Fort Street Public School Modification 2 - Design changes

I am a resident at 2307/183 Kent St Sydney and I strongly object to the creep in height of the building at the Fort Street School.
An increase in height means non-compliance to the Conservation Management Plan, among other serious concerns to standards.
There seems to be no respect for the heritage of this area.
Please stop this Modification 2.

I am appalled at the inefficiency of the website and the fact this extension acknowledgment to pos objections arrived in my email box at 8.12 pm!
I wish to state that whatever happens the heritage of the observatory be adhered to, meaning I do not agree with the latest proposals put forward.
Sincerely
Valerie Corman-Holsinger
Stamford Marque owner/resident

To the Planning Dept Team -

I am a resident of Kent St Millers Point and I have 2 children attending Fort St Public School

If it is correct that the proposed Fort St Public School modifications are necessary to facilitate disabled children’s access to the roof playground then I support them.

The FSPS redevelopment is a critical benefit for local families and ensuring the school provides the same opportunities and benefits for children with disabilities is absolutely essential.

I would encourage the state to do everything possible to finalise the renovations as soon as possible, the FSPS kids have been in the demountable school in Ultimo now for a long time. The school has done a fabulous job of making it work, but it would be great for the redevelopment to be finished as soon as possible so the kids can get back into the school and Millers Point.

I disagree with the new modifications put forward. In particular, as a person who enjoys visiting the area, the view would be altered permanently and the Met building outline would be lower than the proposed changes of the school.
I’ve been visiting observatory hills for many years and am disappointed in the overdevelopment of the school, which lacks to maintain and respect the existing heritage surrounds.

I support the amendments proposed for the Fort Street Public School project. They will benefit a growing number of kids each year, and thousands over the life of the building. I think it's important to make sure the building is up to grade and can provide equitable access to facilities for all the students.

I wholeheartedly object to the proposed modifications. Increasing height of building J means that it will cast a shadow and stand above the Meterology Building. This is an historically significant building on the site and I oppose to any other building or structure to be built higher. Doing so will also impact site lines from every angle. Whether from your private abode or on public land, the view of this historical and heritaged area will be forever changed and made worse.
I’m also shocked at the cost of this project, being funded publicly and now with the new modifications, the budget will be blown further. It is not in anyone’s interest, apart from the builders, for these modifications to go ahead.

I object to the proposed modifications and ask it be rejected. The original design was approved because the height of the meteorology building was not exceeded. However, the new proposed height increase of building J makes it taller. This goes against not only community wishes, but is also not in keeping with the heritage principles of the area. The Bureau of Meteorology should remain as a dominant building on this historical site.

Site lines will also be impacted from public land as well as private properties. This is not a desirable outcome for anyone.

The cost of this upgrade is not included in the current $68.2 million spend. There have been many inadequacies and mistakes made by the builder, yet they want to continually increase the height and use up even more public funding. This increase in cost is not in the public interest at all, and I wholeheartedly reject this modification.

My family and I moved to the Millers Point recently and fell in love with this vibrant and supportive community. We have two young daughters, both school-age, and we look forward to raising them here.

We are aware that there have been some objections to SSD-10340-Mod-2. Though we recognize the need to protect the unique heritage characteristics of this area, the modifications proposed in SSD-10340-Mod-2 presents minimal heritage impact while providing significant benefit to the children attending the school and future generations of school children. We are in a living and evolving city, and it's important that we balance the needs of the past with the future.
--

Dear Ms Gizzi,

Unfortuntaely the link for comment on the above modification on display is not active.

I would like to write in support of the modifications.

My husband and I are the parents of 3 young children living in the area, our eldest child attends Fort Street and the other two will attend over the next few years. Since moving to the area in 2019, we have noticed a big demographic change in the inner city with more and more families moving into the area. I believe it will not take long for the school to reach its increased capacity once it reopens this year.

Generally there is very strong support for the school redevelopment from the residents in the area with the exception of some residents in the Stanford apartment building due to perceived view loss. It is important to us that the school is permitted to maximse the potential of this redevelopment especially with respect to issues such as accessibilty. Unfortunately most people will not take the time to comment in support of a project- only to object.

We are excited about the new school reopening and we hope that the modified plans will be approved and not delay the build.

To the Planning Dept Team -

I am writing in support of the Fort St Public School proposed modifications.

We live on Kent St across from Observatory Hill and our 2 children go to Fort St (currently in Wentworth Park).

I think public infrastructure is vital to our community and the FSPS redevelopment really will benefit all local families - but only if the facilities are equitably accessible for all children. A negligible rise in building height seems perfectly acceptable to afford lift access to the playground. I believe other local school parents would be of a similar view on supporting this modification to increase accessibility for our wonderful school.

Can I please encourage these modifications to go forward as soon as practicable as well? My year 3 daughter has only had a few months at the Fort St site between covid home learning and the move to Glebe in 2020- I know there would be many families as well really so keen to get their kids out of demountables and into this amazing refurbishment!

Thank you for your consideration,
Emily Gordon

Dear Ms Gizzi,

I write in relation to the modification request by Fort Street Public School. I feel it necessary to write in support because the I have been informed that the MPCRAG intends to object stating they are representing the community. they should state they are representing the members, a membership base which is quite small in comparison to the local population.

