Fort Street Public School Modification 2 - Design changes

I support the modifications on this project.

object to building height increase

Highgate thanks the Department of Planning and Environment for the extension of the Exhibition period for the Fort Street Public School to the 15th January 2023. The recognition that the earlier submission date, just prior to Christmas did not allow for a proper review of the documents and a considered response is much appreciated. Highgate made a prior submission for the initial date, and requests that this current submission replace that submission.
This submission is made at the time we see the actual size of the Fort Street Public School development emerging, along with the increases in height of the Sirius Building, and all other buildings that have been further developed throughout the Rocks area along the foreshores of Sydney Harbour, including the monstrous bulk of 85 Harrington Street, known as ‘The Harrington Collection’. The height creep of all recently approved buildings undermines our city’s value through overdevelopment. The developments minimise and enclose our unique heritage, turning Sydney into just another ordinary overdeveloped city with a harbour dominated by buildings.
While we are sympathetic to problems with accommodation of the lift shaft and the stairs, we are extremely disappointed to see a further increase in the development of the Fort Street Public School that already presents as a massed overdevelopment. The impacts for our residents remain inadequately evaluated and unknown.
We are pleased to see the Department of Planning and Environment utilise the Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140 ruling principles in the evaluation of the impacts of the proposed modification; however, we are deeply concerned that the perspectives of buildings and height increases are inadequate to properly assess these impacts. The perspectives provided are from ground level or from above, not from the actual levels impacted. Without undertaking perspectives from within the Highgate building itself at the level of impacts it is not possible to claim that:
• The proposal does not fundamentally change the nature of the view;
• The proposed view loss does not unreasonably affect iconic views, including those to the Harbour Bridge, Opera House or Sydney Harbour, and in particular retains the viewers’ ability to see and appreciate the nature of these elements;
• Views from mid and upper-levels remain unchanged, given the low-scale nature of the FSPS development and the significant separation between the FSPS site and surrounding buildings;
• There is no perceptible difference between standing views and sitting views; and
• An alternative design to reduce view loss to private apartments would compromise the heritage and functional/educational outcomes of the development, as proposed to be modified.
Hence, we request further information in terms of the actual impacts of the height increases on view sharing according to the principles of the Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140 ruling. Without such visual perspectives, we are unable to support the modification to raise the lift overrun and stairs.

I object to the changes in the schools height after the original approval had no increase from the existing building height. The changes impact our view of the Harbour Bridge and in turn the value of our property. The building should have been properly designed and should not need these changes.

I strongly object to the modifications, in particular the building height increase. Please ensure the school roof height meets Australian Standards and also that the building meets Australian Fire Standards.
I’m not confident this has been the case so far.
The builders are also overlooking the Conservation Management Plan and heritage principles of the area.
I support a newly renovated school for our area, but don’t want the long lasting impact caused by the modifications which fails to stick to the original design put forward.

Objection to the proposed modifications to Fort Street Public School.

I object to the Fort Street Public School Modification 2 design changes. Specifically, the:
 Lift shaft roof raised from RL 55.690 to RL 56.300 (610 mm increase).
 Stair 4 lobby roof raised from RL 54.900 to RL 55.210 (310 mm increase

There are 3 reasons for our objection
1. Our building at 171 Gloucester Street was never included in the Visual Impact work. However, as you can see from the attached photograph, the existing design impacts on the view. These additional height designs increase this impact for little stated gain to the school.

2. The stated reason for the height increase is that it is "required to optimise the lift’s functionality". I reject this reasoning. I would expect the lift's operations to have been fully considered in the initial design. If the original plans were faulty, we are sure that the lift's functionality can be improved without an increase in height, and we should be told why this option was not included in the proposal. If there were better reasons for these design changes, they should be stated in the design proposal. Furthermore. the proposed increase in height is intended to "preserve heritage fabric". It is not explained how, and we would expect the increase in height would degrade the areas heritage fabric. We think that this proposal should be rejected till some more credible reasons for the changes can be presented to stakeholders.

3. As with the proposal to add another "luxury low-cost residential" building to the Barangaroo development, the habit of modifying development proposal after approval erodes the public trust in the planning process. As stated above, the reasons given for this increase in height are flimsy, and the NSW Government ought to have set the bar much higher before repeatedly putting citizens to work objecting to design modifications.

