SCECGS Redlands - Senior Campus Upgrade

See attached.

SCECGS Redlands School Concept Proposal and Stage 1 Development (SSD6454)

To whom it May Concern,

This is now my third submission of objection to the above proposed development.

As a resident of one of the townhouses (19 Waters Road) located next to the Redlands School, I remain deeply opposed to the application based on the invasion of my privacy, the impact that the development will have on my lifestyle and the peaceful existence that I currently enjoy when I am at home.

- Invasion of privacy: The link road that is proposed to be built and that will run along the boundary fence of 19 Waters Road, will allow for multiple heavy vehicles to travel directly behind my outdoor courtyard which connects on to my main relaxation area of the townhouse, being the lounge room. From my lounge room and courtyard, these heavy vehicles will not only be visible as they pass, I will also be subjected to vehicle exhaust fumes and noise. I am concerned that the impact of these vehicles will mean that I will not be able to have my courtyard sliding door open when I am home due to noise and exhaust pollution along with the odours that will be emitted from the garbage collection trucks that will also use this internal road.

The school also refers to their fleet of 'mini buses' which will use this internal road. I have seen the fleet of so called 'mini buses', but a mini bus is a bus that carries under 15 passengers. Many of the school's buses are of a larger passenger capacity and also taller than a mini-bus. As the buses pass through the internal road, passengers will have direct viewing access into my lounge room and bedroom. This invasion of privacy will be increased if there is a few buses on the link road at the same time, resulting in buses stopping before they can safely move on.

Secondly, the proposed Humprey Learning Hub Building, while now amended from its original over-height and size due to objections, does still not meet with my approval or support. The height and location of this building will mean that not only will the vehicles have viewing access to my courtyard and relaxation areas, so will students and visitors to the school from the windows of the proposed building. Whilst the existing building on the same site, is tall and has windows, it is set back far enough back from the boundary of 19 Waters Road that there is no invasion of privacy to the courtyard. The building does however have viewing access to my lounge room and bedroom, but I do not feel the same issues that I will have with the new Humphrey Learning Hub that will be built closer to my boundary and be much much taller than the existing builiding. At present I can relax and enjoy the courtyard area without any invasion of privacy, once the new building is erected this will no longer be the case.

Whilst the amended proposal for the Humphrey Learning Hub building does now include window shutters, myself and other residents of 19 Waters Road have no control over the angle of the shutters and what the people inside the school building can and cannot see from their side. It appears that all options have been considered to protect the privacy of the school, but no reasonable consideration has been provided to the residents who live here long term unlike the students that will only attend the school for upto 6 years during their senior school.

Impact on lifestyle: During construction of the proposed internal link road and new building, I will no doubt be subjected to increased noise levels and dust levels. The dust levels from the building site are of great concern to me due to existing high allergies and subsequent medications that I take to control the allergies. Dust is one of my allergy triggers and I can support this with medical evidence if required.

My home is a peaceful existence away from my workplace, which is high paced and stressful. I chose to live at 19 Waters Road partly due to the quiet and clean living space that it was able to provide me. Having to now consider ongoing building works, increased noise levels, reduction of solar access and privacy reductions is of extremely great concern to me.

I also believe that the amended proposed Humphrey Learning Hub is still going to be higher than the legal height of buildings within the area. Maybe the school has a third option for the site, as they were able to very quickly submit the amendments following the initial objections that were received to the first proposal, which may indicate that the school already had the amended plans in place to submit due to possible objections.

I hope that my comments will be considered and valued.

My continued objection to the development application is that it does not deal with the solar access issue nor the unacceptable bulk and height of the Humphrey Building (Stage 4). The height non-compliance, even in the revised submission, is still significant and in excess of the North Sydney development controls.

The design concept as it stands has many concerns for not only myself but also my neighbours. Although the current Concept Proposal has reduced the height of the building from the original proposal it is still far in excess of the height limit for buildings in this area.

The proposed development continues to breach the height control applicable to the site (12m) by a substantial amount. The impact of this breach is borne directly by our property at 19 Waters Road, Neutral Bay in that the height exceeded casts a large shadow across the living areas of our property. The express objectives of the height control standard seeks to avoid this situation from occurring.

Although the applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6 variation with the application it is deficient in a number of material respects.

We have sought legal advice in relation to this particular point and understand that the recent case of Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90, and the Court of Appeal's judgment in Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWCA 248, is relevant as it deals expressly with the requirements of any variation sought under Clause 4.6.

The application does not satisfy the requirements set out in Clause 4.6 and specifically 4.6(4)(a)(ii) noting that the objectives of the development standard require that solar access to existing dwelling be maintained - something that the proposal does not achieve. The solar diagrams provided demonstrate that solar access is significantly reduced to the living areas and private open space of the dwellings at 19 Waters Road. The advice received is that if consistency with this objective is not achieved, a variation to the height control cannot be upheld by SCEGGS / the developers.

The loss of sunlight, is contrary to controls set out by North Sydney Council, and will significantly reduce the amenity of the property - something that is expressly required to be addressed by Clause 4.6 of the NSLEP.

Further, that loss of sunlight, an express objective of the 12 metre height control, is something that cannot be considered to be "consistent" with the stated objectives and per our submission must fall foul of the tests contained in Clause 4.6.

The original proposal had our building in total shadow for several months of the year. The current proposal allows a small amount of solar access for a couple of hours in Winter, from around midday, to the upper level only of some of our townhouses. There is no solar access to my living areas, nor my garden courtyard, which is where I spend a good deal of time. Outside of Winter, there is also significantly reduced solar access.

Concerns about the amount of traffic on the proposed access road are also considerable. As it stands the current plan will result in a loss of privacy, noise, fumes and indeed smells if the current plan to site the garbage depot goes ahead.

These concerns were put forward in my original objections but, I wish to emphasise that it is the height of the building and the overshadowing which are my major concerns.

As an aside, the comments in the lengthy report concerning the benefits of the development to the community can only be described as `self-serving'. We are part of the community, and clearly there is little concern about the detrimental nature of this development on us.

The whole proposal needs to be re-thought. Approving Stage 1 means re-organising the placement of building works in subsequent stages (ours is Stage 4) will not be possible.

Thank you for your time on this matter.

See attached letter.

See attached letter.