Development that is infrastructure of a public benefit nature is largely supported by the local parents who are not members of MPCRAG since they insist on hosting meetings at 6pm on a Tuesday. As such, they have close to zero representation from the younger demographic of working professionals and parents who live in the area.

Any heritage impact is negligible in comparison to the benefit that the new school development (including the proposed modifications) will provide.

There is recent precedent in the local community of a child not being able to attend the school because the school could not be made accessible for her, this should not happen and it is not ok to allow this to continue because of a dogmatic application of heritage restrictions.

Those of us who have renovated heritage listed properties in the area have successfully argued that the CMP should be used as a guide and not the law. In doing so we have been able to achieve air conditioning, lifts, ensuites, extensions and height/footprint additions. All things that were expressedly forbidden in the CMPs.

What is the point of even having heritage guidelines if they are used to limit the fundamental rights (education) of our future generations?

The modifications are minimal in nature, do not negatively impact the character of the area and are necessary to add amenity to the development. They should be approved.

I object the fort street public school modification 2 design changes due to:
1) prevent over development, to preserve the heritage character(s) of the site
2) the increase in building height of building J will impact both public and private sight lines to the Observatory Hill unfavourablely

1) The impact to public and private sight lines to Observatory Hill by the increase in building height of Building K.
2) Preserve the heritage character of the site and not overdevelop
3) Mod 1 was STRONGLY objected to by the community due to the increased height.
4) Mod 2 is a FURTHER ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HEIGHT!

I strongly object to Mod-2 FSPS SSD-10340 proposal for the following reasons:

• $68m is misuse of NSW taxpayer funds on a building that only provides for another 300 students that cannot come from the existing primary school students in the local area. Entire new schools are being built (including land acquisition) in Edmondson Park for $70m for 1000-2000 students and Melrose for $54m.
• Mod 2 is clearly height creep. This is the second proposal to increase building heights above the historic Meteorology Building. The overwhelming feedback from the community and public authorities, including council, was to reduce the building heights. The current proposal ignores all previous feedback.
• Mod-2 is redressing the original design failures from Schools Infrastructure NSW and Lendlease to accommodate for accessibility and meet Australian building standards, which have not changed since the original proposal.
• The original design adhered to the Conservation Management Plan (CMP). Mod-1 and Mod-2 do not comply with the CMP.
• The abysmal visual impact assessment by Ethos Urban, selected the MET roofline for their low-level view impairment assessment. Numerous residential and commercial buildings located on Kent St have harbour bridge views that are below their nominated RL of 52.712, and are excluded in the assessment. Increasing the stair lobby and lift overrun by 310 and 610mm, respectively, only furthers the damage done to observatory hill's skyline and the view loss by local residents and businesses. An independent third party should provide own analysis of view loss, referencing an RL below FSPS original building height (excluding MET Building)
• Heritage NSW within the Department of Premier and Cabinet and as Delegate of the Heritage Council of NSW has previously advised the NSW Department of Planning, Industry & Environment that the proposed modification to the school does not comply with the Conservation Management Plan. The proposal will make Building J the dominant building at the FSPS site and Observatory Hill which is a sub-optimal heritage outcome. This has an additional visual impact on the views and vistas of Observatory Hill as well as impacting the visual and historical relationship between the National Trust Centre (former school building) and the 1940s school building at the site.
• SINSW in Mod-2 even acknowledges the impacts to the community that “the lift shaft and stair lobby do present a slight increase to the visual impact of the development” as well as “The addition of solid horizontal spandrels to the bridge between Building J and M, and stair lobby presents an additional visual impact” – this is not acceptable. It does not comply with the school’s own Conservation Management Plan
• The visual impacts on the National Trust buildings to the south are significant. No sightline analysis was undertaken regarding surrounding residential towers. These changes significantly change the nature of the area by diminishing the overall positive effect of vegetation encompassing buildings and cutting light from lower floors. Compromising the overall historic nature and impact on the entire site to avoid some short-term costs and cause long-term impacts is not in the best interests of the local community.
• My building was not offered to be part of any consultation process. This also happened with Mod-1. SINSW continues to avoid our feedback and have continued to miscommunicate to the community. This started with the letter having an incorrect and inconsistent date which has been noted by the City of Sydney Council in their latest meeting, the planning dept have not been contactable. Teresa Gizzi was the contact person on the Mod-2 notification letter to residents, but she was on leave until Mon 12 Dec 2022 according to her voicemail when contacted. Patrick Andrade was the fill-in and then he went on leave. Contact by the community had to be escalated to Madeline Thomas to get a response. Then the period of submissions was extended to a time when most people are away on Christmas holidays.
• The buildings on the site are already too tall and they overwhelm the area. It is visually obtrusive and out of character for a heritage location on the top of a prominent and historic site such as Observatory Hill – please consider other options rather than increasing the height of Building J and leave a legacy for future generations to enjoy this historic area. A lot of money has been spent already, let's get it right by meeting the Conservation Management Plan requirements on maximum height restrictions. For the amount of money invested, this is now the community expectation of the Government

I strongly object to Mod-2 proposal for height increases - please refer attached document "FSPS SSD-10340 Mod-2 Objection 13 Jan 2023 - v1.0" for details of my objection

I have attached my submission 230114FSPSMod-2Submission

Please find objection in attached file

Please

Being the only public primary school in the city, many children are waiting to return to school. The project has been in the talks since 2012 and it is almost finished. It should be given piority to complete. The addition of lift is not going to overtower any buildings.