Wenona School - Education Building

I do not support the proposal in its current form, for the following reasons -

1) Inadequacy of building setbacks to residential building at 267 Miller Street

It is submitted that the setback for the proposed development should be at least 3 metres from the property boundary along the entire recessed area of 267 Miller Street which contains private terraces, with sliding door access and windows from 'ground' / 'bottom' floor (referred to in the DA as Level 1) residential units, and balconies (with sliding door access) and windows to residential units on floors 1 and 2 above.

It should be noted that at 267 Miller Street the terraces (recorded as such on the strata plan, and not as 'courtyards') are on individual unit titles and are not common property, that living rooms and bedrooms of units 1 and 12 face the property boundary across their private terraces, that main bedrooms of the corner 'ground' / 'bottom' floor units, 2 and 11, look - and open, significantly via a sliding door - on to their respective private terraces adjacent to the narrow strip of common property planter boxes along the building's boundary, and that 'ground' / 'bottom' floor units 1, 2, and 12 do not have access to either a terrace or balcony area elsewhere.

The North Sydney Development Control Plan 2013, at Part B Section 2.4.3 Setbacks, requires that at -

"Side & Rear
. P6 ... buildings containing non-residential activities must be set back a minimum of 3m from the property boundary where the adjoining site has balconies or windows to main living areas of dwellings or serviced apartments located at the same level."

referring to a minimum setback of 3 metres from "the property boundary", and not just that part of the boundary marked by balconies or windows.
As the proposal stands (refer DA Figure 15 at 3.5.3, page 20 and Figure 21 at 5.2, page 32) -

"...the light well [has been] lengthened to 12.45m to extend beyond the western alignment of the apartment's balcony zone. This extended setback zone, together with the open light well, will reduce the dominance and perceived mass of the building at this interface." (5.2, page 32)

the setback extends only part of the way along the property boundary with 267 Miller Street's recessed private residential terrace, balcony, and window area, and does not uniformly meet -

"A minimum separation of 8.1 metres between the facade of the new building, and the facade of the neighbouring residential building;" as claimed in the DA at 5.5.3, page 35.

In fact, beyond the eastern alignment of the balcony zone where the wall of the proposed new building is not set back and is instead at the property boundary with the private terrace of unit 12 and that of unit 11, the separation of the facades will be just over 5 metres and then about 6 metres. Significantly, in the south eastern corner the proposed wall will be just over one metre from the window of the sliding door to the main bedroom of unit 11 and from the windows to the main bedrooms of the two units above.

The close proximity of the walls of the proposed building is likely to present ongoing natural light, ventilation, and noise amplification issues for the entire recessed area of private terraces and balconies which is to be closed on all sides for the first time, but particularly in the south eastern corner where the current proposal has the wall of the new building not set back, but at the boundary with the private terrace of unit 11 and continuing part of the way along that of unit 12. Additionally, a wall directly at the boundary of those private terraces in the south eastern corner is likely to result in storm water deflection with significant drainage implications for the terrace of unit 11 in particular.

It is further submitted that it would be difficult to envision that a building development at or very close to parts of the southern boundary of 267 Miller Street will not result in scaffolding, workers, and equipment encroaching the private terraces of those 'ground' / 'bottom' floor units, during both the construction phase and when maintenance is required.

It is noted that at the other end of the school complex in Miller Street the end school building is set back from the residential premises next door at 243 Miller Street.

Accordingly, it is submitted that extending the setback zone to the entire length of the private recessed area of 267 Miller Street, ie to the building alignment slightly further to the west, and beyond the eastern alignment of the so called "balcony zone" to the building alignment, will comply with the local government requirement, achieve the minimum visual privacy separation of 8.1m between facades as claimed in the DA (at 5.5.3, page 35), increase the efficacy of the proposed light well, reduce the potential for storm water deflection to private terraces in the south eastern corner, and more satisfactorily (and more equitably as among the neighbouring property owners) mitigate what the DA acknowledges as the "dominance and perceived mass" (5.2, page 32) of the proposed building along its interface with the private recessed area of 267 Miller Street.

2) Inadequate consideration of traffic issues in Elliott Street

In response to a previous Wenona School DA, North Sydney Council Traffic Engineer, Cathy Edwards-Davis (Report to NSC GM, 5 Aug 2009) referred to Elliott Street, a cul-de-sac with a half turning circle, as "...a narrow street with limited ability to handle increased congestion." (page 6) and noted the concerns of the local Stanton Precinct, "Where is it proposed that trucks and plant enter & exit the site? Elliott Street is certainly totally inappropriate for this purpose." (page 5).

Plainly, this assessment by the local Council and residents of the traffic implications for Elliott Street from a much less ambitious project points to the complete unsuitability of the present DA's projected 650 truckloads within the demolition and excavation stages (Appendix Q, 3.1.6, page 7) and the inevitable numerous other vehicle movements of tradespeople & etc being totally reliant on access to and from Elliott Street. It may be that given the present scale of the proposed project, particularly in the excavation phase, that significant vehicle movement may have to take place via Miller Street, in the same way that other significant local developments have had to be accessed via an important main thoroughfare such as the Pacific Highway.