I urge the NSW Government to reject these proposals and to hold the developer to a higher standard before attempting to modify approved plans in the future.

The P&C supports the proposed modifications as being minor is scope but necessary to ensure that the development provides equitable access and is fully functional.

I object to Mod2 of the project. The school is situated near remnants of the first observatory ever built in Sydney. The surrounding area is of exceptional significance in terms of our culture. To protect the heritage value of this historic area the most dominant building on the hill must be the meteorology building which is the oldest building on the site. The latest plans (mod2) go against the communities submissions to the first modification. The increased bulk and height will have a deleterious impact on surrounding buildings of significant cultural value and observatory park itself. The proposed height and bulk under Mod2 would negatively impact and dominate a culturally significant site of which we have so precious few in Sydney.

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.

It's simply not acceptable that the original proposed building height was rejected and yet this is being pushed through again because of claimed issues. The contractor's problems should not be interfere with the heritage nature of the area.

I oppose any tree loss on the site -

As usual, Lend lease tries for modifications in December - disgusting, as this is when a lot of people are busy.
I objected to the height of this project before and am objecting again to the height of the building. I am sure that the building has some heritage value so the height should not increase.

I object to the Fort St Public School Modification 2 design changes. It will increase the building height due to failures (design) that do not meet Australian building standards (that is, a failure to plan for accessibility). The height will also cause visibility issues (Harbour Bridge views) from Kent St residents.
This may set a precedent for other "view/height creep" from other buildings in this area.

Kind Regards

The residents at Stamford Marque object to the height increase

• The design submitted for initial feedback was aligned to the CMP (Conservation Management Plan) which ensured the build complemented Observatory Hill and related buildings. While expanded on the original buildings, it was not significantly more obtrusive and important factor to ensure that it did not impact too heavily on the existing buildings nor the historical views to and from Observatory Hill, nor access to the Hill.
• Heights were restricted the heights to the same level as the existing heritage Meteorology Building. The current proposals do not do that, despite being in conflict with the Visual Impact Assesstment by Ethos Urban and with the original CMP. The late changes are also apparently a result of earlier design failures. There is a height overrun by 310 and 610mm, by increasing the stair lobby and lift overrun.
• A major concern, having had two modifications in reasonably short succession is that this may be another of what we have seen too many times in Millers Point, mods on mods on mods. If this modification is approved, it should be the last and if not care should be taken to manage any impacts. Our patience is running out.

See attached letter.

Mod-1 received huge backlash with outrage at height creep and was scaled back. Mod-2 aims to increase again due to design failures that do not meet Aust. Standards. I object to Mod-2. Visual assessment failed to acknowledge Kent St Residents harbour bridge views. Height is overrun by 310 and 610MM. There is a need for independant review. I object to any increase in height and creep and it will set a precedent for other buildings. There is no compliance with the Conservation Management Plan. Mods would normally allow 28 days, why only 10 days. At a cost of $68M for 200 students, is this really public money well spent ? Again I object to this Modification. No more height increase please.

In reviewing the SSD - 10340 - Mod 2 application , I note that Ethos Urban has conducted a exercise on the "visual impact" of the proposed changes incorporated in the Modification 2 application. Observatory Tower is listed by Ethos Urban has having minimal visual impact , which I disagree with , given the north face of Observatory Tower has the Fort Street school re development , front and centre of its outlook, over the harbour, the bridge and North Sydney. The increased height of the various building, including for the lift shaft in Building J, WILL impact the visual outlook of residents living in Observatory Tower, which despite Ethos Urban saying they were unable to get a floor plan configuration, the majority of the windows facing the harbour and therefore Fort Street school are living and dining areas, which were sold to take in the view over the Observatory Hill, harbour and vista to Nort Sydney. The impact is NOT NEGLIGIBLE as referenced in the Ethos Urban Report and the report should be corrected to reflect the actual visual impact this planned Modification 2 will have on Floors 6 to 27 of Observatory Tower.

I object the project to not build it higher to protect the Kent Street community so they can keep ther harbour bridge view.