Shore School Graythwaite - Concept Plan Mod 2 and Project Mod 4

My objections relate to two aspects of the project. Traffic and parking.
1.
1.1The transport management plan/research provided in the submission is old (2020) and does not reflect my experience of the current intensity of drop off and collection traffic. Parents regularly cause gridlock morning and evening at the corner of Edward and Mount Street, and this makes it difficult and dangerous for pedestrians on the narrow street/pavements outside our house.
The project proposes significantly increased traffic density in this street given the proposed 78 new prep school students. Most are dropped are dropped off/ collected by parents over the same time period . This reality is not commented on in the documents.
1.2 Shore students travel by coach to sport several times a week. Coaches in Mount/Edward street block the road and the pavement is crowded with students. There is no plan for how this will be addressed should student numbers grow by 450 in one year.
1.3 I believe it is important that the area Edward/Lord/Short streets should become pedestrian priority as a safety measure with an enforced speed limit of 20kph and that Prep school drop off and pick up should be in the Mount st area monitored by staff.
2. Parking.
2.1 There is no updated Green Transport Plan for the school, despite the requirement flagged in the documentation (condition SSD 7507).
2.2 North Sydney Council Development Control Plan places limits on both residential and businesses. The ratio for educational establishments is 1per 6 staff. NSDCP 2013 - Part B - Section 10 Car Parking & Transport page B-10.8
Given the total population of staff is proposed at 287 with 154 parking spaces already available this is a ratio of 1per1.8staff without additional provision. I appreciate there are visitors and many casual staff however the allocation appears to be very generous compared with what is approved in local buildings. We have a severe parking problem and traffic problem in the area and it is not sustainable long term for everyone working and studying in the area - Shore staff and students included - to keep driving. The area now has the metro as well as trains and buses.
2.4 I also note that the proposal indicates heavy machinery and mini buses will be relocated to the facilities area in Edward street. This will create significant additional traffic and noise (including early in the morning) in a residential area and adds to the congestion problem.

