the modification of increasing the height of Building J. This will mean that the new building will be higher than the heritage listed Metereology Building. I do not find this appropriate as I feel that we need to comply with existing original conservation management plans which would not allow this. Apart from this, a taller building J will not be aesthetically pleasing to the eye and there will be loss of harmony and balance with the surrounding buildings.

I have lived in this area for more than 25 years and love the various heritage buildings that we have - it is what makes us unique at Millers Point and Walsh Bay. I do not support the modification of increasing building J at Fort Street Public School as it goes against the policies in the original Conservation Management Plan. The Meteorology building next to it, which is a heritage building, will be shadowed by the increase in height of this building. Apart from this, I also object because the modification will not visually fit the look of the area, and will stand out in a negative way.

Dear Sir / Madam,
I would like to formally record my objection to the proposed modification to the already approved development application for Fort Street Public School.
The additional storey on Building J will impact the views of residents and the public of Observatory Hill. It will impose a relatively tall modern building thereby overpowering the heritage aspects of the site.
The supplied view points as part of the application do not consider all public sight lines or sightlines of surrounding apartments including mine that are impacted
Furthermore, there has been inadequate consultation as part of the process.
Although, I am in favour of upgrading Fort Street Public School, it should not come at the cost of public enjoyment of this significant heritage area.
Further consideration should be given to options that do not increase the height of modern buildings.

I would like to object to the proposed modification of the Fort Street Public School development due to the following reasons:
1. The height of Building “J” will change the landscape of the entire heritage area, which is an avoidable loss; and
2. The new building "J" will significantly impact my views over the area; and
3. The modification is not in keeping with the Conservation Management Plan as Building “J” will now exceed the height of the Meteorology Building; and
4. There will be increased shadowing on the National Trust of Australia due to the new height of building "J"; and
5. I have had no opportunity to provide input as part of the modification application process.
6. I request you to reject this modification

The Department of Education lodged an initial proposal to intensively develop the existing site of the Fort St Primary School to cater for a proposed 600 pupils. The initial proposal was contained within the Cahill loop and importantly included a restriction that no new construction was to be higher than the Meteorological (Met) building roof parapet. Whilst the appearance of the proposed new buildings on the south side (facing my building) will be very visible and massively different from the existing, there was at least a height restriction on the new development.

I recognise the need to provide education facilities within the City of Sydney and I did not lodge an objection to the original proposal, despite the impact on the outlook and enjoyment of the amenities of my home.

However, now at the last minute, the Department of Education has proposed a Modification to the accepted plans. This site is historic in the city and is heritage listed.
Recognising this, the Department’s original study included a detailed Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) and Conservation Management Plan (CMP), both comprehensive and well done. Putting aside that the new buildings on the south side of the site will be visibly overpowering, it did appear that the original balance between conservation and providing an effective modern school and surroundings was reasonable.

In the Modification, what is being proposed may be incremental change but the original fundamental basis of acceptability is being lost. It is proposed that Building J, the central building on the south side, is to have an extra storey added which will increase its height above that of the Met building. I do not understand why this Modification is required after the significant amount of time spent and investigation into producing the design and documentation was undertaken by the Department of Education in order to select a builder and commence construction. There has been no increase in the number of pupils over the original plan to require an increase in the height of Building J.

The original HIS and CMP required that no building be higher than the Met building however the Modification proposal contravenes this self-imposed and important requirement. The modifications fail to meet the CMP accepted for the site. The proposed Modification will significantly change the nature and outlook of the area from my apartment, with far more building being seen in the outlook, rather than vegetation and open space.

Accordingly, I object to the proposed Modification to the Fort St Primary School redevelopment.

As a resident of Millers Point, I object to the proposed addition of an extra storey to one of the buildings constituting the redevelopment of Fort Street Public School in Upper Fort Street, Millers Point (not Milsons Point as printed in the notification of 21 April).
In the original submission for redevelopment, much was made of the decision to respect heritage and height levels by not exceeding the height of the existing Met Building. And then the Modification is circulated showing one extra storey standing out like a sore thumb and going against the very promise made in the original submission. It is these sorts of high-handed and arrogant behaviours which cause local residents to become so cynical about developments and developers - be they commercial or government authorities.
A breach of the height levels agreed in the first proposal makes a mockery of any promises regarding respect of heritage or other important elements. It also acts as a precedent for subsequent modifications or extensions. Why can't the design incorporate the requirement for the extra space in a more harmonious fashion?
Finally, Millers Point represents the site of the commencement of colonial settlement in Australia and consequently has the highest concentration of heritage structures, both residential and industrial. It would seem particularly important that the NSW Department of Education should recognise, observe and respect this fact in any of their development plans.
With disappointment,
A concerned Millers Point resident

I’m objecting to the new proposal/modification because as a resident of Observatory Tower I can’t believe it is going against the original proposal. Particularly with the height restrictions, I have lived here since 2002 and love being able to look over the vista of Observatory Hill, with the Heritage Height restrictions to the Met Building. The first proposal was accepted although there were areas that went over the HIS and CMP Guidelines but were approved as they appeared a reasonable compromise between conservation and an effective modern school.