Given these concerns and little consideration in the DA of local residents' vehicle access (vehicle access to 267 Miller Street's off-street parking is entirely via two driveways off Elliott Street, almost immediately to the north of the project site and the excavation vehicle parking zone), at the very least an independent traffic report on the DA should be commissioned.

The apparent lack of official consideration of the longer term sustainability of development on Elliott Street where another SSD is in prospect suggests that state and local government planning authorities should be giving urgent consideration to a longer term plan for residents and other stakeholders, including Wenona School and Rydges Hotel.

3) Inadequacy of protection for identified Tree No. 1

The tree on the footpath of Elliott Street identified as Tree No. 1 in Appendix C to Appendix U is a very high priority for protection by residents of 267 Miller Street, particularly those with units at the south eastern corner of the building looking onto Elliott Street where the tree provides a leafy outlook and privacy to and from the Wenona school buildings across the street.

Of particular concern is that the tree, a mature specimen in good health and good foliage condition, is immediately adjacent to the proposed construction site and the excavation truck parking zone shown in Appendix E to Appendix Q where it is proposed trucks will be loaded parallel to the street, ie directly facing the tree. In view of its very close proximity and the anticipated high number of truck movements in the excavation phase, it is submitted that a greater buffer be provided between the tree and the excavation parking zone and that greater physical protection be given to the tree trunk and canopy.

4) Less than satisfactory likelihood of effective noise mitigation

The DA, at 5.8.2, page 40, notes that without mitigation "...all predicted noise levels at 267 Miller Street are above the 'highly noise affected' noise objective. "

It is submitted that the DA's proposals (5.8.2, page 40) -

"In order to mitigate these impacts, reasonable and feasible noise management measures will need to be adopted. These measures should be determined in detail when a contractor has been engaged on the project, and construction techniques have been better defined. With appropriate planning, it is feasible that the levels predicted could be reduced by 15dBA, meaning that no receiver would exceed the 'highly affected' management level."

are too tentative and loose and as such fall well short of an undertaking that effective noise mitigation will be in place that potentially affected residents might reasonably expect having regard to the very close proximity of the project and its potentially deleterious effects on their heath and wellbeing. Indeed, the Preliminary Construction Management Plan (Appendix Q, at 3.1.2, page 6) effectively concedes the real potential for less than satisfactory noise mitigation by acknowledging "It may be necessary to pause the excavation and demolition works to provide the surrounding building occupants some respite".

Accordingly it is submitted that the proposal should be allowed to proceed only on the basis that effective noise mitigation is in place.

5) Potentially deleterious effects on local residents of proposed site hours

The DA, at Section 5.8.1, page 40, proposes hours of 0700 to 1800 hours Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1700 hours Saturday, the latter outside the EPA's standard hours.

While non standard/ extended hours may result in the project's completion in a shorter time (which would be highly desirable for all concerned), the effect on local residents of a six day-a-week 'long day' exposure to excess noise in particular (if not successfully mitigated, excess decibels of up to 25 dBA on weekdays and 30 on Saturdays, according to the DA at 5.8.2, page 40) would appear unreasonable and potentially hazardous to health and wellbeing, especially for retired and very young residents of 267 Miller Street who may not be in a position to take refuge elsewhere. There are also resident school children (and their parents) who should have a reasonable expectation of a sufficiently undisturbed home environment for school homework after say, 1600 hours Monday to Friday.

I am the owner of an apartment in the adjoining property, 24/267 Miller Street. This is directly opposite the proposed building. The scope of the proposed building will significantly impact the amenity and value of my property. Existing outlook of the North Sydney skyline, trees and sunsets will disappear.

While I realise this may be inevitable, I am concerned that some of the proposed measures designed to maintain privacy will in fact be effective. The new building will look directly into a balcony and two bedrooms.

In particular:
- I am concerned that the 'treated glass facade' has sufficient privacy (for both parties). I am concerned that the 'frit' design may still allow some vision in both directions. I would request that a solution be proposed that ensures no effective vision in either direction. One option may be frosting that allows natural light to pass through but without any effective vision. Another option may be to provide louvres of some kind, although I am concerned that these do not encroach on the proposed set-back outlined in the property. I believe this is an aspect that will be beneficial to both parties.
- I am concerned for the noise impact this building may have upon completion. Can you confirm what measures there will be to minimise noise (e.g. double glazing?)
- I am concerned that the proposed set-back (minimum 10 metres) be maintained. I would like to be notified if at any stage there are proposed amendments to this aspect of the design.
- I appreciate the attempt to provide landscaping/greenery that will be a pleasant outlook for properties in our building. Can I request that this be maintained if there are any suggestions to withdraw it from the design proposal. At the very least, may I please be notified if any change to this aspect of the design becomes a possibility.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Please refer to uploaded file

EPA Submission

OEH Submission

RMS Submission

Sydney Water Submission

Transport NSW Submission

North Sydney Council

see attached