Shore School Graythwaite Modifications 2 and 4
2 December 2024
To whom it may concern:
Apologies in advance for the rushed nature of this submission. I was involved in the prior Application but was not notified of this application for modification, and only received late notification from neighbours. I live at 15 Riley St with rear lane access to Short St including on street parking use.
The Traffic Consultants report is a classic variation on the “a person can’t drown in a lake that has an average depth of 50 cms”.. There are ebbs and flows in the School’s traffic, parking and bus impacts, at their height they lead to gridlock, and to general congestion and safety issues. It would be great to get the Panel’s assistance in attempting to mitigate some of these impacts.
Shore were in absolute denial in the original application about traffic impacts on the local community, the original Planning Panel had to disabuse them of that and require Traffic Assessments and ultimately implementation of the Internal Dropoff to alleviate the Edward St gridlock and safety concerns. These issues continue today and will be aggravated by a 30% increase in headcount and related traffic, to be rolled out in one go. There has been no prior consultation with community stakeholders nor with the Public Bus system- the Traffic Report seems to be based on year old information with limited areas of consultation.
Summary:
As a result of the comments and observations below I oppose the School’s application for modification in its current form, both in terms of trying to load the increased population all in one go, and in requiring extra onsite parking places. The School has failed to address why it requires the increase in one go, and also why it is not able to reduce its’ current parking requirements as an alternate, especially noting the change in transport provision and use in the intervening years- see Metro and Green transport plans and solutions. It has also not provided any suggestions to mitigate existing traffic issues which will presumably be aggravated by their current proposal
Observations:
Broader Consultation: Some broader community consultation may provide a more detailed analysis. The Report seemed to have been based on 2023 inputs and is based on “counts” not feedback from broader users.
Bus management: Buses should be moved off Mount St to William St as the community originally proposed when we made the William St suggestion. Buses turn up well before 3pm and this is a shared facility with Mackillop. Shore was provided access in William St to lower this conflict, and to remove the danger of poorly managed bus services from Mount to William St which has lower pedestrian rates and funnels buses straight back to the Pacific Highway. You can see the danger from the poor bus management on Mount St from attached photographs. I thought William St being only drop-offs for buses was to be a condition of the original consent as a result.
Parent Vehicle Management: This still blocks Edward and Mount St regularly. Back along Edward St most days with parents’ stationary vehicles making it dangerous to come round the Mount St corner, and blocking access to Lord and Short Sts regularly (see Emergency access concerns). Mount St gets backed up and some mornings it backs past the Miller/Pacific Highway junction both when pedestrians use the crossing and when there are traffic snarls further up Mount. The Report doesn’t seem to address this. And it doesn’t address the current parental practices of dropping students near the corner of Edward and Mount Sts, this is highly dangerous.
Pedestrian Priority Area: Edward from Mount St should be considered for a pedestrian priority area with drop-offs to be promoted on Mount St in the existing bus zone (and another reason why buses should be pushed to William St) and being teacher supervised as other schools do- see SCEGGS Darlinghurst and others. And a lower speed limit from Mount to end of Edward. The raised pavement implemented by Council has materially slowed School parent vehicles and markedly improved pedestrian safety.
Emergency Vehicle Access: Investigations should be undertaken on Emergency Vehicle access to Short and Lord Sts when peak congestion occurs. The inability of larger Emergency vehicles to access Lord and Short could lead to loss of life or property. The Report doesn’t seem to address this.
Green Transport Plan: An updated and improved Green Transport Plan should be provided including nil student parking, esp given recent Metro Station rollout. The Report doesn’t seem to address this.
Teacher Supervision of Dropoffs and Buses: Teacher supervision of external Drop Off areas should be mandated, this occurs only very infrequently. Teacher supervision of buses on Mount St should actually occur (noting these services would be better located on William St, and be more proximate to the heart of the School). I see this lack of supervision of both student access to buses (and blocked footpaths), and poor management of bus arrivals regularly (the Report refers to supervision by at least two teachers- this happens irregularly on my observations). Buses can be lined up down Mount and be double parking opposite the Post Office. See many other private schools whose staff actively manage parental drop-offs- see SCEGGS Darlinghurst and others, as well as their buses. The Report doesn’t seem to address this.
Northbridge Shuttle: An internal teacher shuttle bus to Northbridge should be considered to reduce teacher reliance on cars.
Staggering Bell Times: Institutions can be resistant to change- Shore should consider staggered Bell Times, currently both Senior and Prep schools are released within a few minutes of each other.
Internal Dropoff: The Internal Dropoff should be activated for at least more AM drop-offs (2.8% only), clearly it can be increased to at least 18.9% given the PM rate. Suggestions for increase of both AM and PM rates could be suggested by their consultants.
Weekend parking: this has not been addressed, last Saturday our visitors were unable to park close as Shore had an event on. A 25% increase will aggravate this. This occurs regularly with winter sports. How can they manage an increase in these impacts?
Unauthorised School parking: Currently close to 10 or more vehicles park on School grounds near the School Maintenance facility off Edward St, with a further 6 plus being facilitated at times at the back of the Prep School off Lord St. I’m fairly sure from memory of the original Graythwaite Application that these weren’t included in approved parking. Can the School provide an auditing of actual internal parking provision current state?
North Sydney Demonstration School: The Traffic Report doesn’t seem to have considered issues since the original application that the increase in student numbers at the NSDS and the repointing of a lot of their drop-offs to Bay St has on vehicle movements. Edward St regularly has gridlock onto Bay Road now and I have seen buses ete completely blocked going north and south on Edward, particularly by large vehicles- see other buses, Council services etc, as well as local traffic. Edward has a constriction two thirds of the way along towards Bay Road. The more traffic that can be directed to William the better for both schools, and neighbours and emergency vehicles.
Public Buses: If Public Bus use is to increase proportionately as well, the Consent Condition at p4 (no 15) should be mandated to ensure sufficient capacity and Public Bus confirmation that the existing use is efficient, appropriate and could cope with a 25-30% increase.
Carparking Provision: The increase in spaces on Bishopsgate and near Graythwaite itself has the potential to adversely impact the heritage of the surrounding buildings and estate. The Graythwaite parking is visible from Edward St contrary to the Heritage opinion, and I think the Bishopsgate ones could be the same.
The increase of 22 to the PUDO is concerning as this may impact what is a primary mechanism to decrease the impacts on the heavily traffic impacted Edward/Mount St end of the campus. I couldn’t see detail in the limited time I had on timing of the PUDO spaces versus its use as a particularly safe post school pick up area.
The summaries in the Heritage Report make it look like the School are intending to make these “interim” spaces permanent- perhaps you could clarify and provide a sunset time so that they don’t push it off into the never never. “All works would be reversible if required in the future…”
Modelling: The outright dismissal of teacher impacts didn’t resonate with me, teachers arrive at different times and should be addressed separately in ways to encourage their Green Transport solutions. It sounded like an easy brush off to ignore them completely, teachers often have varied start and finish times, the consultant has no detail apart from maybe commentary from the School.
The modelling referred to 1.32/1.36% car occupancy rates and that these were “low”. But did not address why. Can they provide a plan to increase these rates?
Safety: It doesn’t seem to me that the School has applied its mind to the safety of both its students as well as the broader community in relation to its variations and current operations. The physical safety of children at dropoff, of other primary student travel along Mount and Edward footpaths, of the broader pedestrian and road communities. Should they be undertaking a Risk Assessment of their changes and providing that to the community? Increased traffic movements will mean increased risk to the community and local road and pavement users.
Angus Finney
PS- i have photographs as support but am unable to load them currently. If you would like them please contact me.
Thank you