Now with the new proposal of the modifications, the buildings are an eyesore. Buildings J and G have had their basements removed and the space squeezed above ground. The building looks hideous, certainly out of balance.
I’m hoping you will look at the proposal and just see how you have completely overruled your own original proposal.

I love the thought of having a bigger school, encouraging more students, parents and activities to this end of the City but not at the expense of losing our green space and having high ugly buildings popping up. There has to be a better compromise.

Thank you for your assistance.

This new proposal for an additional floor to the Fort Street Public School will make that building taller than the historic Meteorology Building and block views from that building and the equally historic S.H. Erwin Gallery. For this proposal to go ahead will destroy the architectural integrity and spatial relationships of this cluster of beautiful heritage buildings that celebrate the ingenuity of our early architects who designed this part of Old Sydney. Observatory Hill is a peaceful haven with incredible sights of various parts of Sydney. The ancient trees and undergrowth provide green space for the enjoyment of residents of nearby precincts, those who work in various jobs in the CBD, and both local and overseas tourists. The present day architects involved should be able to devise some ingenious strategies for achieving their goals without disrupting the aesthetic totality of this beautiful space known as Observatory Hill.

The Fort Street Public School Upgrade (proposed April 2020) was welcomed by our community. It planned to give life back to a worn-out school by increasing its facilities and capacity to 550 pupils, creating 20 full time jobs with an investment of approximately $53.893 million; whilst still paying respect to the local areas character and heritage (Fort Street Public School Redevelopment – State Significant Development Assessment. Dated October 2020). Development Consent (SSD 10340) was granted on 7th October 2020 by the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.

From this initial design to todays proposed modification (SSD-10340-Mod-1), I’m writing to object for the following reasons.

Under the Fort Street Public School Redevelopment, State Significant Development Assessment (SSD-10340) document, one factor for its approval was its ‘low scale’ build, ensuring the historic Met Building remained the highest building on site (factoring in slope of the site). This provided a visual transition to the Bureau of Meteorology and surrounding buildings. Under these proposed changes, Building J, would have a roofline above the Met Building, essentially detracting from the historic preservation of our community. This breaks the original Conservation Management Plan (CMP) Policy 25.3, which states “Maximum heights of new buildings should not exceed those of the existing heritage items to which they are locationally and visually related”. In addition to this, Policy 25.5 notes “The Bureau of Meteorology should remain as a dominant building on site (both in height, and architectural form)”. This revision completely disregards these conditions.

The SSDA Notice of Decision (Dated 7th October 2020) raised concern over the intrusiveness of the proposed lift over run located on the Met building. Nevertheless, the architect with modification-1, creates additional concern by adding an additional level with lift over run on top of building J. This change compromises the preservation of these historical landmarks by undermining the original intent and scope of the extension. Under the revised development, the school would lose the lower basement of Building G, with plant/store rooms being relocated throughout the buildings. Furthermore, the additional level on building J doesn’t yield a higher pupil count, nor does it provide an increase in overall classroom space, yet Observatory Hill suffers a loss in harmony. These proposed changes come at the cost of the Millers Point skyline, does injustice to our historical values and undermines the historical preservation process that is in place today.

I am unsure if this modification has been perused as a cost cutting approach (due to scale of excavation work, sites location and historic surroundings), however, this additional storey would be a ‘visible box’ from numerous locations. Curio Projects has confirmed this with their report, stating that modification-1 would yield a minor to moderate negative impact on the skyline. I believe it is only fair that we as residents expect that the original CMP is adhered to, in principle, to ensure the historic buildings within Fort Street Public School are sympathetically revived and enhanced whilst holding true to their historical value. If this revision is accepted, it will be at the detriment of Observatory Hill and I believe will start a precedent of builders revising plans for the betterment of themselves over the community who lives and works there.

The vitality of our community comes from its historical significance, low rise skyline and beautiful parks and greenery. Observatory Hill is at the heart of Millers Point, a place where locals and Sydney siders come to appreciate the history and beauty. Under the original application, community feedback was supportive of the new buildings as long as the roofline was below the highest historical roofline (being the historic Met Building). It is evident that our voices weren’t considered when revising the Fort Street Public School Modification-1. A clear disregard to the documented feedback and community values, further supported by the lack of consultation with residents of the area.

I thank you for taking the time to review my objection.

The current modification proposal means Building J at Fort Street Public School will be one storey higher than the heritage listed Meteorology Building which was an original condition of the schools plans being approved. This change if approved will contravene Policy 25.3 and 25.5 of the original Conservation Management Plan. Approving the new height at Fort St Public School will set a dangerous precedent which is unacceptable not only to the locals but to all Australians that have love for heritage buildings and respect for our history. Australia is relatively young country and so much of our historical heritage has already been lost or hidden - the proposal will impact the surrounding area and this amendment had it been proposed at the outset would have been rejected ,accordingly the policies and guidelines of the original application should apply to the proposed modification.