PlanningAlerts

11 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

1. No. No. No. No. The terracotta trim is an intrinsic feature of the Post Office building's beautiful 1890s architectural style. Whatever is being allowed to happen to this building internally, the exterior should remain as close to the original as is possible. To 'enlarge the windows' is not sufficient reason to interfere with the original exterior decoration. Why is enlargement of windows being addressed at this stage of the redevelopment? Was removal of terracotta battens to make larger windows already intended in the (unsubmitted) original plans but not mentioned so that the submitted plans would be approved? What reasonable justification is there for units in this location to have larger windows?

2. Outrageous! this building is part of our shared heritage. Bad enough that the interior is being destroyed but profiteers should not be allowed to vandalise the exterior like this.

3. I object to this alteration. This is one of the most beautiful buildings on King street. Changing the battens on any side of the building will diminish its appearance and heritage value. Developers need to realise the value of the property is in these heritage features, not in larger windows.

4. I think there were relatively few complaints of the original DA as it was keeping the lovely building and making good use of the ugly bits round the back.
   This, however is too far in that it now seeks to significantly alter the look of the original building.
   Where is the heritage study??
   I couldn't find any at the documents listing at: http://development.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/DAsOnExhibition/details.asp?tpk=1217249

5. I object to the proposed changes to remove the terracotta battens from the Wilson Street and Erskineville Road facades to enlarge the windows to the new apartments.

   This building is one of the most historically significant in Newtown. The developers knew the heritage conditions when they purchased the property, and they should be enforced.

6. Megan, Jennifer, Gillian.
   I was also upset when I saw the initial notice, but once I followed the link and read the DA amendment in question I discovered that the changes are not to the original, Post Office building, but to the plans for the new building.

   I appreciate your natural assumption that this affects the original building, but reading the lodged DA, with the copious documentation supplied at http://development.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/DAsOnExhibition/details.asp?tpk=1217249 , will no doubt put your mind at rest.

   Personally, I think the new plans are better as the building now feels more open, and less fortress-like. I look forward to hearing what you think.

7. Thank you, Joe, for being a more careful reader than me.

8. If Joe is correct, I also thank him for the information.
   However it is important that Council ensures that any changes to the DA do not compromise the heritage features of the building in any way.
   If the changes are so innocuous, one has to wonder why the features were not a part of the original DA?

9. This is total destruction of the exterior of a landmark heritage building.The developer's knew of the heritage listing and should not be allowed to carry out this vast detrimental change to the facade.

10. @Jennifer
    It is normal during a build, when you are transforming the theoretical (plans and designs) to the concrete (excuse the pun, but otherwise bringing the designs into reality), you realise improvements that you would not have considered when in the planning and drawing stage. Rightly so, the Developer/Builder should be able to submit those improvements for consideration, and, as I understand it, if it affected the heritage building it would need consideration by the Heritage Dept. But that won't apply in this case because it is to the new façade, not the old one.

    @Neil
    It doesn't sound like you had a look at the plans, Neil, which I understand as it was hard to find the link, but I have added it here for you.
    Please have a look at the plans, and read the other comments already here and you will see that the façade of the current building is not in question, only the façade of the new building.

11. @Joe
    You may be correct in this Joe, but it astonishing how many of these "improvements" are also going to improve developer profits. You may be correct in this case that someone just had a bright idea that could improve the design of the flat but they are wearing the consequences of the many applications for extra height, larger footprint, more levels, and decreased heritage compliance seen so frequently in Marrickville and across Sydney. If the changes do not affect the heritage value I have no problem with approval and will leave it to the Council to determine.