I object to a number off mofifications in the Shore School and Graythwaite - Concept Plan Modification 2 and Project Modification 4.
These objections refer to the Description of proposed modification, the implementation of the approved increase of 450 students and 45 staff at Stage 1, instead of an incremental increase across Stages 2 and 3.
Also the proviision of 41 interim carparking spaces to accomodate the proposed increase in student and staff parking.

I live in Bank Street, North Sydney. It is situated 100 meters to the west of the Union Street entrance to the Shore School North Sydney Campus .
Bank street is made up of a number of restricted, 2 hour, parking spots and a number of non restricted parking.
The daily vehicle movements are significant and the traffic impact substantial . are We have a jhuge number of students parking within our street. The non restricted spots are taken early and very often by boarders. The boarders arrive on Sunday evening and depart on Friday afternoon. The non boarders come before and after school hours.
The resticted parking spots are often, most days , taken by students. They not only arrive and depart beforte asnd after school hours but also come within school hours to move their cars out of one restricted spot to another spot so as not to be fined by the North Sydney Council Rangers. It is an unrealistic expectation for the rangers to be in Bank Street every day.
This is the situation with the students , who have not taken their P plates off , and I assume that a large amount of the teachers also park in Bank Street during the day.

The residents often can not get any parking within our styreert.

i believe that the situation is almost intolerabe.
With not only lack of parking for residents but also the huge amount of traffic looking for and finding parking within the day. And traffic movemnet within the day.

The students also drive exceptionally fast in such a narrow residential street.

The impact of the additional staff and students will have an greater adverse effect to Bank Street.

The additional 41 care spaces will make little difference.
I am also led to believe that students are not allowed to park withing school grounds. So the fact that they say that they are for students and teaches is insincere.

tTherefore I reject The Shore Schools application.

Anna Howard
1 Bank Street
North Sydney

I live 50 metres from the school on the intersection of Mount St and Edward St. This is already a major catastrophic thoroughfare for parents dropping off their children to the prep school in the morning from 6.45 to 9am and again in the afternoon between 2.30 and 5pm. This encompasses sports and cultural activities before and after school. To see the chaos of parents driving their vehicles in what is essentially a single lane access is unbelievable. The cars are lined up and stationary and no-one will give way. This is exacerbated by students using the shared road space walking to school and ACU students going to university 100 metres along Edward St. weaving through the cars on what is both pedestrian footpath and roadway combined. The access for local residents is near impossible even now during those peak periods.
During construction the situation would be even worse and virtually close down the street with large trucks, workers Ute's etc all wanting access. Even if completed, another 450 students with the vast majority wanting to be dropped off and picked up by car would be intolerable for the local residents of Edward and Lord St even if a new car bay was created. Forty one more staff cars will have to drive through as well.
Essentially the intolerable traffic situation is the major concern for the local residents residing in the surrounding streets.

I would like the drainage and the runoff from the proposal to be scrutinised as in the last few years when major flood events have occurred we experience a large amount of flooding from the runoff in Graythwaite. This is yet to be rectified and I would not like it to worsen with this development.

Additionally the traffic lights on the corners of Union St and Blues Point Road have had their sequence shortened and there is now a back up of traffic where once it didn't exist. This will only get worse with the increase of car movements from the site.

Please refer attached letter

Dear DPHI,

I would like to thank The Shore School for undertaking a letterbox drop to inform residents regarding Concept Plan Mod 2 and Project Mod 4. Further I would like to thank Bethany Lane, Senior Planning Officer at DPHI for providing a link to additional contextual detail from earlier approved plans relating the integration of Graithwaite into the school.

My key area of interest is the maintenance of trees and foliage particularly along the southern and western boundaries of Graithwaite, and keeping this unique area free from vehicles, parking and buildings - which the interim car parking proposal adheres to.
From my review of the documentation that is formally provided it would seem that the southern and western part of Graithewaite that borders many houses will be kept strategically free of cars and buildings and so maintaining/enhancing the historic sense of Graithwaite gardens. I would welcome feedback confirming that my understanding from the documentation is correct.

Further it my understanding from reviewing the documentation is that the permanent placement of the additional car parks will be catered for within the plans for buildings and roads that are well away for the southern and western boundaries of Graithwaite. Again, I will welcome confirmation that my understanding is correct.

Further, I did note that the traffic survey did not include Bank Street - while this is not a through road, it is a thoroughfare that is understandably used by the school community for access to parking, and so my question is: will there be a further access and parking survey to ensure currency, and could this be inclusive of Bank Street?

Finally, I would be interested in attending an information session provided by The Shore School to present and take questions relating to their strategic direction for the historic Graithwaite site.

With best regards,
James Murphy

i am currently in Yamba and only just found out i need to make a submission so may i pleas ask for an extension so i can make a more detailed submission . Thanks Marcia Perryjones

re the Shore submission modification request, i am in the process of doing a more detailed submission and request an extension due the short viewing period provided . regards C Brydon

My concern is the amount of traffic generated in and around our streets ie Edward and Lord Sts which are narrow with mainly 19th century housing (no parking). We know that the Preparatory School students seem to be dropped off and collected each day by car, rather than them making use of public transport nearby (ie Metro, Train, Bus). When I need to collect my son from another school I am often caught in traffic (10-15 mins) when exiting my street. I see no reduction in cars with the Union Street drop off or collection. Our neighbourhood cannot function with the increase in numbers at the school. Shore School have made feeble attempts previously with trying to marshall the cars in Edward St, but to no avail. Regards

I have no objection to these modifications, however as we live on Union St opposite the school, we are concerned that there might be an adverse impact on local parking and traffic due to the increased numbers of pupils and staff. I am pleased to see that Shore has made plans to deal with the increased traffic and that the impact will be assessed regularly. We expect to be informed regularly of any changes to the school’s plans about traffic impact on Union St. We also expect the school to respond in a timely manner to any concerns we might raise.

I am a neighbour/landowner of the abovementioned modification application. The exorbitant increase in student numbers is too excessive for the location. The current consent for multiple stages should remain to provide adequate time to assess the monitor this enormous development and increase in traffic generation and the resultant congestion this will bring about.

As is clear at any school location, the car parking and drop off and pick up areas almost always result in traffic chaos and congestions for neighbouring property owners along with the rest of driven vehicles. The delay in the staged approach will provide the opportunity of assessing the impact and make appropriate adjustments based on this.

Secondly, the exorbitant increase in student numbers must be managed so that the school doesn’t gain 100% of the benefits at the enormous cost to the neighbours and community along with travelling public.

My submission is simple, I just want some clarity as to what effect traffic will have on my surrounding area when the major works at Shore School, North Sydney commence. Lord street is a cul de sac that is often grid locked along Edward Street leading into Lord Street for school pick ups. Will the traffic get worse?
Also, will there be an information session be held for the residents in the immediate areas?
I and my neighbours would like more clarity please,
many thanks,
Mary Vevers